Editor’s Note: Many thanks to B.W. of Florida, a “grateful convert,” for her kind words about this column and for her Easter Mass card.
Q. After the Resurrection, could everyone see Jesus or just the disciples? Could those who had Him crucified see Him? — T.G., Washington State.
A. In his summary of the appearances of Jesus after His Resurrection, St. Paul says:
“For I have handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the Apostles. Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me” (1 Cor. 15:3-9).
If Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people in the forty days after Easter, He must have been seen by people who had not been among His original followers, including perhaps some who had called for His crucifixion.
Q. I enjoyed your recent treatment of the optional “shortened readings” in the missalette. Like you, I have my suspicions. Another annoying thing is the translation of references to Christ’s rising from the dead, wherein an active Latin verb (resurrexit or surrexit) is rendered in English in the passive voice, i.e., “Christ was raised.” Examples are Mark 16:6 and 6:9, Luke 24:46, and Romans 6:4, 8:34, and 10:9. This seems like playing down the divinity of Christ.
Any comment? — C.E., California.
A. This can be explained by noting that because Jesus is true God and true man, we can talk about Him being raised from the dead (by His Father) or rising on His own (by His own power).
The Catechism says that the Resurrection is the work of the Holy Trinity in that “the Father’s power” raised up Jesus and “perfectly introduced his Son’s humanity, including his body, into the Trinity” (n. 648). As for the Son, the Catechism (n. 649) says that Jesus “effects his own Resurrection by virtue of his divine power. Jesus announces that the Son of man will have to suffer much, die, and then rise [cf. Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34]. Elsewhere he affirms explicitly: ‘I lay down my life that I may take it [up] again….I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it [up] again’ [John 10:17-18].”
Q. Regarding your recent reply about Mary Magdalene, a vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich says that Magdalene was the sister of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, who was looked upon as a simpleton. Magdalene was about five years younger than the simpleton and lived in her own castle near Bethany, where she emulated the life of a Hollywood starlet of our time. Rich, independent, and tied to no one, she was not a prostitute, unless we consider those of similar behavior to be equally so. She converted in the presence of Jesus, as evidenced in Scripture. This vision contains far more details concerning Mary Magdalene. — S.M., via e-mail.
A. While the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich are interesting to read, there is no way of confirming what she says about Mary Magdalene. There is no evidence in Scripture or in the Church’s tradition that she was a sister of Lazarus. In his Dictionary of Saints, John J. Delaney said that Magdalene “is identified with the unknown sinner who anointed Christ’s feet in Simon’s house (Luke 7:36ff.) and with Mary, the sister of Martha, but there are no real justifications for these identifications in the Gospels, and modern scholars do not believe they are the same” (p. 392).
On the Monday of Holy Week in 2020, the Gospel reading was about the dinner at the house of Lazarus, celebrating his being brought back to life by Jesus. At the dinner, his sister Mary “took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair” (John 12:3).
This was not Mary Magdalene, but rather the same Mary who sat at the feet of Jesus while Martha prepared a meal and complained to the Lord that Mary was not doing her share (cf. Luke 10:38-42). This was also the same Mary who told Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (John 11:32). In neither of these incidents does Mary come across as a simpleton. In fact, in the first instance, Jesus commends her for sitting at His feet and listening to Him. He tells Martha that “Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her” (Luke 10:38).
Q. I have been reading a book by the late Austrian mystic, Maria Simma, entitled Get Us Out of Here! She claims to have been visited by souls from Purgatory for over fifty years. She says that the Poor Souls told her that receiving Holy Communion in the hand is the work of Satan. She also says that two German mystics, Catherine Emmerich and Therese Neumann, both saw visions of the Last Supper and reported that Jesus distributed Bread into the mouths of the apostles. What is behind the Church’s position on allowing Communion to be received in the hand? — A.G., Maryland.
A. As we said in the previous reply, the writings of mystics are interesting to read, but we should not base our beliefs on what they reportedly saw in their visions. These reports come under the heading of private revelation, and we are obliged to base our beliefs only on public Revelation, which ended with the death of the Apostle John.
In a column two weeks ago, we said that we couldn’t tell from the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper whether Jesus placed the consecrated Bread into the mouths or into the hands of the apostles, but we thought that, given the nature of the unleavened bread used at the Last Supper, our Lord probably placed pieces of it in their hands.
Communion in the hand, which can be traced back to the early Church, is not the work of Satan. In its 1969 instruction on the manner of distributing Holy Communion (Memoriale Domini), the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship said, “It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves. It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the Holy Sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.”
By the ninth or tenth centuries, however, the practice of receiving the Host on the tongue was mandated. This was partly because of abuses and partly because “there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated Bread on the tongue of the communicant” (Memoriale Domini).
This method of receiving our Lord remained the norm until recent times, when certain countries began experimenting with Communion in the hand. Pope St. Paul VI wanted the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue continued, but he said that Communion in the hand could be permitted in countries where two-thirds of the bishops petitioned Rome for permission. Authorization for Communion in the hand in the United States was given in 1977.
The danger of abuses, and even of sacrilegious uses of the Holy Eucharist, is greater of course with Communion in the hand, although determined Satanists did manage to supply themselves with Hosts for their obscene rituals when Communion was received only on the tongue.
In a 1980 letter on the Eucharist (Dominicae Cenae), Pope St. John Paul II noted that “cases of a deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharistic species” had been reported to him. He traced the blame for this “not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior, but also to the pastors of the Church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful toward the Eucharist” (n. 11).
The attitude of the faithful toward the Holy Eucharist today is much worse than in 1980, with a majority of Catholics not even believing in the Real Presence of Jesus. Maybe reverence could be restored by requiring all Catholics to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress