S&S Circle Penang: 2009

Monday, December 28, 2009

The List Of Popes

This is the complete list of popes, in chronological order. Altogether, there are 266 popes, from the time of St.Peter until our current Pope Benedict now. The numbers in the bracket denotes the year of papacy - Ash

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125). Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22). Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53). Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296). Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66). Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514). Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32). Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701). Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752). Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47). Opposed by John, antipope (855)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58). Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903). Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83). Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99). Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24). Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61). Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
Alexander II (1061-73). Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85). Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118). Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
Gelasius II (1118-19). Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30). Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
Innocent II (1130-43). Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81). Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34). Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89). Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404). Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06). Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15). Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47). Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005— present)

The World's Toughest Catholic Quiz By Karl Keating

Some call it "the pop quiz from hell." Others call it things we can't print in a family magazine.

You are about to find out if you know as much about your faith as you claim to know. Take it from me: Your ego will suffer. But don't fall into despair. Most Catholics (some priests included, alas) will answer most of these questions incorrectly.

When I sprang this quiz on an audience of well-informed Catholic business leaders and their spouses, few got more than half the questions right, and that was with some sub rosa "sharing" by test takers. The high score was seventeen right out of twenty, and that was a very good score indeed. Some people got only a third right.

To save you acute embarrassment, this quiz will not be turned in. It is for your enlightenment (and amusement) only. In fact, I suggest you take the quiz in private so no one else will know the truth about the state of your Catholic knowledge. (If you happen to do well, you can brag later.)

For each question, circle the one answer which you think is most fully correct. There are no trick questions, but you must read very carefully. Terms are used in their precise meanings; don't be fooled into selecting a wrong answer by thinking in loose or colloquial terms. Each question has only one correct answer, but it might be "None of the above."

At the end of this article I explain why each possible answer is right or wrong. You can score yourself and see how you rate as an apologist. (Sorry, no prizes will be awarded to anyone for anything.)

All set? Here we go:

Questions

1. In the Mass

a. Jesus is symbolized by the bread and wine from the moment of consecration onward.

b. Jesus is spiritually present when the community gathers in prayer under the leadership of the priest and ceases to be spiritually present when the priest leaves the sanctuary.

c. Jesus is physically present along with the bread and wine once the consecration has occurred.

d. Jesus is present, and the bread and wine are not present, after the consecration.

e. None of the above.

2. After the consecration

a. The host on the paten is Jesus' body, and the contents of the chalice are Jesus' blood.

b. The host symbolizes Jesus' body, and the wine symbolizes Jesus' blood.

c. The host is both Jesus' body and blood, and the wine is both Jesus' body and blood.

d. Jesus' body and blood are really present with the bread and the wine, and this is called the Real Presence.

e. None of the above.

3. The consecration of the Eucharist

a. Can be performed by a Catholic priest or by a priest of an Eastern Orthodox church.

b. Can be performed by a Catholic priest only if he celebrates Mass with at least two witnesses.

c. Can be performed by Catholic priests and Anglican priests so long as they have the proper intention and pronounce the correct words of consecration.

d. Can be performed by deacons and specially-commissioned lay persons in emergency situations.

e. None of the above.

4. A Mass is invalid

a. If fewer than half the people present hold hands during the Our Father.

b. If the priest omits the opening sign of the cross and the Nicene Creed.

c. If the priest celebrates Mass while he is in the state of mortal sin.

d. If the priest ad libs any part of the canon.

e. None of the above.

5. Holy Communion may be taken by

a. Anyone at all, so long as his conscience tells him it is the right thing to do.

b. Any Christian who wishes to manifest the unity which Christ willed for his Church.

c. Catholics in the state of grace, but not by Protestants even if they are in the state of grace.

d. Catholics who have committed mortal sins and are sorry for them, even if they have not confessed them yet in confession.

e. None of the above.

6. The doctrine of the Trinity means

a. There is one God who manifests himself in the three distinct roles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

b. Since the Resurrection there have been four persons in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ the God-Man.

c. In the Godhead there is only one divine person, and he takes on different.aspects according to his actions as Creator, Redeemer, or Sanctifier.

d. There are three Gods who work so closely together that it is proper to call them one God.

e. None of the above.

7. A deacon is

a. A priest who does not have permission to celebrate Mass until after his wife dies.

b. A layman who may distribute Communion, marry people, baptize babies, and wear vestments.

c. A man who has received the first level of holy orders and is neither a priest nor a layman.

d. Forbidden to hear confessions and give absolution except in emergency situations and in the absence of a priest.

e. None of the above.

8. A sister is

a. Neither a lay person nor a cleric.

b. A cleric, but no longer a lay person.

c. May be installed as a chaplain of a hospital.

d. Is the female equivalent of a deacon.

e. None of the above.

9. An archbishop

a. Is always an older bishop and, by canon law, must be at least 55 years of age.

b. Has jurisdiction over all the bishops within his metropolitan area, and he may overrule their decisions.

c. Assists the pope by voting on prospective cardinals.

d. Is a regular bishop who has been given the honorary title of archbishop by leading bishops in his national bishops' conference.

e. None of the above.

10. Which of the following is a defined Catholic dogma?

a. Limbo

b. Purgatory

c. Both limbo and purgatory.

d. Priestly celibacy.

e. None of the above.

11. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means

a. Mary conceived Jesus immaculately in her womb, without the aid of a human father.

b. Mary conceived Jesus immaculately in her womb, and he remained without sin.

c. Mary was conceived immaculately in her mother's womb, without the aid of a human father.

d. Mary was conceived immaculately in her mother's womb and was preserved from sin.

e. None of the above.

12. Papal infallibility means

a. The pope is preserved by the Holy Spirit from committing mortal sins.

b. Anything the pope teaches is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be true.

c. The pope's teachings must be obeyed because he is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and thus speaks for the Holy Spirit, who cannot err.

d. The pope is incapable of teaching erroneously on matters of faith and morals when he teaches publicly and officially a doctrine for all Christians, not just Catholics, to hold.

e. None of the above.

13. Contraception is

a. Permissible only to married couples with the permission of their parish priest and under extenuating circumstances.

b. Never permissible, no matter what the circumstances.

c. Permissible if the husband and wife, after honest prayer, conclude it is right for them and do not use it selfishly.

d. Permissible only if the wife's health would be in danger or if the husband is unable to support a large family.

e. None of the above.

14. The sacrament of confession

a. Must be received before receiving Communion by anyone guilty of a mortal sin since his last confession.

b. Is entirely superfluous if you privately and sincerely confess your sins to God.

c. Must be received by all Catholic adults at least once a year. (This is one of the six precepts of the Church.)

d. Was done away with by Vatican II, except in cases of the three sins which "cry out to God for vengeance": murder, adultery, and sexism.

e. None of the above.

15. At the Crucifixion

a. Jesus' human nature died on the cross.

b. Only the human person of Jesus, not the divine person of Jesus, died on the cross.

c. God died on the cross.

d. Jesus' human and divine natures both died on the cross, but the universe was kept going by the Father and the Holy Spirit until Jesus' Resurrection.

e. None of the above.

16. Purgatory is

a. A state of natural happiness where souls of unbaptized infants and morally good non-Christians will wait until they are judged on the Last Day.

b. A state of mild punishment for people who were not bad enough to go to hell and who were not good enough to go to heaven.

c. A state of purification for people who die in the state of grace but who do not die with complete love for God.

d. A temporary state where sincere people who do not die in the state of grace get a second chance to do good and thus avoid going to hell.

e. None of the above.

17. An annulment is

a. The canon law equivalent of a divorce under the civil law.

b. A Church-authorized dissolution of a marriage which has failed through the infidelity of one of the spouses.

c. A declaration that no valid marriage existed in the first place, even if there are children born during the relationship.

d. A declaration that children born in a failed marriage are not illegitimate.

e. None of the above.

18. Parish councils

a. Were set up by Vatican II to oversee the work of parish priests.

b. Prevail against the opinions of pastors if at least two-thirds of the council members agree on an issue.

c. Advise the pastor and relieve him of administrative duties, but have no authority over him.

d. Were instituted by Vatican II because the Church is now a democracy, not a monarchy.

e. None of the above.

19. Mortal sin

a. Is nowhere mentioned in Scripture.

b. Is a theological construct from the Church of the Middle Ages, and since Vatican II we recognize that there are only two kinds of sins, venial and serious.

c. Is the same as serious sin; only the words are different.

d. Makes it impossible for you ever to get to heaven, no matter what you do.

e. None of the above.

20. Apologetics means

a. Never having to say you're sorry.

b. The art of apologizing for being a Catholic.

c. A course which seminarians used to have to take but which they now are exempted from by canon law.

d. Giving reasoned explanations and defenses for the faith.

e. None of the above.

Answers

There you have it! Now you know why some people call this "the pop quiz from hell." Now let's look at the answers.

Question 1

a. Wrong, because Jesus is not symbolized by the bread and wine--they become him.

b. Wrong, because Jesus is more than just spiritually present during Mass and because he remains present in the consecrated elements until they cease to look like bread and wine. The priest's presence in the sanctuary isn't necessary.

c. Wrong, because, although physically present, Jesus is not present with the bread and the wine. They cease to be present after the consecration. This is the heresy of consubstantiation or impanation.

d. Correct, because the bread and wine cease to be present in their essence or substance after the consecration. Only Jesus is present, though the mere appearances of bread and wine remain.

e. Wrong, because 1d is correct.

Question 2

a. Wrong, because the host and the contents of the chalice are each both the body and blood of Jesus, even though, because of their appearances, we commonly call one the body and the other the blood.

b. Wrong, because the host and wine do not symbolize Jesus but become him.

c. Correct, because both the host and the wine (which is no longer wine but is called that only because of its appearance) become both the real body and blood of Jesus.

d. Wrong, because after the consecration the bread and wine cease to be present, so Jesus' body and blood cannot be present with them.

e. Wrong, because 2c is correct.

Question 3

a. Correct, because the Eastern Orthodox churches have the seven sacraments and therefore a real priesthood. It takes a real priest to confect the Real Presence.

b. Wrong, because a priest may celebrate Mass by himself. The validity of the Mass does not depend on the presence of witnesses. Perhaps you are confusing here the validity of a marriage, which normally requires two witnesses.

c. Wrong, because Anglican orders are not valid. Out of courtesy we call Anglican ministers "Father," but Pope Leo XIII definitely determined in 1896 that Anglican orders long ago became defective. This means Anglican priests are, technically, Christian laymen. Since they aren't priests, their having the proper intention and their pronouncing the correct words of consecration are immaterial.

d. Wrong, because deacons have only partial priestly orders and lay people have no priestly orders, and you need full priestly orders to consecrate the Eucharist.

e. Wrong, because 3a is correct.

Question 4

a. Wrong. If you chose this answer you should think seriously about enrolling in a first-grade religion class. The seven-year-olds probably will be able to teach you something.

b. Wrong, even though it is illicit for a priest to omit the opening sign of the cross or, when specified by the rubrics, the creed, such omission does not make the Mass invalid.

c. Wrong, because the efficacy of any sacrament does not depend on the holiness of the minister. If so, we never could tell if absolution "took" in the confessional or if a Mass were validly said, since we can't see inside the priest's soul. Sacraments work through their own power, given by Christ, not through the virtuousness of the priest.

d. Wrong, but close. If the priest ad libs the words of consecration, he likely will end up with an invalid Mass. If he ad libs other parts of the canon, he acts illicitly and perhaps sinfully, but the Mass does not become invalid.

e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 5

a. Wrong, because, as an obvious case, non-Christians may not take Communion, nor may someone knowingly in the state of mortal sin.

b. Wrong, because canon law provides that only those Christians (such as the Eastern Orthodox) who believe in the Real Presence as Catholics do may take Communion in our churches (canon 844). All they need do is ask.

c. Correct. Since Protestants do not believe as Catholics do regarding the Real Presence, they may not take Communion, even if they are in the state of grace. The very act of taking Communion is a visible sign that you believe exactly as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the Real Presence, and Protestants don't.

d. Wrong, because, absent a life-or-death situation, you must go to confession before receiving Communion, even if you have repented of your mortal sin.

e. Wrong, because 5c is correct.

Question 6

a. Wrong, because this is the heresy of Modalism, which says that there is one Person in the Godhead and that Person, so to speak, wears different "masks" according to his different activities.

b. Wrong. This is another nonsense answer. The very word Trinity comes from the prefix for three ("tri"), so you should have seen right away that the Trinity could not be composed of four Persons.

c. Wrong, because this is just a rephrasing, in "gender neutral language," of 6a.

d. Wrong, because Christians are monotheists and believe in one God, not three. No matter how closely together three gods work, they remain three gods, not one.

e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 7

a. Wrong, because a deacon is not a married priest. Married priests are called, well, married priests, and they are common in some of the Eastern rites. Although deacons are ordained, they receive only the first level of holy orders.

b. Wrong, because, although deacons may do all these things, they are not laymen. They are clerics, even though they usually don't dress anything like priests.

c. Correct, because a deacon, as a cleric, is no longer a layman but is not yet a priest.

d. Wrong, because a deacon never can give priestly absolution, for the simple reason that he is not a priest.

e. Wrong, because 7c is correct.

Question 8

a. Wrong, because sisters (women religious), like brothers (men religious), are lay people. They are not ordained--they take vows, which is different.

b. Wrong, because sisters are not ordained, and only the ordained are clerics. There are three grades of clerics: deacons, priests, bishops.

c. Wrong, even though in some places sisters are termed chaplains. According to canon law (canon 564), chaplains, properly speaking, are priests. It isn't correct to call someone a chaplain merely because he (or she) provides some sort of spiritual counseling.

d. Wrong, because there are no female deacons, because women cannot be ordained as deacons, priests, or bishops.

e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 9

a. Wrong, because canon law provides no age requirement for the office of archbishop.

b. Wrong, because diocesan bishops (ordinaries), as distinguished from auxiliary bishops, have only the pope as their boss, though, for ceremonial purposes, arch_bishops take the lead over bishops within their metro_politan areas.

c. Wrong, because cardinals are not selected by voting. The pope chooses them directly.

d. Wrong, because a man becomes an archbishop by being named by the pope to an archepiscopal see. Such sees normally are in larger cities or have had some historical importance.

e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 10

a. Wrong, because limbo is not a defined dogma. It is a theological speculation, and good Catholics may believe or not believe in it, as the arguments move them. But if the Church were to define formally the existence or non-existence of limbo, everyone would be obliged in conscience to fall in line.

b. Correct, because purgatory is an official dogma of the Church. Even though it is not much talked about today, Catholics still must believe in it. It is not optional.

c. Wrong, because only purgatory is a defined dogma.

d. Wrong, because priestly celibacy is a custom, not a dogma.

e. Wrong, because 10b is correct.

Question 11

a. Wrong, because this defines not the Immaculate Conception, but the Virgin Birth of Jesus (that is, the birth of Jesus from a Virgin).

b. Wrong, even though it is true Jesus remained without sin and was conceived immaculately. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception concerns Mary's conception, not Jesus'.

c. Wrong, because Mary had a human father. It is believed her mother's name was Anne and her father's Joachim.

d. Correct, because the main consequence of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was able to live a sinless life. (She could have sinned, had she so chosen, but she chose not to; Adam and Eve could have chosen not to sin, but they chose to sin.)

e. Wrong, because 11d is correct.

Question 12

a. Wrong. This is the notion of impeccability--the inability to sin. Only Jesus was impeccable. It has nothing to do with infallibility, which means the inability to err.

b. Wrong, because the pope's infallibility is guaranteed only when he speaks officially on matters of faith and morals. If he tells you who will win the next World Series, keep your betting money in your pocket.

c. Wrong, even though it is true that the pope's teaching (even his non-infallible teaching) must be obeyed. This simply isn't what the doctrine of infallibility means.

d. Correct, as defined formally at Vatican I (1870).

e. Wrong, because 12d is correct.

Question 13

a. Wrong, because a priest cannot give permission to anyone to engage in any sinful act.

b. Correct, as explained in Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. It is immaterial that most Catholics don't practice what the Church always has preached. Truth is not determined by majority vote.

c. Wrong, because this is a cop-out. Contraception is always immoral and does not become moral just because some couples agree not to use it "selfishly." Do bank heists become moral if the thieves agree to distribute the proceeds not to themselves but to the poor?

d. Wrong, because a good motive cannot make an evil act good. If there is a problem with the wife's health or the family's pocketbook, the couple should consider natural family planning (which is not the same as the rhythm method); it can be used morally because it does not subvert the requisite openness to new life.

e. Wrong, because 13b is correct.

Question 14

a. Correct. Compare answer 5d.

b. Wrong, because this would imply Jesus set up a superfluous sacrament, confession, and he never did anything superfluously. See John 20:22-23.

c. Wrong, because this is not one of the six precepts of the Church, for the simple reason that you need to go to confession only if you commit a mortal sin, though it is good to go frequently even if you commit only venial sins.

d. Wrong, because this is another nonsense answer. The word "sexism" didn't even exist during Vatican II.

e. Wrong, because 14a is correct.

Question 15

a. Wrong, because natures aren't put to death--persons are. When you die, it is not your human nature which dies, but you as a distinct person.

b. Wrong, because there is no human person in Jesus. There is only one Person, the divine, who already (by definition) had a divine nature and who took on a human nature.

c. Correct, because the Person who died on the cross was a divine Person, commonly called the Son of God. Since that Person is God, it is proper to say God died on the cross, even though that sounds odd and may make some unthinking people conclude that it means that God ceased to exists, which, of course, was not the case. (If you were sure this answer could not be right, don't fret--you're in good company. Most people miss this question because the correct answer "just doesn't sound right.")

d. Wrong, first because natures don't die, persons do, and second because the answer suggest Jesus couldn't keep the universe going, as though he ceased to be God between the time of his death and his Resurrection.

e. Wrong, because 15c is correct.

Question 16

a. Wrong, because what is described is almost (not quite) the definition of limbo--not quite because limbo is posited to be a permanent state of natural happiness, not one that will end on the Last Day.

b. Wrong, first because the answer suggests purgatory is permanent (in fact, it will cease to exist at the end of the world when the last person leaves it for heaven), second because the answer suggests purgatory is for people who are not good enough to go to heaven (in fact, it is precisely for people who are good enough to go to heaven--but not quite yet; everyone who goes to purgatory will go to heaven).

c. Correct, because purgatory is a state in which the last vestiges of self-love are removed, so we might enter heaven according to Revelation 21:27, which says "nothing unclean shall enter heaven."

d. Wrong, because you only go around once in life ("It is appointed to man once to die and then comes judgment" [Heb. 9:27]). Your soul is judged immediately after your death, and your fate is sealed then.

e. Wrong, because 16c is correct.

Question 17

a. Wrong, because there is no canon law equivalent of civil divorce because sacramental marriages can't be ended by divorce.

b. Wrong, because a sacramental marriage, once made, is not undone even if one of the spouses becomes unfaithful. Only death ends a valid, sacramental marriage.

c. Correct, because the existence of children from the relationship is not a bar to being granted a decree of nullity.

d. Wrong, because an annulment is a decision that no valid, sacramental marriage existed in the first place. It is not a decision about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children. (Church law holds that children born in putative marriages which are later annulled are to be considered legitimate.)

e. Wrong, because 17c is correct.

Question 18

a. Wrong, because Vatican II did not set up parish councils and because such councils are not above parish priests.

b. Wrong, because this is just a "supermajority variation" of 18a.

c. Correct, because parish councils are under the pastor, who, under canon law, is subject in his running of the parish only to his bishop and to the Vatican.

d. Wrong, because Vatican II did not institute them (parish councils predate Vatican II) and because the Church remains a monarchy, not a democracy, because it mirrors the organization of heaven, which is a monarchy.

e. Wrong, because 18c is correct.

Question 19

a. Wrong, because mortal sin is mentioned in 1 John 5:16: "Not all sin is mortal," which implies that some sin is.

b. Wrong, because serious sin is exactly the same as mortal sin. Only the words differ.

c. Correct; see 19b.

d. Wrong, because you can go to heaven if you die after repenting of a mortal sin.

e. Wrong, because 19c is correct.

Question 20

a. Wrong, unless you saw the movie Love Story too many times.

b. Wrong. This betrays a penchant for using the colloquial meaning of a word when trying to decide on the word's definition.

c. Wrong, even though it is true that no seminary we know of has courses in apologetics.

d. Correct. Need we say more?

e. Wrong. Back up one answer.

Scoring

Those are the answers. Tally up how many you got right. Don't fret if your percentage is lower than you expected it to be.

As you see, the Catholic faith is a very exact thing. Yes, you can be saved even if you know it imperfectly, but your value as an apologist will increase as you learn how much you still have to learn.

Here are the official rankings:

Fewer than four answers correct: Downright embarrassing. Even random guessing should have gotten you a score of four out of twenty. Crumple up your answer sheet and make a novena.

Four to seven answers correct: Frankly, pretty poor. You have a long way to go before you're prepared to explain your faith in public.

Eight to ten answers correct: On the low side, but you will be spared public penance.

Eleven to thirteen answers correct: About average or a little better--nothing to be ashamed about, but nothing to write home about either.

Fourteen to sixteen answers correct: You're nearly ready to take over the adult education classes in your parish--you need to do just a little more homework.

Seventeen to nineteen answers correct: Wonderful! You have every reason to be satisfied with yourself.

Twenty correct: Zounds! Contact me about a job as an apologist.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

SS in Service - Church Cleaning

Our Lady of Sorrows Church Cleaning
5th September 2009
Person in Charge: Luisa AR

Friday, November 20, 2009

Catholics Are Called To Action!

Catholics are called to action:

Here's what St. Teresa of Avila (1515–1582) has to say:-

Christ has no hands but yours
Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours.
Yours are the eyes through which he looks,
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which He walks to do good.
yours are the hands whith which He blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands
Yours are the feet
Yours are the eyes
you are His body.
Christ has no body
now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours.
Yours are the eyes
through which He looks,
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which
He walks to do good.
Christ has no body
now on earth but yours.

Here's what God told Jeremiah (emphasis mine):-

The word of the LORD came to me, saying,

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

"Ah, Sovereign LORD," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."

But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD.

Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant." (Jeremiah 1:4-9)

Here's what Christ Himself had to say (emphasis mine):-

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20)

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. (Luke 10:1-4)

Monday, November 9, 2009

Why Do We Use Holy Water?

Q: The Fundamentalist say that the holy water has no basis in the Bible, so why do Catholics use them?

