Catholic Replies
Q. With all the talk about the recent solar eclipse, some people thought the end might be near. They cited Bible passages about the sun being darkened and the moon not giving its light as signs that the end is coming. How are we to understand these signs? — W.S., Arizona.
A. Jesus did indeed mention signs like these in chapter 24 of Matthew’s Gospel, but He also said in the same chapter that no one knows when Heaven and Earth will pass away, “neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” He went on to say:
“For as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. In [those] days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day that Noah entered the ark. They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be [also] at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come” (Matt. 24:36-42).
Earlier in chapter 24, Jesus said that the Gospel of the Kingdom would have to be preached “throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then, the end will come” (24:14). Has the Gospel been preached to all nations? We don’t think so. Furthermore, St. Paul said that “all Israel” would have to recognize Jesus as the Messiah before the end can come (cf. Romans 11:25-27).
This has not happened yet either, so instead of worrying exactly when the world in general will end, we should make sure that we are filled with God’s grace before our own particular world comes to an end.
Q. My wife, who is 74 years old, has attended weekly Mass all her life. But due to some emotions of anxiety resulting from claustrophobia during Mass, she has stopped going. Medications have not helped. What alternatives, if any, does she have in order to fulfill her Sunday obligation? — B.M., New York.
A. Catholics are obliged to attend Mass each Sunday (or Saturday evening) unless they are prevented from doing so for a good reason, such as illness, great difficulty in getting to Mass, or the duty of caring for a sick or dying person. Obviously, your wife’s claustrophobia comes under the heading of illness and would excuse her from the Sunday obligation. But would it be possible for her to attend a daily Mass during the week, when there are far fewer people than on the weekend and her claustrophobic feelings might be lessened? Speak to your pastor about this and see what he thinks.
Q. The fifth glorious mystery calls Mary Queen of Heaven and Earth. Can you give me some good reasons why Catholics believe this when it is not mentioned in the Bible? — R.D., Louisiana.
A. As we have mentioned with regard to the Assumption of the Blessed Mother into Heaven at the end of her life, a belief does not have to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible to be true. Mary’s Queenship in Heaven makes sense if we look at the role of the queen mother in the Old Testament. Virtually every time a new king is introduced in First and Second Kings, his mother is mentioned (e.g., 1 Kings 14:21, 15:2, 22:42).
Many kings in those days had multiple wives, making it difficult to choose one to be queen, so the king’s mother was given the title and role.
Consider, for example, the role of Bathsheba, the wife of David and the mother of Solomon. When David was king and Bathsheba entered his presence, she bowed to the floor in homage to him and said, “May my lord, King David, live forever” (1 Kings 1:31). But after David died and Solomon became king, Bathsheba went directly to him to ask a favor and, when she entered the room, Solomon “stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right” (1 Kings 2:19).
Bathsheba no longer pays homage to the king; he pays homage to her, and he seats her on his right, the position of authority. When she told Solomon that she had a small favor to ask of him, the king said, “Ask it, my mother…for I will not refuse you” (1 Kings 2:20). This reminds us of Jesus, who could not refuse the request of His Mother to provide more wine at the wedding in Cana, even though His hour had not yet come.
He continues to defer to the wishes of His Mother and Queen in Heaven. Thus, the Catechism says (n. 966) that when Mary’s earthly life was finished, she was “‘taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death’” (Lumen Gentium, n. 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950); DS 3903; cf. Rev. 19:16).
Summarizing Catholic belief, Dr. Ludwig Ott said in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that “Mary’s right to reign as Queen of Heaven is a consequence of her Divine Motherhood. Since Christ, because of the hypostatic union, is as man the Lord and King above all creation (cf. Luke 1:32f.; Apoc. 19:16), so Mary as ‘the Mother of the Lord’ (Luke 1:43) shares in the royal dignity of her Son, even if only in an analogical way.”
“Furthermore,” Ott said, “Mary’s royal merit is based on her intrinsic connection with Christ in His work of Redemption. Just as Christ is also our Lord and King because He has redeemed us with His Precious Blood (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Peter 1:18f.), so, in an analogical way, Mary is our Lady and Queen because she, the new Eve, has shared intimately in the redemptive work of Christ, the new Adam, by suffering with Him and offering Him up to the Eternal Father. Mary’s sublime dignity as the Queen of Heaven and Earth makes her supremely powerful in her maternal intercession for her children on earth” (p. 211).
Q. According to the book The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister, by John O’Sullivan, Pope John Paul II gave Holy Communion to a group of non-Catholics, including five Anglicans, in his private chapel in the Vatican in 1984. O’Sullivan, who was present, said that the gesture was “an expression of his appreciation of what we and many others had done in bringing aid to Poland.” My question is, why were people outside the faith able to receive the sacred Eucharist? — C.A., California
A. We don’t know all the circumstances here, so we don’t know why Pope John Paul saw fit to give Communion to a group of non-Catholics. There are circumstances when non-Catholics can receive the Eucharist. They are spelled out in canon 844 §4:
“If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments [Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick] to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.”
Having written so beautifully about the Eucharist in such documents as On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist (1980) and Church of the Eucharist (2003), it would be out of character for John Paul to do anything to minimize the Eucharist. In the latter document, he offered what might be a rationale for his actions described in O’Sullivan’s book:
“While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances to individual persons belonging to churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established” (n. 45).
