In this book, Hahn discusses many of the practices unique to Catholicism and Orthodoxy (as well as a few of the liturgically-minded Protestants), and shows their biblical basis, as well as how some of the early Christians saw these practices.  On these points, I think it is important to note that Catholics do not believe or practice things because they are in the Bible.  The Church came before the Bible, not the other way around.  Yes, the Church did have the Old Testament scriptures (this is something that Protestant critics love to bring up on that point), however we are referring to the fact that the early Church was living the New Testament, and the Church was in existence long before the scriptures were brought together as a whole.  So, we must realize that when Catholics reference the biblical basis for our beliefs, it is not that we believe that a group of early Catholics looked to the Bible then said “there, this is what we believe”.  Instead, what they believed and lived ended up in the Bible.

Hahn divides these 40 practices into 9 sections: Life Begins, Life Times, A Day in the Life, Life Lessons, Stages of Life, Spice of Life, Abundant Life, Love of My Life, and Life Goes On.  To give you an idea of what he discusses, here are some of the 40 practices discussed: Holy Water, the Sign of the Cross, Guardian Angels, Lent and Easter, Advent and Christmas, Posture, Morning Offering, Examination of Conscience, Retreat, Spiritual Reading, Confirmation, Priesthood, Incense, Candles, Relics, Indulgences, Intercession of the Saints, Pilgrimage, Scapulars and Medals, and Prayers for the Dead.  This book clearly covers many topics important to Catholicism, and I am excited to start reading it.

From the flaps:

Signs of Life is beloved author Scott Hahn’s exciting guide to the biblical doctrines and historical traditions that underlie Catholic beliefs and practices.  Devoting single chapters to each topic, the author takes the reader on a journey that illuminates the roots and significance of all things Catholic, including: the Sign of the Cross; the Mass; the Sacraments; praying with the saints; guardian angels; sacred images and relics; the celebration of Easter, Christmas, and other holidays; daily prayers; and much more.

In the appealing conversational tone that has won him millions of devoted readers, Hahn presents the basic tenets of Church teachings, clears up the common misconceptions about specific rituals and traditions, and responds thoughtfully to the objections raised about them.  Each chapter concludes with loving, good-natured, inspiring advice on applying the Church’s wisdom to everyday life.

So what is one to do if they are Catholic and attracted to Eastern spirituality?  There are 2-3 options: attend an Eastern Catholic parish, convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, or convert to Oriental Orthodoxy.  I will briefly address the first two.

Becoming Eastern Catholic would be the easiest option for me, as I maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome, and participate in all of the liturgics found in the East.  There are many Eastern Catholic churches.  As mentioned in a previous article of mine, we must remember that the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, is actually composed of a number of “particular churches”, such as the Roman Catholic church (the largest), the Ukrainian Catholic church, the Melkite Catholic church, the Ethiopian Catholic church, etc.  Most of the Eastern Catholic churches also have Orthodox counterparts.  So in theory, you get all of the benefits of Orthodoxy, and you are still in union with the Pope.

But it is this idea, of being “Orthodox in communion with Rome” that causes a number of problems that I have noticed in conversing with many Eastern Catholics.  For example, there is the issue of the post-schism (remember that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church split in 1054 AD in the “Great Schism”) Ecumenical Councils.  The Orthodox Church believes in Seven Ecumenical Councils, and has not held one since the Schism.  In contrast, the Catholic Church reveres 21 Ecumenical Councils, and has obviously held numerous ones after the last that the Orthodox recognize.  Various doctrinal developments have occurred in the West since the Schism, with doctrines such as Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Treasury of Merits, etc.  So if many of these unique doctrines came from Ecumenical Councils held post-schism, how do Eastern Catholics deal with these non-Orthodox doctrines?

This is where the confusion (at least to me) begins to show.  Some Eastern Catholics will claim that these doctrines must stay in the West (Roman Catholic), since they are called to remain fully Orthodox, yet maintaining communion with Rome.  Since ideas like Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, and Purgatory are strictly Western doctrines, Eastern Catholics do not have to hold them.  The problem with this is that some of these doctrines came from Ecumenical Councils!  The question is: how is it possible for Eastern Catholic churches to maintain union with Rome and deny doctrines from Ecumenical Councils?  Both East and West recognize Ecumenical Councils as binding on the entire Church.  It does not make sense to me that part of the Church can deny that certain Councils were Ecumenical (and not just local councils), while the rest of it says that these councils were indeed Ecumenical.  The Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton has what seems to be a Sunday School quiz on its website.  Here are two sample questions:

“How many Ecumenical Councils were held?-Seven Ecumenical Councils”

