Tag: Question Box

Q: Can you explain relics? If we are supposed to respect the body even after death, why do we allow for this practice with the bodies of saints?

A: Great question! Typically, we speak of three “classes” of relics, only one of which are parts of the body. First-class relics are indeed the physical remains (often bone or hair, etc.) of a canonized “saint” or “blessed” (someone who has been beatified, in the process of canonization). Second-class relics would be personal items that belonged to or were used frequently by a saint or blessed (clothing, rosary, prayer book, etc.). Third-class relics would be anything that touched either a first- or second-class relic.

Interestingly, in my research on this question I discovered that this three-tier classification of relics is more tradition (with a small “t”) than any official categorization by the Church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law simply refers to “important relics” as being “the body, head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg or other part of the body… provided it is intact and is not little” (can. 1281 §2).

The 2002 Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments notes: “The term ‘relics of the saints’ principally signifies the bodies — or notable parts of the bodies — of the saints…Objects which belonged to the saints, such as personal objects, clothes, and manuscripts are also considered relics, as are objects which have touched their bodies or tombs such as oils, cloths, and images” (par. 236). You can see how the three-tier system seems to be inferred here.

A 2017 document from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints states: “The body of the Blesseds and of the Saints or notable parts of the bodies themselves or the sum total of the ashes obtained by their cremation are traditionally considered significant relics.” It continues: “Little fragments of the body of the Blesseds and of the Saints as well as objects that have come in direct contact with their person are considered non-significant relics.”

Still, why do we do this? It all seems a bit macabre. Because we are corporeal (bodily) creatures, we have an innate desire to hold onto things as a way of remembering. Certainly, our sacramental worship reflects this. We experience the unseen in the seen, the spiritual in the physical. It is all very incarnational and, in my opinion, richly Catholic.

I would be willing to bet that most anyone who has lost a loved one has kept some little memento of that person — hopefully not something like their head or other part of their body. That would indeed be a little creepy, but perhaps a favorite article of clothing, a letter, a piece of jewelry or even a lock of the person’s hair. This reminds us of the person, that they were real, that our love for them was real. While the Church clearly instructs that the bodies or remains of our deceased loved ones should be properly buried, I can understand why people would want keep some part of them.

We allow this, with careful restrictions, for saints and blesseds for a couple of reasons. First, it is a way of spreading devotion to them. The fact is, we have friends in heaven who once walked this earth and we need their prayers.

Second, it is easy to make saints into almost fictional “super heroes,” especially if they lived a long time ago in a far off place. It is good to be reminded that they were people of flesh and blood and bone.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

What are we to make of the predictions in the Book of Revelation about the binding of Satan and the thousand-year reign of Christ?

In an earlier column I cautioned about taking a sola scriptura (“scripture alone”) approach to reading the Bible and the importance of good scholarship and the interpretative tradition of the Church. This is especially true when it comes to the apocalyptic literature of the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. Rather than interpret these texts as literal guides to the end of days, from the Catholic perspective we have long seen these as cries of a suffering people. They are written more to make sense of what the people at the time were going through than to predict the future.

For that matter, often we think of the prophets as divinely commissioned “fortune tellers,” but this is not the case. I like to say that the prophets were not telling the future, but the present. That is, they were pointing out where the people had gone astray in their own time and calling them back to deeper fidelity to the covenant God had established with them.

The Book of Revelation speaks of the chaining of the “ancient serpent, which is the Devil or Satan” and a thousand-year reign of Christ with his holy ones until Satan is “released,” followed by the deceiving of the nations and a great battle (Revelation 20:1-10). Pretty gripping stuff, I’ll admit, but we should be careful.

The footnote in my Catholic Study Bible states: “Like the other numerical values in this book, the thousand years are not to be taken literally; they symbolize the long period of time between the chaining up of Satan (a symbol for Christ’s resurrection-victory over death and the forces of evil) and the end of the world. During this time God’s people share in the glorious reign of God that is present to them by virtue of their baptismal victory over death and sin.”

I should also note that we have a tendency to believe that our own time is the worst of times and that we are on the threshold of the end of all things. Maybe, but maybe not. There were some pretty awful things in the past too (plagues, wars, social upheaval, moral degradation, schisms, corruption within the Church, etc.), but we have endured one after another of these events.

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” is clear in its condemnation of strict forms of this kind of “millennialist” interpretation of Scripture. It states, “The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modern forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the ‘intrinsically perverse’ political form of a secular messianism” (par. 676).

Of the various positions on this, the Catholic position is best described as “amillenialist.” We do not believe in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ with his Church sometime in the future. We believe that this period has already begun with the first coming, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and will culminate in his second coming and final judgment at the end of time. This is by no means a “modern” idea but goes back to the early Church fathers and is solidified especially in the writings of St. Augustine (4th century). This view is also shared with most mainline Protestant denominations.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Father Thom Hennen

Q: Years ago an elderly aunt of mine had holy Communion brought to her in her home by a priest on the first Friday of each month. Our relatives would light a candle and display a crucifix. Does this custom still exist?

