Q. In one of the readings at daily Mass today, St. Paul said that “a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated” (2 Cor. 12:7). Do we know what Paul was talking about? — J.G., Pennsylvania.
A. There has been much speculation about this verse, but no definitive answer. Among the possibilities suggested are a sickness or a disability, a temptation, or perhaps some persistent or obnoxious opponent. In any case, the purpose of this “thorn” was probably to keep Paul humble so that he would not lose perspective or revel in his heavenly experiences.
The “angel of Satan” was apparently a messenger from Satan sent to inflict some punishment on the apostle, just as God permitted the Devil to afflict Job in the Old Testament.
Earlier in 2 Corinthians, Paul warned the people of Corinth not to be corrupted by the same serpent who “deceived Eve by his cunning” (11:3) and to beware of “false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (11:13-15).
Q. My husband and I were talking about the Easter Duty and wondered exactly what it is and what time frame it involves. — T.L.H., Massachusetts.
A. The obligation of fulfilling the Easter Duty is spelled out in canon 920 of the Code of Canon Law in these words:
“All the faithful, after they have been initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, are bound by the obligation of receiving Communion at least once a year. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at some other time during the year.”
Because many Catholics were neglecting to receive the Holy Eucharist in the Middle Ages, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) established a general law for the Latin Church requiring the reception of Holy Communion at least once a year during Easter time by all Catholics who had attained the age of discretion. In the United States, the Easter season extends from the First Sunday of Lent until Trinity Sunday, which usually falls in June.
Q. I know the Book of Revelation is mysterious and full of symbolism, but can you explain the images in chapter 21 about the “holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God” with streets paved with gold and walls and gates made out of precious stones? — C.L., Massachusetts.
A. You are correct that Revelation is filled with symbolic images that confuse those of us who are bound to Earth and see everything from an earthly perspective. But John, the author of the book, wants us to know that Heaven is radically different from Earth in that it is totally God-centered, not the human-centered environment in which we live.
Here is how Fr. Alfred McBride explained it in his book The Second Coming of Jesus:
“John takes a poetic memory of the glory of the earthly Jerusalem to portray Heaven. His emphasis is on the glory of God. If he uses images of jewels and ivory, it is not to focus on earthly treasures, but to make us think of God’s beauty. The new Jerusalem ‘gleamed with the splendor of God’ (verse 11). John expands on God’s beauty by imagining the Lord and city decorated with twelve jewels: jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, sardonyx, carnelian, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprase, hyacinth, and amethyst.
“The pictures of the glimmering jewels captivate our imaginations in order to get our attention. We must let the images speak to our hearts where God dwells waiting to tell us He is infinitely greater than any of that. Do not be distracted by the physical splendor. John’s true focus is on the grandeur and splendor of the transcendent God.
“The twelve gates to the city of God consist of one vast pearl, the most valued of precious stones. The use of twelve in this chapter is based on the twelve apostles. ‘The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb’ (verse 14).
“It seems like an earthly paradise, but it is not. ‘There will be no night there’ (verse 25). Ancient peoples, like children today, were afraid of the dark. In heaven there will be no scary night for God is pure light. His presence is like the comforting warmth of the sun. He will be the perfect satisfaction of our mind’s quest for truth and the absolute fulfillment of our heart’s need for the warmth of love” (pp. 168-169).
Q. It is with pleasure that I have two of your books of Catholic Replies, and I always enjoy reading your column in The Wanderer. Catching up on reading, I noticed two replies in recent Wanderers that I thought to ask you about.
1) In a reply about why priests can’t marry, you gave a very good write-up, but you mentioned nothing as to the First Ecumenical Council, which I am sure was the one that declared that bishops must be celibate, and priests must be married before Ordination, but once ordained they cannot marry. It may have been helpful to let your reader know that in the Eastern Rites, priests can be married if their Church allows it.
2) In another reply, you mentioned that priests are never to say the person’s name who
comes forward for Holy Communion. I fully respect the Latin/Roman way of doing things, but in our Byzantine Rite the priest says loudly, “The Servant of God Daniel partakes of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ Jesus.” If he doesn’t know my name, he pauses after “Servant of God,” wherein I quietly say “Daniel,” and then he continues with my name out loud.
It would have been nice if you could have stated the custom of the Byzantine Church. But maybe you only prefer to teach the customs of the Latin/Roman Church. At any rate, this is not a criticism, but just some thoughts/comments. — D.J.B., via e-mail.
A. Our familiarity is with the Latin/Roman Rite, and not with the Byzantine Rite, and our replies reflect that familiarity, or lack thereof. Now as to your comments.
1) The first ecumenical council was the Council of Nicaea in 325, and it said nothing about priestly celibacy. You may be thinking of that council’s Canon Three, which had to do with women living with clerics. Here is what the canon said:
“The great Council has absolutely forbidden bishops, priests, and deacons — in other words, all the members of the clergy — to have with them a sister-companion with the exception of a mother, a sister, an aunt, or, lastly, only those persons who are beyond any suspicion.”
Later in the same century, Pope St. Siricius (384-399), reaffirmed that canon when he said that “we will not tolerate the presence of women in the homes of clerics, with the exception of those whom the Council of Nicaea authorized so as [to take care of] their needs, and only for that reason.”
One source of confusion on this matter was introduced by the Byzantine historian Socrates (380-439), who wrote of a bishop named Paphnutius, whom he said spoke at the Council of Nicaea in opposition to imposing continence on clergyman who had been married.
“It is quite enough,” Socrates paraphrased Paphnutius as saying, “to require of these clerics that they not remarry [after ordination], in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, but let us not separate them from the wives whom, monogamous as they are, they once married when they were laymen.”
The problem with this narrative, said Fr. Christian Cochini, SJ, is that no such statement is part of the authentic documents of the Council of Nicaea, and there is no record of anyone named Paphnutius addressing the council (cf. The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, pp. 195-200).
2) Thank you for letting us know about the Byzantine practice of using a person’s name when distributing Communion, but that is not the Latin/Roman practice, so we stand by our statement that it should not be done that way in the Western churches.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress