Tag: #Ask Fr. Leo

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – Why does the priest wash his hands at the Offertory?

Hey, Church fans! No time to post the homily this week. You can get the gist in the bulletin at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton’s website by clicking here: https://www.akseas.net. This week you get my latest column in the North Star Catholic. Enjoy.

Dear Fr. Leo:

     Why does the priest wash his hands during the offertory of the Mass?  Is it a remembrance of Pontius Pilate washing his hands in front of the crowd?  – M

Dear M,

     At first glance it would look like it, but it really doesn’t have anything to do with Pontius Pilate at all. It does have a lot to do with the early liturgies of Church. The offertory is a very important part of the Mass. Let’s put it into the larger context so you can see where washing of the celebrant’s hands comes in. 

     Holy Mass is both a true sacrifice and a shared, ritual meal. In the Old Testament, if you were going to offer sacrifice, you need four things: An altar, a priest, an offering or victim, and a reason.

     The ritual varied a little based on the reason for sacrifice, but typically it began when you brought your offering before the priest, i.e., the first fruits of your harvest or of your flock. It had to be unblemished because you always offered God your first and your best. You couldn’t just offer the heifer with the broken leg because you were going to get rid of it anyway. Once the priest laid hands on the victim, it was dedicated to God and could not be used for any other reason.  The animal was then slaughtered and its blood was poured out or sprinkled on the altar in the proscribed manner. The front left quarter was given to the priest for his payment. Certain other parts were placed upon the live coals on the altar to be burnt as an offering pleasing to God. Then you took the rest home and held a big party or sacrificial banquet. Thus, sacrifice and sacred eating are inseparable.  You never have the sacrifice without the meal and you never have the meal without the sacrifice. 

     There were four main reasons for offering a sacrifice.  There were sacrifices to give thanks, sacrifices to established covenants, sacrifices to forgive sins, and sacrifices to remember. The Church has always held that all previous sacrifices of all types were completed and perfected in the one, perfect sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The Mass is our real participation in that one, perfect sacrifice. This is reflected in the words of institution, especially over the cup where we hear the priest say,

     “At the end of the meal, he took the cup, and once more giving you thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying,

     ‘Take this all of you and drink from it.

This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant.

It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Do this in memory of me.”

     Four gifts are offered at the Mass in the Offertory.  The bread, the wine, our gifts of treasure, and ourselves. That’s why they are brought up by members of the congregation and presented to the celebrant.  Just like in sacrifices of old, whatever is offered is immolated and changed. But now instead of being burned and sent up as smoke, the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, the gifts of treasure become heat, light, salaries for parish staff and all the things that go into the life of the parish, and finally we offer ourselves that we might be transformed by the grace that we receive at the Altar and in the midst of the Sacred Assembly.

     These days, the collection is a pretty sanitary process. Depending on the parish you are at, you either plop your envelope or online giving chit in the basket at the foot of the altar or in the collection basket as it comes by. Not so in the days of yore. People would bring what they had, vegetables, grains, chickens, even lambs. After receiving the gifts of the people, the celebrant’s hands were pretty grimy. So, before handling the sacred vessels, he would clean himself up. 

     As time went on, society moved from an agrarian, barter system to a monetary system.  Eventually, the washing of the celebrant’s became part of the private spiritual purification rite of the celebrant before the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  It is accompanied by beautiful little prayers.  First, he prays on behalf of the people, “Lord, we ask you to receive us, be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.”  Then, while his hands are washed he says, “Wash me, O Lord, from my iniquities and cleanse me of my sins.” 

     Grace builds on nature. Like many things in the sacred liturgy, the washing of the celebrant’s hands, or the “Lavabo” as it is known, has a very practical origin that has taken on a very spiritual meaning. Hopefully, our own lives can be a reflection of the same. 

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – Christians in the Military? Why only Pilate in the Creed?

Dear Fr. Leo,

     Can a Christian be in the military?  What about the fifth commandment?  – G

Dear G,

     The quick answer is, “Yes, but only for the right reasons.”  Christian soldiers do not wage war indiscriminately. Rather, they are the agents of peace in the maintenance of legitimate self-defense. 

     The question is one of the oldest moral conundrums in the Church. It came to the fore in the early 4th century soon after the emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D. By the beginning of the 5th century, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. Things came to a head after the pagan armies sacked Rome in 410. Many had written on the subject before, but it was St. Augustine, in his classic work on religion and civil society, The City of God, who gave us the definitive articulation. Augustine said that Christians actually make the best soldiers because they only fight in just wars. Augustine’s articulation of what constitutes a just war still sets the context for public policy today. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2302-2317, Safeguarding Peace.) The taking up of arms for legitimate self-defense is only justified if all of the following conditions are met:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (CCC, par. 2309).  