A: Look up in Numbers 5:17, where a ritual is being described: "And the priest shall take the holy water in an earthen vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water."

This shows that holy water not only has biblical basis, but that it has been around since the day of Moses. Holy water used for numerous Old Testament ceremonies that involved ceremonial sprinkling and washings. Today we are not bound to perform those ceremonies, but the fact that holy water was used proves that it is not a superstitious or invalid practice.

In itself, holy water isn't exceptional. There are no magical properties to it. The spiritual benefit of holy water comes from the devotion of the people who use it. Anything can be used for good ends, because everything God created is good. When water is blessed and transformed into holy water, it is "set aside" for a religious purpose, and such purpose is by nature good. In Old Testament, water was used to consecrate priests (Ex. 29:4, Lv. 8:6, Nm. 8:7). It was used before sacrifices were offered (Ex. 30:18-19). In Soloon's temple, there were ten giant basins of water (1 Kgs. 7:38-39). In the New Testament, Christ washed the apostles' feet with water (Jn. 13:4-10), a ceremony preserved in the Maundy Thursday liturgy.

Because of such scriptural and historical connections, Catholics see holy water as a sign of God's continual imparting of grace through the Church and through holy actions especially through the sacraments. Just as the sign of the cross reinds us of the sacrifice on Calvary, and of the chief Christian doctrine, the Trinity, so holy water (which commonly is used when making the sign of the cross) reminds us of the cleansing power of God's grace.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Saint Paul: Life And Conversion Of A Pharisee To A Disciple & Apostle

The first mention of the Apostle Paul in the Bible is in Acts of the Apostles 7:59 – 8:3 at the stoning of the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen. He was mentioned as the man who “approved the killing of Stephen, intending to bring great harm to the church and arresting both men and women and sending them to prison.”

A chance (or was it planned?) encounter with “the One whom he was persecuting”, being blinded and weakened for 3 days and subsequently healed by Ananias converted this man from being the chief persecutor of the Christians to the staunchest defender of Jesus and all the disciples (Acts 9:1-19).

Paul was born circa 2 A.D in Tarsus, Cilicia (modern-day Turkey) as Saul of Tarsus. He was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin. He received the name Saul at the time of his circumcision, but being a Roman citizen, he also had another name, which is Paul (see Acts 13:9) by which he was known when he began his apostolate among the Gentiles. He was sent to study under Gamaliel to study the Law and observance of ‘our ancestors’ as he put it, and according to a rabbinical custom, he learned the trade as a tent-maker (see Acts 22:1-3). He was the son of a Pharisee and was himself a Pharisee.

The account of his captivity is given in Acts 21:27; 28:31. In the year 59 AD, the Jews seized him on the false charge of having admitted Gentiles to the Temple (this is in fact forbidden in the olden days of the Old Testament. ref. Ezekiel 44:9). He was imprisoned in Caesarea for two years, sent to Rome in 62 AD where he spent two years ‘proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching the truth about Lord Jesus Christ with complete fearlessness and without any hindrance from anyone’. During this period of confinement and trial the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and later to the Philippians were written.

The facts of his second arrest are obscure, though it probably took place at Troas. According to Saint Athanasius, the manner of his death was revealed to him by Christ and, consequently, he came willingly to meet it. He was brought to Rome and was beheaded near the Ostian Way in 65 AD.

In representations of the Apostles in early Christian art Saint Paul is shown as the man of intellect, bald, with a long dark beard; this type has persisted to the present day. He is also the patron of tent-makers, and rope-makers and always invoked against poisonous snakes.

His body is in the Basilica of Saint Paul on the Ostian Way; his head is in the Lateran Church. Feast day is on the 29 June with Saint Peter, commemoration of his conversion on the 25 January, and his feast day is on the 30 June.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Pope Fictions

These are some of the fictions regarding the pope, which needs some proper explaining. I have touched on this issues previously, but felt compelled to post this for everyone's reference - Ash

Answers to Four Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy by Patrick Madrid

--------------------------------------------------------------

Fiction 1 - Peter was not the first Pope
Fiction 2 - The Pope cannot be the Successor of Peter
Fiction 3 - Pope Joan
Fiction 4 - The Pope is the Beast of Revelation 13

Fiction 1

Peter was not the first "pope." He didn't have any special primacy or jurisdiction over the other apostles or other early Christians. In fact, he denies this by referring to himself as merely a "fellow presbyter" )1 Peter 5:1) - an office lower than an overseer (bishop). If anything, Paul had a greater authority than Peter.

Although St. Peter never called himself "pope" in Scripture, he did indeed have a special apostolic primacy and jurisdiction. The Scriptural evidence for this is substantial and explicit.

Of the Twelve Apostles, St. Peter is by far the one mentioned most often in Scripture. He appears 195 times. The next most often mentioned Apostle was St. John, who comes in at a whopping 29 times. St. James the Greater is mentioned 19 times, St. Philip 15, and the numbers dwindle rapidly for the others. Does this in itself prove St. Peter's primacy? No, but it does shed considerable light on his importance. What does that light reveal?

Among other things, we see that when the Twelve Apostles are listed by name (Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17, and Acts 1:13), St. Peter's name is always first - and Judas Iscariot is always listed dead last. Far more commonly, though, the New Testament refers to simply "Peter and the Twelve," as if to say that the tempestuous fisherman signified in himself the unity of the whole apostolic college.

There are many other biblical signs of St. Peter's preeminence among the Apostles. He is the only one who receives a name change from Christ. He was Simon, but Christ calls him "Rock" (Matt. 16:18). Name changes given by God that we read about in Scripture have huge significance and imply an elevation in importance and a special mission given to that person by God (e.g. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel). He is also singled out by Christ to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven and is promised, "Whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).

St. Peter is the lone Apostle Christ calls out of the boat to walk on water (Matt, 1:28-29). At the tomb of Christ, St, John waits to allow St. Peter to enter ahead of him (John 20:6). It is to him among the Apostles that God first reveals the Resurrection (Mark 16:7). The risen Christ appears to him first, before the other Apostles (Luke 24:34). Christ preaches the gospel to the crowds from St, Peter's fishing boat (Luke 5:3). St. Peter is told by Christ, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) faith may not fail. And once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

Christ makes St. Peter the shepherd of His Church (John 21:15-17). In Acts 1:13-26, St. Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing Matthias as successor to Judas, and he leads the Apostles in preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). He performs the first Pentecost miracle (Acts 3). He speaks in the name of all the Apostles and for the whole Church when the Twelve are brought before the Sanhedrin for a trial (Acts 4). It is to St, Peter alone that God sends the revelation that gentiles are to be allowed into the Church (Acts 10), and he is the Apostle who first welcomes them into the Church (Acts 11). St. Peter's dogmatic pronouncement is accepted, and causes all disputes to cease at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). After his conversion and healing from blindness, St. Paul visits St, Peter to have his teachings confirmed by him (Gal. 1:18).

Having said that, what should we make of St, Peter's reference to himself in 1 Peter 5:1 as a "fellow presbyter"? Does this signal that he was unaware of his special role as chief of the Apostles? The answer is found in the same passage, "Clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another," he says, "for God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time" (1 Peter 5:5). Since he was cautioning his Christian audience to be humble, it makes perfect sense that he would take his own advice and, setting an example for them, speak of himself in humble terms. And in doing so, he was following Christ's command, "Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave" (Matt, 20:26-27). But this humility shouldn't blind us to the substantial body of biblical evidence showing that he did receive a special apostolic preeminence and authority from Christ - evidence that critics of the papacy often ignore or strain to explain away.