“Was the Vatican Council an Ecumenical Council?  Why or why not?-The Vatican Council was not an Ecumenical Council-no participation from the Orthodox”

Keep in mind that this is an Eastern Catholic diocese in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.  And here, it is stating that there were only Seven Ecumenical Councils, when the Roman Catholic church, which it is in communion with, claims that there were 21.  It is this sort of confusion that one would have to sort out if they decided to become Eastern Catholic.  While I believe that the East has maintained a “purity” in doctrine and liturgy, it makes no sense to become Eastern Catholic if there isn’t really a unity in the Faith in the entire Church.  One part of the Church says that there were 21 Ecumenical Councils while another says that there were 7.  Even if the Eastern Catholics accept all 21, they do not seem to accept the doctrinal developments resulting from them, though they accept the doctrinal developments of the first 7.

It is from this point of confusion that one, including myself, begins to look into the Orthodox Church.  With the Orthodox Church, this is not a problem.  All of the churches of the Orthodox Church, whether the Antiochian Orthodox, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox, the Orthodox Church in America, the Greek Orthodox, etc. all accept Seven Ecumenical Councils.  They all proclaim the same Faith.  And the East has preserved the fullness of the Faith pre-schism, and has preserved the most ancient liturgies.

So where do I see myself at this point?  That is a complex question.  Firstly, I love the Catholic Church.  I love that it is large.  I love that I can walk into any parish in my area and just sit and pray.  I love that people pay attention to it, for better or for worse.  I love the network of Catholic colleges, universities, hospitals, elementary and secondary schools, charities, shelters, etc.  The Catholic Church really has a profound effect on society worldwide.  I love the sheer volume of books on Catholicism, on anything you could imagine, ranging from history, apologetics, inspirational, doctrine, etc., for readers of all types.  I love that services are in English, and I can understand what is being said (though of course this wasn’t always the case).

On the other hand, it seems as if the Orthodox Church has maintained the Faith in a way that cannot be said in the West.  But one big question is: when does doctrinal development end?  We all accept the doctrinal development from the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.  Should there be more?  Is the doctrinal development in the West valid?  For example, we all agree that the Bishop of Rome had primacy pre-schism.  But he did not function in the same way that the current Pope does.  But does this matter?  If we accept the current role of the Pope as an extension of doctrinal development, then one doesn’t have to be worried that there is a difference between the pre and post-schism Papacy.  The problem is when Catholics try to say that “this is the way it has always been”, when it is clear that it isn’t.  Doctrines such as Purgatory and the Treasury of Merits are not found pre-schism.  There was prayer for the dead, and the Orthodox do this, however there was no concept of Purgatory, or a place where one is cleansed of temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven.  The Biblical verses cited in support of Purgatory and the Treasury of Merits don’t really apply to either, and at most refer to prayer for the dead in the case of Purgatory.

So, with much prayer and study, I hope to find where God is leading me.  Perhaps it is the Orthodox Church.  Perhaps it is Eastern Catholicism.  Perhaps I will see that the Early Church Fathers did have the beginnings of the unique Roman Catholic doctrines.  Important issues for a Catholic to consider in this endeavor are 1)doctrinal development 2)Purgatory 3)Ecclesiology-specifically the office and role of the Bishop of Rome.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life publishes an annual “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which provides some interesting statistics on a host of religions and the views of its members (or at least the sample, which we would hope is representative of the larger population) on various issues, religious, political, moral, etc.  Here are a few statistics related to this post:

-Question: How often do you read scripture outside of religious services?

For Catholics, 21% said they read scripture at least once a week, 11% said once or twice a month, 10% said several times a year, 21% said seldom, and 36% said never.

Comparatively:

-For Evangelicals, 60% said at least once a week, 11% said once or twice a month, 7% said several times a year, 12% said seldom, and 9% said never.

-For Mormons (who of course have scriptures in addition to the Bible), 76% said at least once a week, 7% said once or twice a month, 4% said several times a year, 7% said seldom, and 6% said never.

-Question:Do you pray or read the Scripture with your child/children?

For Catholics, 63% said yes and 37% said no

Comparatively:

-For Evangelicals, 81% said yes and 19% said no

-For Mormons, 91% said yes and 9% said no

Question: Which comes closest to your view?

For Catholics, 23% believe that our Holy Book is the word of God, taken literally; 36% believe that it is the word of God, not taken literally; 3% said it is the word of God, other; 27% said it is a book written by men and not the word of God; 11% said other.