A: The specific custom of first Friday Communion visits has greatly diminished. Though, some parishes or priests I know have kept this custom. Also, sadly, the level of preparation for such visits as you describe it has almost vanished.

At one time it was not uncommon for almost all Catholic households to have their own sick call set. This was often in an all-in-one crucifix that would normally be displayed on the wall but opened to store the candles. The base could be used as a stand for the crucifix and candles. Alternately, I have seen sick call sets that are kept in a box containing a crucifix and candle stand, and other items that may be needed.

The Pastoral Care of the Sick states: “When the Eucharist is brought to the sick, it should be carried in a pyx or small closed container. Those who are with the sick should be asked to prepare a table with a linen cloth upon which the blessed sacrament will be placed. Lighted candles are prepared and, where it is customary, a vessel of holy water. Care should be taken to make the occasion special and joyful.”

Ideally, something of this custom should still be observed. In practice, however, I have rarely seen it. This is likely because people are unaware of the custom. Also, priests, deacons and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion more often have to do these visits at their convenience, between other responsibilities. This does not always allow people enough time to prepare.

There is a shorter, more simplified form of the rite for Communion in a hospital or institution, such as a nursing home. This level of preparation is not expected in these settings. I’m guessing hospitals and most care facilities would frown upon having lighted candles in patient or resident rooms, especially where oxygen may be in use.

Having said all of this, I think it is a beautiful and time-honored custom. As we look forward to the National Eucharistic Congress this month and continue in this time of Eucharistic Revival, perhaps this is a custom we should “bring back,” even if it never really went away. While it may not always be possible or practical, depending on the circumstances, it is an ideal for which to strive. It says a lot about our respect for the Eucharist.

Related to this, many people call the parish to ask the priest to come and administer “last rites.” By this they usually mean the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. However, the sacrament of the dying is actually Communion or what we call Viaticum (in Latin, literally “on the way with you.”) When the continuous rite is celebrated (“the works”), it starts with the sacrament of penance, confirmation (if necessary), then anointing, then Viaticum (Communion). However, if there is not sufficient time and if the person is able, Viaticum should be given before anointing.

Interestingly, more than once in my priesthood I have been called to the hospital to give someone “last rites,” only to arrive and discover the person or the family is not even Catholic. I guess they have seen enough movies or just have a cultural instinct that when someone is dying you call a Catholic priest. I think we should take that as a compliment.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q: How long have Catholics been making the sign of the cross?

A: It is hard to pin down precisely, but we have been doing this for a very long time. From what I could find out, mentions of this gesture of crossing or blessing oneself appear as early as the 3rd century, which means the practice undoubtedly predates that.

In the Eastern Church (both Orthodox and Catholic), the gesture is made from the forehead to the heart (or chest, just below the sternum), then from the right shoulder to the left shoulder, whereas in the Western (Latin) Church we make the gesture from the left shoulder to the right. We do this while saying, “In the name of the Father [head], and of the Son [heart], and of the Holy [shoulder] Spirit [opposite shoulder].” Ideally, we make this gesture slowly, intentionally and reverently — not “swatting at flies.”

If you think about it, we pack a lot into this little gesture. First, we acknowledge the Trinity — God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At the same time, we acknowledge the mystery of the cross. In the downward motion from head to heart is an implicit reminder of the incarnation; that Christ “came down” to dwell among us. God is not simply “in his heaven,” but truly with us, “Emmanuel,” and in our hearts.

To my mind, the horizontal movement, as we name the Holy Spirit, symbolizes the wideness of God’s mercy. Yes, Jesus dwelt among us, died and rose, but then sent the Holy Spirit to bring his saving love, from east to west, north to south. Symbolized in these two dimension of the cross, then, is both the intensity and the breadth of God’s love across time and space.

We make a smaller sign of the cross during Mass just before the Gospel is proclaimed. As we make this smaller sign of the cross with our thumbs on the forehead, the lips and the heart, we say, “Glory to you, O Lord.” The idea here is that the Gospel should be on our mind, on our lips and in our hearts.

It is also a pious custom to make the sign of the cross whenever passing a church. I think it is also a beautiful prayer we can make whenever we see or hear a passing ambulance, to pray for the sick or injured person. However long we have been doing this, it is a wonderful “mini-Catechism” and profession of our Christian faith.

Q: I heard that a “Jubilee Year” will be held in 2025. What does that mean?

A: I will try to devote a fuller column to this in the future as we get a little closer to 2025. The idea of a jubilee year goes back to our Jewish roots. Originally, this was every 50th year. The number seven is always significant in the Bible, representing “fullness.” Seven times seven years is 49 years. The 50th year was, therefore, seen as a “bonus” and cause for celebration. Debts were forgiven, people rested and let the land rest, wrongs were set right and families and communities reconciled. The name comes from the ram’s horn (yobel) used to announce Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

In Christianity, the first jubilee or “Holy Year” was in 1300. Jubilees have generally been held at regular intervals of 50 or 25 years. There have been a few “extraordinary” jubilees, including the most recent in 2015, called by Pope Francis to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second Vatican Council.