St. Paul, like St. Peter was also humble when referring to himself. He was by far the most prominent and prolific New Testament writer, responsible for about half of the New Testament, but he said, "I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God" (1 Cor. 15:10), and, "To me the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given" (Eph, 3:8). On numerous occasions he called himself a mere deacon, the very lowest level of ordained ministry in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25). But clearly, St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a deacon.

As with St. Peter, these examples of St. Paul's humility are balanced St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a right to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love" (Phil, 8-9), and, "Although we were able to impose our weight as apostles of Christ. Rather, we were gentle among you, as a nursing mother cares for her children" (1 Thess. 2:7).

St. Peter's calling himself a "fellow presbyter" doesn't disprove his primacy any more than St. Paul's habit of calling himself a "deacon" proves he had no authority greater than a deacon's.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Fiction 2

The bishop of Rome can't be the "successor to Peter," since Peter was never in Rome. The Bible nowhere says he went there, and Paul, who did go there, never mentions Peter being in Rome. If Peter were the "pope," he certainly would have mentioned it.

Trying to prove St. Peter did not go to Rome and die there is a lot like trying to prove that St. Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. True, the Bible doesn't explicitly say he went to Rome, but the surrounding historical evidence is more than sufficient to prove that he did.

But first, we should ask, "If St. Peter didn't go to Rome, where did he go? Where did he die?" We'd expect to find plenty of evidence in the writings of the early Church telling us where this prominent Apostle carried out his final years of ministry, if it were some place other than Rome. But the historical record contains no hint that he ended his days anywhere but Rome. No other city except Rome ever claimed to possess the site of his martyrdom or his tomb (and early Christians were extraordinarily diligent about making and proving such claims). No other city - not even Antioch, where he resided for a time during his apostolate - claimed he ended his days among them. No Church Father or Council or any other early Church record indicates that he finished his days anywhere but in Rome.

That's the lack of evidence side of the coin. The flip side is the mountain of evidence proving he did go to Rome. Everyone everywhere in the early Church agreed that St. Peter went to Rome, ministered there for more than two decades, and suffered martyrdom by inverted crucifixion in A.D. 65, under the persecution of Emperor Nero. Given the grave danger to the early Church from a hostile Roman government, it makes perfect sense that St. Paul would not mention St. Peter's whereabouts in his letters. He didn't want to draw unfriendly attention. It's also quite possible that St. Peter had not yet arrived in Rome when St. Paul was writing. We even see St. Peter himself making what seems to be a cryptic reference to his presence in Rome when he says "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son" (I Peter 5:13). "Babylon" was a commonly used code word for Rome among Christians, because its pagan decadence and opposition to Christ was reminiscent of the idolatrous wickedness associated with ancient Babylon.

But once St. Peter had been martyred, the testimonies of his sojourn in Rome with St. Paul poured forth in a flood from the early Christian writers. Perhaps the most detailed of these early accounts came from St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) in his apologetics work, Against Heresies. He gave a detailed account of succession of the bishops of Rome, from St. Peter down to his own day. He referred to Rome as the city "where Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the Church. "Other notable early examples were St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), who referred to the Church at Rome as "the Church of Peter and Paul" (Letter to the Romans); St. Cyprian (d. 251), who described Rome as 'The place of Peter" (Epistle 52); and St. Jerome (d. 420), who called Rome "the See of Peter" (Epistle 15, to Pope Damasus). Around A.D. 166, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome …."(quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:25).

Besides the vast amount of historical evidence showing that St. Peter went to Rome, modern archaeology has cinched the case even tighter by a definitive scientific demonstration that his bones (studies showed that they are of a powerfully built elderly man who died of crucifixion) are interred directly beneath the high altar in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, several levels down, where the original first century Vatican hill sloped away toward the Tiber River, This was just outside the walls of what was once Nero's Circus - precisely where all the early Christian and even non-Christian records say St. Peter was crucified and buried.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Fiction 3

In the middle ages, there was a "Pope Joan," a woman who hid her gender and rose through the ranks of the Church, became a cardinal and was elected pope. No one knew she was a woman until, during a papal procession through the streets of Rome, she went into labor and gave birth to a child. She and the baby were killed on the spot by the mob, enraged at her imposture.

A lot of things are said about the alleged "Pope Joan." Depending on who is telling the story, she was a courageous feminist, a clever opportunist, a brilliant scholar who couldn't make it as a woman in a man's world. She is said to have been a wise ruler and an astute theologian, though, oddly, no decree or theological teaching purporting to have come from her has made its way down to our day.

In any case, the fact is, there was no Pope Joan. She exists only as pure legend, but one that makes for a sexy story. And when it comes to sexy stories, you know Hollywood will try its hand at making a blockbuster out of this piece of pope fiction. New Line Cinema (that's right, the same good folks who produced The Last Temptation of Christ) has reportedly bought the movie rights to Pope Joan, the best-selling 1996 novel by Donna Woolfolk Cross. Her book is couched as an historical "novel" - embellishing on a grand scale the rather sparse details that have clung to the legend of a brilliant, plain girl who rises to the highest levels in Church service, culminating in her being elected pope by an unsuspecting college of cardinals. The way the book is written and the way it's being promoted support my concern that it will be seen by most of its historically ignorant readers, not as a novel, a fiction, but as a real biography of the one woman who "made it to the top." When the movie comes out, this problem will certainly grow in proportions.

It's important to remember that even if there had been a female impostor pope, this would just mean that an invalid election had taken place, nothing more. Other invalidly elected claimants to the papal office have come and gone over the centuries, and the fact that a woman made that list would simply mean that a woman made that list, She would not have been pope - no one invalidly elected would be. And nothing in the Church's teachings about the papacy would be injured or disproved.

But in reality, the Pope Joan story is all sizzle and no steak. The basic outline of the main legend (actually, there have been several competing legends over the centuries) has it that in the ninth or tenth century, a plain but extraordinarily brilliant young woman contrived to enter the university disguised as a man. Her intellect outstripped her male classmates and she shot to the top rank of students. Talk of her prowess in law, science, rhetoric, philosophy and languages was widespread.

In another legend, popularized by several 13th century works such as the Chronicle of Martin Polonus, the Universal Chronicle of Metz and Wonders of the City of Rome, she traveled first to Greece with her boyfriend (why he wanted a girlfriend who disguised herself as a man is unknown), made a name for herself in the university there, then traveled to Rome.

Here all the legends converge into the main one that has come down to our day. Once in Rome, Joan managed to enter religious life (although no legend is able to say which order she entered), was ordained a priest and earned a high reputation as a notary in the papal court. Eventually, she was noticed by the pope and made a cardinal. You can guess what happens next. She is eventually elected pope, takes the name John, and sets about skillfully ruling the Church, It's at this point that the most dramatic scenes of the story unfold.

The legends vary as to how Joan's gender and identity were discovered. One holds that she was granted a vision by God in which she was shown two options for her fate, being discovered and disgraced by the world or roasting in hell for her crime. She chose the former. Another version says she got pregnant by one of her curial advisors and somehow was able to maintain the charade until she gave birth to the baby. At that point her secret was discovered and she was deposed as pope and sent to a convent to do penance for the rest of her life. According to this legend, the child she bore went on to became the bishop of Ostia, about 30 miles southwest of Rome, and when she died, he had her body buried there. Of course, no evidence exists to support this.