Comparatively:

-For Evangelicals, 59% believe the Bible to be the word of God to be taken literally; 25% believe it is the word of God not taken literally; 5% believe it is the word of God, other; 7% believe it is a book written by men and not the word of God; 5% said other

-For Mormons, 35% said their Scriptures are the word of God taken literally; 50% said they are the word of God, not taken literally; 7% said they are the word of God, other; 4% said they are books written by men and not the word of God; 4% said other.

Now, of course this is only one survey, however I believe that it does speak to an issue that I personally have noticed before.  As Catholics, we hear the Scriptures read every Sunday at Mass.  There are 4 readings from the Bible each Sunday, including the Psalms.  If one attends Vespers, there are also many readings there.  However, it seems as if more Catholics need to read the Bible outside of church.  I include myself in this, as before this year, I would only reference the Bible outside of church when I was arguing some doctrinal point.

Instead, we as Catholics need to remember that the Bible is the word of God, written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.  A scriptural foundation is important when understanding what we believe as Catholics.  The Bible isn’t just a story book, or something that we receive as gifts that are put on display but never opened.  It is not something we hear on Sunday and just leave alone until the next week.

Therefore, I urge Catholics to crack open their Bibles and immerse themselves in the scriptures, and if you have children, to read with them as well (there are even many versions of the Bible for children to get them started).  The New American Bible is the version used during Mass, and is certainly great for your own independent reading, and is also the version that I am currently reading.  Never use the King James Version, unless you are doing so in a discussion with those who use that version exclusively.  Catholics see as inspired other books that are not found in the KJV, therefore one should look for a version that includes such texts, such as the New American Bible.

Here are two articles that may help you in finding a Bible version for yourself, if you do not already have one:

Bible Translations Guide

Choosing and Using a Bible

Let us look at 1 Timothy 3:2.  Here is what it states (King James Version):

²A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

How can this be interpreted?  Mormons and others claim that this means that a bishop must be married.  However, Catholics and Orthodox differ.  Instead, we believe that it is saying that a bishop, if married, must be the husband of one wife, and no more (i.e. no polygamy).  Another interpretation is that those who are to be among the people chosen to be bishops should not have been married more than once (i.e. divorce), being the husband of more than one wife. Verse 4 in the same chapter states that a bishop should have “his children in subjection with all gravity”.  Therefore, if we are using the same interpretation as Mormons, this would mean that men without children also cannot become bishops.

Another failure in the Mormon interpretation of 1 Timothy 3 is that they do not follow verse 12:

¹²Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the office of deacon is generally given to 12-13 year old boys.  Clearly they are not becoming husbands, nor do they have children to rule.  It is no wonder that in Brown’s book, he only addresses 1 Timothy 3 as far as bishops, and not deacons, since their reading and practice of this chapter is inconsistent.

It is especially important that Paul elsewhere states this:

1 Corinthians 7:7-8 (KJV)

⁷For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

⁸I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

It would be illogical for Paul to claim that leaders in the Church must be married, when he himself was not married.

The Catholic Church holds the more consistent interpretation of this passage.  We believe that if bishops are married, they must be the husband of one wife, and not have been remarried.  The same goes for deacons.  In fact, the diaconate of the Catholic Church includes many married men, who make up the majority in the permanent diaconate (those who will not go on to the priesthood).  We should note that clerical celibacy is a practice, and not a doctrine, and that it is certainly possible that at some point in the future, married men may be admitted to the Latin rite priesthood.  In fact, in the Eastern Catholic churches, which are part of the Catholic Church, and are in union with the Bishop of Rome (I state this to differentiate them from their Eastern Orthodox counterparts) do admit married men to the priesthood.  However, in both cases, as well as in the Orthodox Church, bishops are chosen from among the unmarried priests and monks.

So, if a Latter-day Saint says to you that 1 Timothy 3:2 is evidence that the Catholic Church is disobeying the Bible, point out to him/her that their interpretation is not warranted by the passage, especially when they disobey 1 Timothy 3:12 by giving the diaconate to unmarried, childless, 12-13 year old males, using the same reading of that passage as they give verse 2.

The text of the Gloria is actually not the same in Latin as it is in English.  This will be one of the changes made with the upcoming new translation of the Mass in English.  Let us look at the differences between the Latin, the current English translation, and the upcoming English translation.

Latin “Gloria”

Glória in excélsis Deo

et in terra pax homínibus bonae voluntátis.

Laudámus te,

benedícimus te,

adorámus te,

glorificámus te,

grátias ágimus tibi propter magnam glóriam tuam,

Dómine Deus, Rex cæléstis,

Deus Pater omnípotens.

Dómine Fili Unigénite, Iesu Christe,

Dómine Deus, Agnus Dei, Fílius Patris,

qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserére nobis;

qui tollis peccáta mundi, súscipe deprecatiónem nostram.

Qui sedes ad déxteram Patris, miserére nobis.

Quóniam tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dóminus, tu solus Altíssimus,

Iesu Christe, cum Sancto Spíritu: in glória Dei Patris. Amen.

Current English Translation of the “Gloria”

Glory to God in the highest,
and peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King,
almighty God and Father,
we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory.

Lord Jesus Christ,
only Son of the Father,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
you take away the sin of the world:
have mercy on us;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Upcoming English Translation of the “Gloria”

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you,
we give you thanks for your great glory,

Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

The new translation is much more faithful to the actual Latin words (as well as the words used by Eastern Catholics and Orthodox), as are many of the parts of the Mass that are changing, such as the response ‘and with your spirit’ to ‘the Lord be with you’ (again, faithful to the Latin as well as what is said in Eastern liturgies).  Sadly, this means that some of the music settings used for the Mass will have to go, since they won’t be able to work with the new translations.

Below is a video of the Gloria in Latin at a Tridentine Mass.  One thing that you will notice is that the sign of the cross is made twice during the Gloria, and that the priests and altar servers (and the laity) bow to ‘Iesu Christe’ (Jesus Christ).  This reminds me of Eastern liturgies, where some action is done in reverence to the Trinity, Jesus Christ, etc.  I love the bow at Jesus Christ (which is done throughout the Tridentine Mass whenever His name is said), and I think adds to the general feel of the Tridentine Mass, since it is something not found in the ordinary form (Mass of Paul VI, “Novus Ordo”).  I hope you enjoy, and feel free to reference above for the English translation of what is being said.

Link to the official Catholic Church Youtube Channel.

Prior to the Mass of Paul VI, the common liturgy of the Roman Catholic church from the 1500s onwards was the “Tridentine Mass”.  There are many similarities and many differences between the Tridentine Mass and its follower, the Mass of Paul VI.  One of the main differences is that it is in Latin.  The Mass of Paul VI can also be celebrated in Latin, however the Tridentine Mass is never said in the vernacular (save for the Bible readings and the homily).  Therefore, if one attends a Tridentine Mass in the United States, if they go to visit a Catholic parish in New Delhi, India, the Tridentine Mass would be exactly the same language, save for the readings, which would be in the vernacular.  Also, the priest and other celebrants all face the same direction as the laity (many say that the priest has “his back to the people”).  Note that although the Mass is said in Latin, parishes that celebrate the Tridentine Mass generally have “missals” available for the laity, which show what is being said in both Latin and English (or the vernacular).  Many also purchase their own missals.

There are different forms of the Tridentine Mass, ranging from a Low Mass (which is spoken, not sung (a cantor may sing a few hymns), and much of it is whispered by the priest.  There is A LOT of prayerful silence in this one), a Missa Cantata (a sung mass, and also includes the use of incense), a Solemn High Mass (distinguished from a Missa Cantata because the priest is assisted by a deacon and a subdeacon), and a Pontifical High Mass (celebrated by a bishop, assisted by a priest, deacon, subdeacon, and others).

Today, the Tridentine Mass is again gaining popularity, and is generally found in cities (I have attended in both DC and NYC), and other locations where there is a call for it by the laity and the priesthood.  Pope Benedict XVI issued an apostolic letter entitled Summorum Pontificum in 2007, which allows for the more widespread celebration fo the Tridentine Mass, if there is a call for it by the laity.  This relaxed previous rules that called for the Bishop of a diocese to authorize the public celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

Many are attracted to the Tridentine Mass because it connects them with an older form of the Mass than the current one.  Both Masses are of course valid, and one isn’t “better” than another, though people may have personal preferences for one or the other.  I personally like both.  A properly celebrated Mass of Paul VI is very beautiful, and I attended one for a period of time during college in DC at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.  Complete with chanting, full choir, incense, processions with candles, etc., such Novus Ordo liturgies show that it doesn’t have to be the way Traditionalist Catholics sometimes stereotype it.  As far as the Tridentine Mass, I can do without the Low Mass form, and love the Missa Canata and Solemn High Mass.  The Tridentine Mass, as well as a properly celebrated Mass of Paul VI, connects us with the more ancient liturgies, that retain the same general form, and even have many similarities to the liturgies in the Jewish temple.  Through the Mass and Divine Liturgy, we step away from the modern world, and enter into eternity, worshipping God with the angels and saints that have gone before us.  I feel that the Tridentine Mass captures this reality of our theology moreso than the Novus Ordo Mass, however again, a properly celebrated Mass (without liturgical abuses) does do this as well.