For more information check out: www.iubilaeum2025.va.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: Can you explain the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura?

A: I always want to be cautious when trying to explain a concept that belongs to a tradition other than my own. It is easy to misrepresent, make strawman arguments or to become overly defensive. That said, I will try to give this a fair shake and then explain why the idea is problematic.

Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) is one of the hallmark ideas of the Protestant Reformation, positing that Sacred Scripture stands alone as the infallible and authoritative source for Christian teaching and living. This was in opposition to the Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition forming a single “deposit of faith.” Reformers, in opposition to what they felt was too much emphasis on magisterial teaching and too little emphasis on the inspired word of God, sought to go back to the Scriptures and make them more accessible for Christian believers. This all sounds good. Who doesn’t want to try to simplify things and help everyone to bone up on their Bible? But there are a few problems.

First, Scripture itself never says that it is enough. Perhaps the closest we come to this is in Second Timothy, in which we read: “All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). Agreed! All Scripture is inspired (Catholics believe this as well as Protestants) and is useful, but that is not exactly Sola Scriptura.

In another place, St. Paul writes, “Therefore, brothers stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” This indicates to us that the Apostles passed down something in addition to the written word. It also reminds us that an oral tradition existed before there was ever a book. The Bible did not fall out of the sky.

This brings me to my next point: Scripture flows from Tradition and the two can never be completely separated. The Bible is a “book of books” — yes, inspired by God and yet written over thousands of years by different (human) authors in different places and historical contexts, presented in many genres and ultimately compiled in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). Even deciding what books would be included in the Christian Bible, as we know it, was the work of an interpretive body, namely, early Catholic bishops, who accepted the whole of the Jewish canon and the 27 books of the New Testament. Even to say Sola Scriptura is, in fact, a kind of tradition, and one that does not really emerge until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

Finally, let’s face it, the Bible is a hard book. I don’t mean to discourage people from reading it. After all, St. Jerome (c. 342-420) famously said, “Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Still, it is not always immediately accessible. It demands an interpreter, a “magister” (teacher, from which we get the word “magisterium”) beyond just the individual. Otherwise, you can see how this can quickly devolve into sheer personal interpretation. I remember a favorite college professor of mine who said, “The Bible is like a loaded gun in the hand of an untrained user.” If we have a mind to, we can make it say almost whatever we want it say. This is where we need not only serious scholarship but also Tradition to help guide us.

By all means, pick up your Bibles! Read, study and pray, but don’t go it alone.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q: What is the correct posture for receiving Communion? At my parish I have noticed more people genuflecting before receiving or kneeling to receive. I know of a few churches that have also set out kneelers.

A: There are many strong opinions on this among the Catholic faithful.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states: “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling” (par. 160.2). An earlier version stated, “Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.” The original Latin of the General Instruction simply leaves it up to each episcopal conference.

As to the proper gesture immediately before receiving, the GIRM states, “When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister…When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood” (par. 160.3).

It is clear that the norm is standing but that a person may kneel and should not be denied Holy Communion on that basis. Also, the gesture of reverence before receiving is a bow of the head.

Some may see this as magisterial “overreach,” curbing individual expressions of piety. Yet, that is in part what the rubrics are about. The liturgy is by nature proscriptive, telling us what and what not to do. The fact is, this is not about expressing our individual piety but celebrating the Eucharist, as far as possible, as one body. This “cuts both ways,” for those who consider themselves more “progressive” and for those who consider themselves more “traditional.”

Many will point to the fact that for centuries the faithful received kneeling, which is still the norm in the pre-conciliar liturgy, i.e. “Latin Mass,” according to the 1962 Missal. Others will say that if we are basing our practice on precedent, then the more ancient practice is standing (before we had kneelers, pews or even churches). They would add that this part of the Mass is called the “Communion Procession” for a reason, because there is a continuous movement of the faithful to the altar to receive the body and blood of Christ.

I do worry about how genuflecting/kneeling can disrupt the Communion procession and can even pose a tripping hazard. In one case, I did have to work with a person who was not only kneeling for Communion but also processing on her knees to Communion and back to the pew. This is not uncommon in Latino cultures. We were able to work out a solution that both respected her custom and made me and others feel more comfortable.

Practical concerns aside, I also wonder sometimes what is motivating those who choose not to follow the norm as laid out in the General Instruction. In almost every case I think it is out of genuine and deeply held reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. However, I worry that for some it is meant to be a show of their piety. If that is the case, woe to them! But if I am making a snap judgement of a person based on his or her posture, then woe to me! God, who looks into the heart, will have to sort that out. Even for those who simply intend to express their love for the Eucharist, I would ask, “Does this call more attention to Jesus, present in the Eucharist, or to you?”

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)