The main detail these legends have in common is that Joan was discovered because her hanky panky with a cardinal or secretary resulted in pregnancy, and the childbirth exposed her fraud. The main legend is the most gory on this point. In it, Pope Joan goes into labor while riding in her sede gestiatoria - the portable throne in which popes were carried - as her procession passed the Coliseum on its way from St, Peter's Basilica to St. John Lateran Cathedral. The procession halted, the baby was born, and the confused and angry onlookers killed Pope Joan and her baby on the spot. Most accounts say she was killed by stoning, another says she died in childbirth as the mob watching the spectacle shouted and insulted her. Still another says she was dragged to death behind a horse as punishment. Either way, the legends agree that the Romans didn't appreciate the unpleasant discovery.

Several odd historical details gave weight to the legend, including the fact that among the carved busts of the popes in the cathedral of Sienna was one of an unnamed woman, No one knows who created it or how it was put there, but when Pope Clement VIII (reigned 1592 - 1605) discovered it, he ordered it reworked enough to represent Pope Zacharias, whose image had not previously been included in the collection. This is not surprising, though, given the widespread belief in Europe in the Pope Joan legend during the 13th through 18th centuries. Versions abounded, and many credulous folk, Catholics included, were sincerely convinced that there had indeed been a female pope.

But the facts of history show otherwise. The primary proofs that this is all just a fable are these: First, the earliest point that we can trace the legend to is the mid-13th century, but the legend didn't really gain wide currency until the late 14th century. No evidence of any kind exists from the ninth century (when Pope Joan was alleged to have reigned), nor do we see any in the 10th through 12th centuries. None of the annals or acts of the popes that were written between the ninth and 13th centuries (and none after that, either) mention her.

Church historian J. P. Kirsch wrote that "Not one contemporaneous historical source among the papal histories knows anything about her, also, no mention is made of her until the middle of the 13th century. Now it is incredible that the appearance of a 'popess,' if it was a historical fact, would be noticed by none of the numerous historians from the 10th to the 13th century. In the history of the popes, there is no place where this legendary figure will fit in. Between Leo IV and Benedict III, where Martinus Polonus places her, she cannot be inserted . . ."(Article on Pope Joan, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913).

So where did the legend come from? There are two likely possibilities, The first is that the Roman population became disgusted with the corrupt influence wielded over Pope Sergius (reigned 904-911) by the powerful and wealthy Theodora Theophylact, and more specifically by her young daughter Morozia, a cunning and exceptionally attractive woman. It appears that Morozia was Sergius' mistress and bore him at least one son (the future Pope John XI). The fabulously wealthy and prestigious Theophylact family wielded immense power in Rome during the 10th century, even, sadly, over several popes. This is a sorry episode in the history of the Church, one which displayed a decadence and immorality that even popes, at times, could fall prey to - a reminder to us all that men, even the holiest of men, are not invulnerable to temptation and personal weakness. Despite their sins, Christ's promise that the Church would be protected from error was not, nor has it ever been, broken.

From the details of Sergius III's pontificate, it seems clear that he was a vain, violent and sensuous man. It's quite possible that the disgusted faithful took to mocking him or one of his immediate successors because he was perceived to have been under the influence of the Theophylact women. Some historians trace the legend of a female pope to Morozia, saying the people called her "Pope Joan" to mock the weak popes she controlled, in the same way some American first ladies have been called "president" to mock their perceived weak husbands.

Another possible explanation for the Pope Joan legend lies in the conduct of the much maligned Pope John VIII (reigned 872-882). He appears to have had a very weak personality, even perhaps somewhat effeminate. Cardinal Baronius, in his Church history Annals, suggests that John VIII's reputation as effeminate gave rise to the legend. Indeed, it would seem that over time, the common folk added ever more lurid embellishments until the vulgar jokes about the hapless (and certainly male) pope ballooned and metamorphosed into a female "popessa."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Fiction 4

The pope is the beast spoken of in Revelation 13. Verse 1 says that he wears crowns and has "blasphemous names" written on his head. Verse 18 says that the numerical value of his name adds up to 666. The pope's official title in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei (Vicar of the Son of God). If you add that up using Roman numerals, you get 666. The pope's tiara is emblazoned with this title, formed by diamonds and other jewels.

I wasn't very good at math in school, but even I can follow this argument and run the numbers well enough to show it's bogus. (Besides, answering this question is apologetics at its most fun!) The charge that the pope is the beast of Revelation 13, because his tide adds up to 666, is especially popular with Seventh-Day Adventists, but it's also widely repeated in some Protestant circles.

Vicarius Filii Dei does have the mathematical value of 666 in Latin. Here's how it works. Like many ancient languages, such as Greek and Hebrew, some Latin letters are also used for numbers: I = 1, V = 5, X = 10, L = 50, C = 100, D = 500 and M = 1000. The letter "u" is rendered as V and the letter "w," which doesn't exist in the Latin alphabet, would be rendered as VV. So this title would read in Latin as VICARIVS FILII DEI.

When calculating the value of a name or word, letters that don't have a numerical value are ignored. For example, drop out the novalue letters in my name, PATRICK MADRID, and you come up with 2102 - 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1000 (m) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) = 2102. By the way, this is one reason why, as far as I know, no one has yet accused me of being in league with the anti-Christ. The numbers just don't add up.

But in the case of VICARIVS FILII DEI, they do add up to 666. Isolate the numbers and this is what you get: 5 (v) + 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1 (i) + 5 (V) + 1 (i) + 50 (L) + 1 (i) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) = 666.

But there are problems with this. The first is that Vicarius Filii Dei, or "Vicar of the Son of God," is not now, nor has it ever been, a title of the bishop of Rome. The second problem is that virtually no one, including many unsuspecting lay Catholics, knows that this papal "title" is a fabrication. To an untrained ear, it sounds enough like one of the pope's real titles, Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ), to pass the test. Unfortunately for those who traffic in this particular piece of pope fiction, the real title, Vicarius Christi, adds up to only a measly 214, not the infernal 666. In fact, none of the pope's official titles, such as Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God), Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff), or Successor Petri (Successor of Peter), will add up to 666. That's why you never see any of them used by anti-Catholics.

If the person making this claim disputes these facts, ask him to furnish even one example of a papal decree, ecclesiastical letter, conciliar statement, or any other official Catholic document in Which the pope calls himself or is referred to as the "Vicar of the Son of God," He won't be able to find one, because none exist. Vicarius Filii Dei has never been a title of the pope.

Poof! That part was easy, but some people, especially Seventh Day Adventists, will ignore the evidence (or lack of it) and hold tenaciously to the notion that "Vicar of the Son of God" is an official papal title and therefore identifies the pope as the Beast of Revelation. What else can be said in response?

Using the same math exercise we did above, point out that the name of the woman who started the Seventh-Day Adventist church, Ellen Gould White, also adds up to 666 in Latin. (L + L + V + D + V + V + I = 666). Then ask if this proves that she is the Beast. I can assure you the answer won't be "yes." If the answer is "no," ask how this numbers game could possibly prove the pope or anyone else is the Beast. If you're answered with silence, it's a good bet that you've made some progress with the person.

The main fact to impress on someone who uses this argument is that a papal title had to be invented, one that could produce the magic number, in order to give this argument legs.

But we're not quite finished cutting it off at the knees. The charge that the pope is the Beast because he wears a crown, and Revelation 13:1 says the Beast wears crowns and has "blasphemous names" written on his head, must also be answered. This we can do more quickly.