Below is a link to a Google video of a Missa Cantata at a parish in Paris, France.  Note that this parish is under the authority of the Society of Saint Pius X, which is in an irregular situation with the Catholic Church.  It is not a sedevacantist group (groups that claim to be Catholic but believe that the office of the Bishop of Rome, or Pope, is currently vacant, and that there hasn’t been a real Pope for a number of years.  They believe this for various reasons).  SSPX does honor Pope Benedict XVI as the current Bishop of Rome, however the Catholic Church does not hold it as having a status within the Catholic Church (therefore a Catholic should not attend Mass with them to fulfill their Sunday attendance, though there is nothing wrong with attending in and of itself).  SSPX and the Catholic Church are currently in talks to give them canonical status, which have progressed much in 2009, with Pope Benedict XVI lifting the excommunications of the four bishops of the SSPX.  A canonical equivalent of the SSPX is the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter/Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri (FSSP). Either way, the SSPX and the FSSP celebrate the Tridentine Mass, and below is an example of the Missa Cantata.

Saint John Cantius Parish, in Chicago, IL, celebrates the Tridentine Mass.  They also maintain a resourceful website on the Tridentine Mass, called Sancta Missa.

This website gives the Tridentine Mass rubric in both Latin and English, so you can follow along.

2009-2010 Year for Priests Icon

Pope Benedict XVI has declared a “Year for Priests” which began on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart on June 19, 2009, and ends on June 19, 2010 with an international gathering of priests in Rome.

When non-Catholics discuss the Catholic Church, more often than not, the discussion will turn to the priesthood.  A distinguishing feature between the Catholic Church and many Protestant or Evangelical churches is that the latter lacks a ministerial priesthood.  Instead, there is a focus on the “priesthood of all believers”.  We see this even with the LDS church (Mormons), where the priesthood is more ubiquitous among males, beginning with deacons at the age of 12.  But just what is the Catholic priesthood?  Who is a priest?  What can they do that the laity cannot?

Before the ministerial priesthood is discussed, it should be noted that Catholics do believe in a “priesthood of believers” as well.  In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read “ Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”" Indeed, the Catechism further states that there is only one priesthood of Christ, in which we participate in two different ways: the priesthood of the faithful, and the ministerial priesthood, with Jesus Christ as our High Priest.  Saint Thomas Aquinas rightly stated: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers“.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the sacrament of Holy Orders (by which the priesthood is conferred), as: “the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.”

The Diaconate

Who are Deacons?

The diaconate is the lowest of the “major Orders” in the Catholic Church.  Although deacons are not technically priests, they are sacramentally ordained ministers, and have various rights and powers not available to the laity.  As in all Orders of the Catholic Church, only males may be ordained to the diaconate.  The diaconate is further divided into two major types of deacons: transitional deacons and permanent deacons.  Transitional Deacons are those deacons that are on the path to the priesthood.  Those males studying for the priesthood in seminary are ordained to the diaconate after a few years of study.  All Transitional Deacons are celibate in the Roman Catholic church, but may not be so in the Eastern Catholic churches.  Permanent Deacons are males that have no desire to be ordained to the Order of priests, and will remain deacons forever.  This type of deacon existed in the ancient Church, and fell into disuse (in favor of the transitional diaconate) until recently in the Roman Catholic church.  In fact, the permanent diaconate has become very popular throughout the Church, especially in the United States and the West, some saying to the detriment of the priesthood.  The Permanent Diaconate has always been used in the Eastern churches.  The vast majority of Permanent Deacons are married men (though they can be celibate of course), though as with the priesthood, they must be married before ordination.  Married men that desire to become deacons require the consent and participation of their wives in the process (many wives take some of the vocational courses with the discerner).  Generally, it takes about 3-4 years of study to become a deacon.

What do Deacons do?

The role of the deacon is one of service.  In fact, the word “deacon” comes from the Greek “diakonos” which has “servant” as one of its meanings.  The deacon works in three areas: the Word, the Liturgy, and Charity.  During the Mass and Divine Liturgy, the deacon reads from the Holy Scriptures, primarily proclaiming the Gospels.  Deacons can also preach, giving the Homily during Mass, as well as preaching at Baptism, Matrimony, etc.  They also lead Catechesis, organizing and leading the Catechists who guide the faithful in religious instruction.  In the Roman Catholic church, deacons are one of the ordinary ministers of Baptism, as well as Holy Matrimony, and Funeral ceremonies (without Mass)  In the Eastern Catholic churches, deacons may not celebrate any of the Mysteries (the term for Sacraments in the East).  Deacons assist the priest and bishop liturgically, and may distribute the Eucharist to those in attendance as well as the sick.  Deacons are the ordinary ministers of the Cup.  Deacons can also celebrate Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.  Deacons also can give many of the same blessings that priests can, but not all.  Deacons work with the poor and those in need, forming various charitable services in the parishes, as well as working in the existing Catholic and non-Catholic charities throughout the world, serving all people, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, such as to AIDS patients, the elderly, the handicapped, the infirm, etc.  The very name Deacon emphasizes the serving ministry of deacons, and thus they represent the Church to the needy.