Since about the year 708, many popes have worn at non-liturgical ceremonial events a special papal crown called a tiara, but the stylized beehive-shaped papal crown of three diadems that we have come to know as a tiara emerged only in the early 14th century. Although it was customary for tiaras to be encrusted with jewels and precious ornaments, there is no evidence - no statue bust, painting, drawing or even written description of any of the many tiaras that were crafted - that any papal tiara ever had the name or title of a pope emblazoned on it.
This is significant, because there have been medieval and Renaissance popes whose extravagant vanity prodded them to have lavishly ornamented, jewel-encrusted tiaras made for themselves. And we possess paintings and statues and other representations of them produced during their lifetimes that show these tiaras (we even possess some of the actual tiaras). If any popes in history would have been tempted to succumb to the bad taste of spelling out "Vicarius Filii' Dei" in diamonds across the front of their tiaras, these men would have - but they didn't. No pope did, One particular anti-Catholic tract I've seen shows a plain metal tiara with Vicarius Filii Dei written in diamonds across it. But it was a drawing - not a photograph of a museum piece or even a photo of a painting of a tiara.

It had to be drawn, of course, because the "666 papal crown" - as with all the other pope fictions - has only ever existed in the minds of those who perpetuate this fantasy.

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

The issue here is not quite new, but it is always good to refresh back on some practices in the Catholic Church that baffles some people outside the faith - Ash

Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).

It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.

Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!

God Said To Make Them

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

The Religious Uses of Images

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).

One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.

Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.

If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.

It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).

What About Bowing?

Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.

Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.

Hiding the Second Commandment?

Another charge sometimes made by Protestants is that the Catholic Church "hides" the second commandment. This is because in Catholic catechisms, the first commandment is often listed as "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3), and the second is listed as "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain." (Ex. 20:7). From this, it is argued that Catholics have deleted the prohibition of idolatry to justify their use of religious statues. But this is false. Catholics simply group the commandments differently from most Protestants.

In Exodus 20:2–17, which gives the Ten Commandments, there are actually fourteen imperative statements. To arrive at Ten Commandments, some statements have to be grouped together, and there is more than one way of doing this. Since, in the ancient world, polytheism and idolatry were always united—idolatry being the outward expression of polytheism—the historic Jewish numbering of the Ten Commandments has always grouped together the imperatives "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3) and "You shall not make for yourself a graven image" (Ex. 20:4). The historic Catholic numbering follows the Jewish numbering on this point, as does the historic Lutheran numbering. Martin Luther recognized that the imperatives against polytheism and idolatry are two parts of a single command.

Jews and Christians abbreviate the commandments so that they can be remembered using a summary, ten-point formula. For example, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants typically summarize the Sabbath commandment as, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy," though the commandment’s actual text takes four verses (Ex. 20:8–11).

When the prohibition of polytheism/idolatry is summarized, Jews, Catholics, and Lutherans abbreviate it as "You shall have no other gods before me." This is no attempt to "hide" the idolatry prohibition (Jews and Lutherans don’t even use statues of saints and angels). It is to make learning the Ten Commandments easier.

The Catholic Church is not dogmatic about how the Ten Commandments are to be numbered, however. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities" (CCC 2066).

The Form of God?

Some anti-Catholics appeal to Deuteronomy 4:15–18 in their attack on religious statues: "[S]ince you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

We’ve already shown that God doesn’t prohibit the making of statues or images of various creatures for religious purposes (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14). But what about statues or images that represent God? Many Protestants would say that’s wrong because Deuteronomy 4 says the Israelites did not see God under any form when he made the covenant with them, therefore we should not make symbolic representations of God either. But does Deuteronomy 4 forbid such representations?

The Answer Is No

Early in its history, Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God because he had not revealed himself in a visible form. Given the pagan culture surrounding them, the Israelites might have been tempted to worship God in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the sun).

But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire." Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies.

The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars.

But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, "He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Christ is the tangible, divine "icon" of the unseen, infinite God.

We read that when the magi were "going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem.

The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented through the Icthus or "fish emblem."

Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them.

Idolatry Condemned by the Church

Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, "[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols."

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed "by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them" (374).

"Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’" (CCC 2114).

The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Questions And Answers On Sacrament of Reconciliation

Here are some questions which were included in the previous discussion regarding the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You might find some other new things as well - Ash

Q: Do we still use the terms mortal and venial in reference to sin?

A: Mortal (deadly) and venial are still terms used by the Church to distinguish serious sin from less serious sin (cf. CCC 1855). Mortal sin is mentioned also in 1 John 5:16–17: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

Q: What are some examples of venial sins?

A: The Catechism describes two main types of venial sin. First, one commits venial sin when "in a less serious matter [than mortal sin], he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law" (CCC 1862). In other words, if one does something immoral but the matter is not serious enough to be gravely immoral, he commits only venial sin.For example, deliberate hatred can be venial sin or mortal sin depending on the seriousness of the hatred. The Catechism explains, "Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm" (CCC 2303).

Another example is abusive language. "Abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender’s intention" (CCC 2073).

The second type of venial sin involves situations in which the matter is serious enough to be gravely immoral, but the offense lacks at least one of the other essential elements required for mortal sin. The Catechism explains that one commits only venial sin "when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter but without full knowledge or without complete consent" (CCC 1862).

An example of this could be masturbation. The Catechism explains:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility [for masturbation] . . . one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (CCC 2352)

Q: The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that if a person makes a "perfect" act of contrition, his mortal sins are forgiven if he has the firm amendment to go to sacramental confession as soon as possible. Does this mean that a person in the pew at Sunday morning Mass, after supposedly making a perfect act of contrition, can receive the Eucharist at that Mass?

A: First, to clarify, the Catechism speaks of "perfect contrition," not a "perfect act of contrition." This is an important distinction because it is not a perfect act (e.g., reciting an act of contrition prayer perfectly) that obtains the forgiveness of grave sins; it is the contrition itself that must be perfect.Contrition is defined as "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again" (CCC 1451). Contrition may be imperfect or perfect.Imperfect contrition, which does not obtain forgiveness of grave sins, "is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner" (CCC 1453).Perfect contrition, on the other hand, "arises from a love by which God is loved above all else" (CCC 1452). Only this form of contrition obtains the forgiveness of grave sins before going to confession.Since perfect contrition obtains the forgiveness of grave sins, one who makes an act of perfect contrition may receive the Eucharist under certain conditions. The Code of Canon Law states:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (CIC 916)

Note that there are four conditions that must be fulfilled before going to Communion:

1. There must be a grave reason to receive Communion (e.g., danger of death).
2. It must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first.
3. The person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition.
4. The person must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

Q: What is the “seal of the confessional”? I know it isn't something like a lock.

A: The term refers to the obligation of secrecy that must be kept by a priest regarding knowledge acquired from a penitent in the sacrament of penance. The obligation is similar to patient-doctor confidentiality, but it even stricter—in fact, it is absolute. A confessor is forbidden, under canonical penalty of excommunication (CIC 1388.1), to reveal or discuss any matter confessed by a penitent. This prohibition extends even to discussion with the one who made the confession, unless that person releases the priest from the obligation of the seal. Unlike a physician, who may be required to release records in response to a subpoena, a priest may not break the seal even if he is threatened with incarceration or death. He may not break it even to prevent a third party from committing or undergoing an evil. For example, a priest must maintain complete silence even if he is the only one who can identify the true perpetrator of a murder (presuming the information was revealed to him in the confessional) and even if, without his information, an innocent person would be sent to prison for the crime. Some priests have been executed for not breaking the seal, but it is necessary that penitents know that nothing they confess will be revealed to anyone outside the confessional; without such a guarantee, many people would not go to confession and so would die unforgiven. Since the eternal state of a soul is immeasurably more important than any temporal consideration, the Church from the beginning has held the confessional to be sacrosanct (holy).

Q: Suppose a prime suspect in a murder case, who did indeed commit the crime, confessed his sin to his priest. The prosecution found out that he went to confession after the murder. They also knew which priest was hearing confessions that day. Could the priest be called to court and forced to reveal the forgiven sin of the suspect?