The Priesthood

Who are Priests?

According to the Catechism, priests “are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament”, and are “co-workers of the episcopal order for the proper fulfillment of the apostolic mission that had been entrusted to it by Christ.”  Priests act in the person of Christ to confer His sacred Mysteries (Sacraments) to the people.

In the Roman Catholic church, the norm is for men to be celibate before ordination, as well as throughout their ministry.  Certain exceptions are made, such as married Protestant ministers that convert and believe they are called to the Catholic priesthood.  In the Eastern Catholic churches, married men can be ordained to the priesthood, although men cannot marry in any Catholic church after ordination.  Men study and discern the priesthood in seminary, immersing themselves in the study and living of the Catholic Faith.  Men must have a bachelors degree, as well as coursework in theology and philosophy, prior to beginning graduate study in seminary.  After college, it takes about 4-5 years of seminary to become a priest.  Some men begin this path after high school, which takes about 8-10 years (including undergraduate education).  Many priests also hold a Masters of Divinity or higher degree (sometimes conferred by the seminary).  Each diocese has associated seminaries, which seminarians should attend.  In Catholicism, the priesthood is not a profession, but is a way of life, a permanent state (whether inactive, defrocked, etc.  The Rite of ordination states: ‘You are a priest forever, like Melchizedek of old”).  Priests can be part of either the diocese, or “consecrated life”, such as a member of a religious order (Jesuits, Franciscans, etc).

What do Priests Do?

First and foremost, priests are the celebrants of the Mysteries, the Sacraments, by which we enter into special relationships, covenants, with God, receiving His grace.  The sacraments celebrated by priests include Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, the Eucharist, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, and Matrimony (only Bishops celebrate Holy Orders).  Priests also celebrate Funeral Masses, Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (along with deacons), various devotional liturgies (along with deacons), etc.  Priests preach the word of God, as well as instruct the faithful on the word, in many settings, including the Mass/Divine Liturgy.  Priests also may bless people and objects.  Priests also function in many service aspects, however their primary function is to the parish (as a parish priest).  Priests (as well as deacons) are many times chaplains for the military, prisons, hospitals, etc.

The Episcopate

Who are Bishops?

Bishops hold the fullness of the priesthood of the Catholic Church.  Bishops are the successors of the apostles, and thus function in a similar role to them (indeed, the word apostle comes from the Greek “apostolos”, meaning messenger).

All bishops in the Catholic Church, whether in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic churches, are celibate men.  All bishops are selected from the priesthood.  Prospective priests to the episcopate are chosen from those that meet certain requirements, such as extensive knowledge of Sacred Scripture, Canon Law, and Catholic theology (and perhaps advanced degrees in those areas), fruits of their profound faith in God, work with the parishoners, etc.  Generally, the outgoing Bishop will make this list of candidates based on observations.  The candidates are then narrowed down by the other bishops in a province.  Ultimately, the Congregation for Bishops, a group in the Roman Curia of the Catholic Church, will discern each candidate, and make a recommendation on each.  Finally, the Pope, with the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes the decision on the newest successor.

What do Bishops do?

Bishops generally guide and care for their dioceses, which are territorial organizations of Catholic parishes in a geographical area.  Bishops are responsible for the various aspects of diocesan life, including religious education, primary and secondary schools, the celebration of the sacraments, advising priests, deacons, and the faithful, the following of Canon Law, etc.  Sacramentally, the bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation in the Roman Catholic church, though he may designate priests in his diocese to celebrate it as well.  In the Eastern Catholic churches, the priest ordinarily celebrates Chrismation, using oil (chrism) consecrated by the bishop (the bishop consecrates the oil in the Roman Catholic church as well).  Because the bishop holds the fullness of the priesthood, many functions of the priests and deacons in his territory are generally conferred by him.  Because bishops are also priests, they celebrate all of the sacraments.

As we can see, the only Orders that men are ordained to in the Catholic Church are deacon, priest, and bishop.  Other offices that many are familiar with are merely titles and additional functions conferred on the above three.  For example, the “Pope” is the Bishop of Rome.  One is not ordained a Pope, since the Pope is a bishop.  Cardinals are also bishops.  Patriarchs are bishops that oversee their “particular church”, such as the Roman Catholic Church or the Ukrainian Catholic Church.  An Archbishop is a bishop of an Archdiocese, which is generally a large diocese or one with some historical significance.

Catechism of the Catholic Church-Holy Orders

This sounds wonderful!  Generally we all love our families, and don’t want to think that death separates us.  Through sealing, we can be just like we are now, together as a family unit.  However, I do not see how this is different from the Catholic version of Heaven, where our loved ones will be with us as well, and we will not only be with our family, but will be part of the entire family of God in Heaven.  So, if we can be with our wives and husbands, sons and daughters, etc. for eternity, what is the difference with sealing then?

Latter-day Saints have a three tiered Heaven, called “Degrees of Glory”.  These three “levels” (as I call it) are the Celestial Kingdom (the highest), the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom.  The equivalent of Hell in the LDS Church is called “Outer Darkness”, where the “Sons of Perdition” go.  Latter-day Saints also believe in a concept called “exaltation”.  Exaltation is the highlest level within the Celestial Kingdom.  It essential means “godhood”.  To be exalted, one not only has to be baptized, confirmed, receive the priesthood (if male), etc., but they also have to receive their Endowment in the temple (the Endowment is a presentation of the Plan of Salvation, as well as where Mormons learn the signs and tokens necessary to go passed the angels, back to the Heavenly Father), and also be sealed, eternally married to their spouse.  If they are faithful to their covenants, they can become gods.  In Mormon theology, being exalted means that a husband and wife can become “Eternal Parents”, as the Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are.  They will make spirit children, as the Father and Mother did before us.

So, there are three degrees of Heaven, Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial, and the Celestial Kingdom itself is divided into three levels, the highest of which is exaltation, or godhood.  But is this three tier Heaven Biblical?  Although Mormons also have “modern revelation” relating to it, they also cite a few verses from the Bible that they say supports their view.  Let’s look at some of them:

Many Mansions?

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (EOM) lists John 14:2 as a reference to the many mansions in Heaven, thus alluding to the Degrees of Glory. But does this make sense in the Degrees of Glory theology? I don’t think so. Let’s look at it:
John 14:2 KJV
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Latter-day Saint apologists interpret these “mansions” as the three degrees of glory.  But is this correct?  Let’s look at the surrounding verses to see what they tell us about these “mansions”.

John 14:1-3 KJV
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

So, yes, Catholics fully agree that there are many “mansions” (translated as “rooms” or “dwelling places” in other translations) in God’s house. But what about in the Telestial Kingdom? From the EOM article, we see that the Doctrine and Covenants says that, in reference to the Telestial Kingdom, “where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, world without end.” (D&C 76:112). Only those in the Terrestrial and Celestial Kingdoms have the presence of Christ, and only those in the Celestial Kingdom dwell in the presence of God and Christ forever.

But look at John 14:3! It tells us that Jesus will go to make a place for us, and that when He comes again, He will receive us unto Himself, so that where He is, we will be also. Clearly, this excludes the Telestial Kingdom, since “where God and Christ dwell, they cannot come”, but Jesus tells us in John 14:3 that He will take us to where He is. So, these “mansions” that are created are not separate from Jesus Christ, He will take us to where He is also. So if anything, the Telestial Kingdom is not one of the mansions being discussed here.  Therefore, John 14:2 cannot be referring to the LDS degrees of glory at all.

Celestial and Terrestrial Bodies?

Mormons also reference 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 as referring to the Celestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms (the word “Telestial” is a Mormon word from modern day revelation), and that the difference between the 3 kingdoms is like the difference between the Sun, Moon, and Stars. Let’s look at 1 Cor 15:40-41:

1 Cor 15:40-41 KJV
40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

So yes, from these verses, it looks like they’re talking about the Celestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms, and the differences in glory between the Kingdoms.