A: Although there are laws on the books that protect the sacramental seal of confession, it is theoretically possible that a court of law might try to force a priest to reveal a penitent’s confession. Even if such pressure were brought to bear on a priest, he would be required to refuse to reveal the contents of any sacramental confession he heard, even if it meant being held in contempt of court and imprisoned:"The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion. An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession" (Code of Canon Law 983).

Q: Can a penitent give the priest permission to discuss what was said in the confessional? Specifically, could I allow him to use a situation I confessed as an example in a homily or in everyday conversation if he does not reveal my name? Also, does the seal of confession hold even after the death of the penitent?

A: No, one may not give the priest permission to break the seal. But you can discuss the matter with him outside of confession, and then he could talk about that conversation.The seal holds even after the death of the penitent.

Q: What is "anonymous" confession?

A: One confesses anonymously when one kneels behind a privacy screen and does not confess face to face with the priest. In the decades before the revision of the sacramental rubrics, this was the standard manner in which confessions were given. Even after the revision of the rubrics, all Catholic churches are required to give people the option of confessing their sins either face to face or from behind a screen.

Q: Can reconciliation be given online?

A: The sacrament of reconciliation cannot be validly received online. It also cannot be received by mail, phone, telegram, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other means except personal, one-to-one contact with a priest.

Q: If I cannot recall if I mentioned a particular sin the last time I went to confession but recall it now, should I mention it in my next confession, or was it absolved already?

A: It was absolved already. If it is a venial sin, you do not need to confess it. If it was a mortal sin, it was absolved, provided you at least implicitly intended to mention it if you had remembered it. What this means is that you confessed all known sins and would have confessed whatever others you committed had you recalled them. So if you now recall a mortal sin, mention it the next time you go to confession.

Q: Can mortal sins be forgiven without actually going to confession?

A: Sacramental confession is normatively required for the forgiveness of mortal sins; it is not absolutely required. What this means is that, in extraordinary circumstances, mortal sins can be forgiven outside of sacramental confession. If a Catholic is dying and cannot go to sacramental confession, his mortal sins may be forgiven if he repents with true contrition (i.e., sorrow for sin) and has at least the implicit intention to go to sacramental confession if the opportunity is made available.

Q: I know a Catholic serving in Iraq. He goes to Mass whenever possible in his remote location. There has been no priest available to hear confessions for a couple of weeks. If he has serious sin to confess and wants to confess but can't due to circumstances beyond his control, what would happen to him if he dies? He prays fervently and constantly asks for God's forgiveness and guidance, but is that enough?

A: His sins are forgiven when he makes an act of perfect contrition with the resolution to go to confession as soon as possible. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: "Among the penitent’s acts, contrition occupies first place. Contrition is ‘sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed together with the resolution not to sin again.’ When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called ‘perfect’ (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible" (CCC 1451–1452).

Q: Is it permissible for a priest to offer confession in his office?

A: Yes, but it must be with just cause. Here is what the Code of Canon Law says:"The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause" (CIC 964).

Q: Can a non-Catholic Christian receive the sacrament of penance?

A: Yes, under certain circumstances and with the permission of the bishop. The Catechism states:

When, in the ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, penance, and anointing of the sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions. (CCC 1401)

Q: I arrived a few minutes early for confession, but the priest never showed. If I had I been hit by a bus and died, would my sins have been forgiven since I showed up for confession?

A: While the act of showing up for confession does not, in itself, obtain forgiveness of sins, it may be an indication of contrition—"sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with a resolution not to sin again" (CCC 1451). Contrition does forgive sins when it is perfect. The Catechism explains: "When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called ‘perfect’ (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible" (CCC 1452).

Q: My Protestant friends point to 1 Peter 2:9 and say, "Look, we are all priests. You don't need to go to a priest to confess your sins." How do I answer?

A: In a sense we are all priests. But this title is not what bestows the power to forgive sins. God sent Jesus to forgive sins, and Jesus conferred the power to forgive sins on the apostles when he said, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21-23). This power to forgive sins has been passed on to the apostles’ successors and to priests ordained to the ministerial priesthood through the sacrament of holy orders.Catholics recognize the difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood:

Priesthood: (1) Of the faithful: The priestly people of God. Christ has made of his Church a "kingdom of priests," and gives the faithful a share in his priesthood through the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. (2) Ministerial: The ministerial priesthood received in the sacrament of holy orders differs in essence from this common priesthood of all the faithful. It has as its purpose to serve the priesthood of all the faithful by building up and guiding the Church in the name of Christ, who is head of the Body. (Cardinal Levada’s glossary)

Q: I converse with Protestants who say the power to forgive sins has been given to all Christians. Why do Catholics say it has been given only to priests?

A: Because Christ was talking only to the apostles when he gave the power to forgive sins (Jn 20:21-23). Only a small number of disciples were present, for they were in an enclosed room (20:19). In fact, one disciple, Thomas, was not even there and had to have a special encounter with Jesus (20:24ff). This shows it was not all the disciples generally who received the power to absolve, but only the core group of the disciples--the apostles.Confirmation for the fact that only clergy can absolve is found in James 5:14-15, where the sacrament of holy anointing is discussed: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters [priests] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil . . . and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."In the sacrament of anointing we see forgiveness tied to the clergy, therefore how much more will it be when we are dealing with the sacrament of confession itself.

Q: What's the difference between contrition and attrition?

A: Contrition is perfect sorrow for one's sins based on the selfless motive of love of God and sorrow for having offended him. Attrition is sorrow for one's sins based on fear of punishment. For someone in the state of mortal sin (1 Jn 5:16-17) perfect contrition is required in ordered to reconcile with God.

Q: Isn't confession to a priest an option? If you're sincerely sorry for your sins and confess them in your own heart, aren't you already forgiven?

A: The power to forgive sins was one Christ gave to his apostles (Lk 10:16, 2 Cor 5:18-20). After he rose from the dead Christ said to the apostles, "'As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on then and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained'" (Jn 20:22-23). We can be truly sorry for our sins--that is essential for forgiveness--but we can't forgive our own sins. We can't absolve ourselves. That is a power reserved to God alone.

Through Christ that power was conferred on his apostles and their successors, the bishops, and their helpers, the priests. Confession is not an option. It is the ordinary (normative) means through which sins are forgiven.

Q: It is my understanding that we should be cleansed of our sins before we receive the Eucharist because God cannot be in the presence of sin. What happens to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist if someone receives but has not repented or has not gone to confession? Does Christ cease to be present? If he remains present, what happens?

Who says God cannot be in the presence of sin? One need only read Scripture to find Jesus in the presence of sin. Perhaps you’re confusing this notion with "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27).Receiving Christ in the Eucharist forgives venial sins. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, "As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins" (CCC 1394).However, the reception of the Eucharist does not forgive mortal sins, so a person who is conscious of mortal sin must go to confession before receiving communion. The Code of Canon Law states,

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (CIC 916)

When a person conscious of mortal sin receives the Eucharist without prior forgiveness he commits another mortal sin and only compounds his desperate situation. Paul tells us, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). The Church calls this sacrilege:

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us. (CCC 2120)

Q: Is it necessary to confess how many times one has sinned?

A: To the best of your ability you should confess how many times you committed each grave sin. The Code of Canon Law is clear on this point:

A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience. (CIC 988)

If you don’t know an exact number, you can give a best estimate or provide an approximation (e.g., "several times"). If you forget to do this or later remember additional occurrences of grave sins, your sins are still forgiven, but you should remember to acknowledge those sins at your next confession.