Now, let’s look at those verses in context to see what they’re talking about:

1 Cor 15:35-45 KJV
35But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

What is the passage talking about in context? The resurrection of the body, and how our bodies are different after the Resurrection. Some ask, how are the dead raised up, and what body do they come? The passage then goes on to explain the difference between the flesh of men, the flesh of beast, fish, and birds. There is a difference between celestial and terrestrial bodies. There is a difference in the glory of the sun, moon, and stars. Then we step into verse 42. Just like in those differences that were discussed prior to verse 42, there is a difference between our bodies now and our bodies in the resurrection. Our bodies are sown in dishonor, but they will be raised in glory. We have a natural body right now, and it will be raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there’s a spiritual body. 35-45 is an extended analogy. The difference between our resurrected and our current bodies is like the differences mentioned prior to verse 42. They are both bodies, but they are different. Similarly, all living things have flesh, but the flesh of man is different from that of beasts, fish, and birds. The Sun, Moon, and Stars are all astronomical “balls”, but they are different in how bright they are. Clearly, in context, verses 40-41 have nothing to do with levels of Heaven, but are part of an analogy on the difference between our current bodies and our resurrected ones.

So from analyzing the verses related to “mansions” and “celestial and terrestrial bodies”, we see that the Bible does not discuss three levels of Heaven at all.  Latter-day Saints thus rely entirely on modern day revelation for this doctrine.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism-Degrees of Glory

Encyclopedia of Mormonism-Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase

Encyclopedia of Mormonism-Exaltation

Encyclopedia of Mormonism-Godhood

The Lost Symbol begins with a Freemason initiation ceremony at the House of the Temple, in Washington, DC.  The nameless character has been accepted into the highest degree in Scottish Rite Freemasonry, the 33rd Degree.  The number 33 will play an important role in this novel, as anyone familiar with religious/numerological symbolism can imagine.

Our familiar hero, Robert Langdon, professor of symbology at Harvard University, received a call from the secretary of one of his old friends, Peter Solomon, the head of the Smithsonian Institution.  The Smithsonian is holding an annual private event for the rich and famous (its supporters), which always includes a keynote speaker.  Unfortunately, on the day of the event, the original keynote speaker is now unavailable.  In desperation, Peter Solomon requests that Langdon replace the speaker, and give a speech on the symbolism in the architecture of Washington, DC.  Langdon relunctantly agrees, and is flown to DC.  Little does he know that by accepting this request, he is playing into the hands of the main antagonist.

Freemasonry is at the heart of this novel, and Dan Brown claims, as he always does, that “all rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real”.  However one can’t help but wonder if said rituals are being portrayed in their correct context, if we remember how the Da Vinci Code treated Opus Dei. In the Lost Symbol, we see a Freemasonry that is far from its “oldest fraternal society” and “simply a social group” portrayals by its members.  Instead, we learn about secret rituals, the use of sulfur, skulls and bones, drinking wine from a skull, an old pyramid, and the guarding of the Ancient Mysteries, which, if found out (and yes, they are revealed at the end), could change humanity forever.

Besides Freemasonry, the other philosophy that guides the plot is something called “Noetic Science“.  Noetic Science is at the intersection of mysticism and physics.  Its premise is that humanity is interconnected, and that our minds can do more than we can imagine.  With thought, we can influence the world around us, and when thoughts are amplified exponentially by having more than one person think the same thing at the same time, wonders can occur.  According to Katherine Solomon, Noetic scientist, brother of Peter Solomon, and “love interest” of Langdon, this philosophy is behind the efficacy of prayer groups, group healings, etc.  The antagonist recognizes the power of such a philosophy (which is being researched in secret by Katherine), and aims to prevent Solomon’s research from ever being released (seeing it as being tied to the Ancient Mysteries, which should remain a mystery).

Washington, DC provides an amazing backdrop for the story, and I must admit, after going to school there, I never saw DC in this way (frankly, I thought it was boring compared to New York City).  The House of the Temple is the scene of a lot of action, and its various secrets and symbolism add to the story. We discover various statues and paintings that we may not pay much attention to when visiting DC, such as the Apotheosis of Washington, a statue of George Washington as Zeus, and much more.  We think about the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Capitol Building, and other DC monuments in a whole new, ancient light.  In many ways, we see DC as a modern portrayal of an ancient, pagan city, with the Founding Fathers as the new gods.  It is a powerful image, and is a theme throughout the novel.

Overall, The Lost Symbol is a great book.  However, the ending left me wanting more.  If you have read the Da Vinci Code, you may know what I am referring to.  Both books have a similar ending, as far as what Langdon is searching for turns out to be.  While I can agree with what the Ancient Mysteries turn out to be, it was a little…disappointing, though that may be because I have some familiarity with some of the issues being discussed.  There is a lot of action in this novel, and many factoids that made me want to look them up to learn more about them (which I did).  Dan Brown successfully melds history and fiction, and even if he portrays one side of history (Langdon is not too fond of Christianity, for one), it is always interesting to see from that other side.  And one thing can be sure: the next time you visit Washington, you won’t see the monuments in the same light.