The catechism goes on to say that only those with legitimate authority, namely, national governments have the responsibility of determining if these conditions are met. By the same token, governments may impose upon their citizens the obligations of defense. In times of national crisis, they can draft people into military service. In doing so, “Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” (CCC, par. 2310) 

     At the same time the Church is very clear that governments must also make allowances for those who in conscience cannot take up arms. However, “these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.” (CCC, par. 2311)

     In sum, Christians can and do serve honorably in the armed services, but they do so, not as “hawks” or aggressors, but under certain conditions and according to a strict moral code. Nations have a legitimate right to self-defense, but war is always the last resort when all other peaceful means of resolution of conflict have been exhausted. In the meantime, we all have an obligation to work actively to build up a more peaceful world, in our homes, in our parishes, our schools, and our communities so that armed conflict becomes not only unnecessary, but truly unthinkable. 

Dear Fr. Leo:

     Why is only Pontius Pilate named for his role in Christ’s crucifixion in our creed?  Why are the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes who persecuted, plotted, and paid blood money for Christ’s crucifixion not named?  – T

Dear T,

     That’s a good question. In fact, we could even take it even a step further. Why not name all of us other sinners as well? If you think about, we all had a role to play in the sufferings of Christ. That being said, I like the distinction you make that it was the religious authorities at that time, and not the whole Jewish people, who had a central role in the Passion of Christ.

     But in point of fact, the wording of the Nicene Creed has less to do with what went on at the time of Jesus than what was going on at the time the Creed was written. When the bishops met at Nicaea in 325 A.D, they were faced with the first major dogmatic crisis in the Church. The priest, Arius, a good Greek well-versed in the Greek philosophers, could not get his head around the notion that Jesus was truly human and truly divine. As a result, he rejected the divinity of Christ. He gained quite a following and caused much confusion and conflict in the Church. To resolve the matter, the emperor called a Council. Long story short, with the help of St. Leo the Great, the council fathers affirmed that while truly human, Christ was at the same time “of the same substance” as the Father. Furthermore, it was the whole Christ, not just half of him, who redeemed us by his suffering on the Cross, and who glorified us by his resurrection. I suspect that since Pilate was the legitimate Roman authority who gave the order, he was named in the Creed as a way of including all those involved. And, if you think about it, all of us are included a little earlier in the Creed with the phrase “For us…and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.” Thanks for the question!

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – What does is mean to say the Jesus “rose again.” / What if a pope becomes incapacitated?

Dear Fr. Leo:
In the Apostle’s Creed there is a phrase “rose again from the dead” and I was wondering about the word “again” in the phrase. Could you shed some light on that for me? – K

Dear K,

This is a puzzling question. As you know, in the Roman Rite, the official text is in Latin and what we are saying in English is a translation. The official translation of the Apostles Creed that you cite which reads, “rose again from the dead” is a traditional one that has been around for quite some time. It’s also the official one used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Paragraph 638.) and in the Roman Missal. The same is true for the official translation of the Nicene Creed.


The puzzling thing is that when we go to the Latin, we see that it simply says: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, “on the third day he rose from the dead.” The word for “again” (iterum) is simply not there.

What about looking at the Apostles Creed in Greek? Does that shed any light on the matter? Unfortunately, no. When we look at it: τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, we see that the verb ἀναστάντα is the present participle. Thus, the phrase translates, “the third day rising from the dead.” No help there.

So, we are left with a conundrum. Neither the Latin, nor the Greek texts have the word, “again” in them and yet, there it is in the official translation. How did it end up in official the English translation? Quite frankly, I haven’t a clue.

Translation is as much an art as a science. Every language is different and often what is readily apparent with a single word in one language will take several words in another to get the richness of the original meaning across. For example, Greek has different words for different kinds of love. Each one of those takes two or three words in English to get the meaning across. Philadelphos is translated “brotherly love.” Eros, can be translated as “erotic love” or “romantic love.” The context in which a particular word is used is also critical to accurate translation.

My best guess is that when our present translation was rendered, those who did so were attempting to convey the fullest meaning of the words in the Latin (and Greek) original. It makes sense in a way. The presence of “again” raises a subtle nuance. It brings to mind that Christ has passed from death to life. He was dead but has come to life again. He is “the Lamb once slain who lives forever.” (Preface III for Easter)

Dear Fr. Leo:
The pope is getting old. How long can he serve as pope? What happens if he is no longer able to perform his duties? On a side note, is there a mandatory retirement age for bishops? – H

Dear H,
To be precise, Pope Francis is 87 years old, and still going strong. We are truly blessed in this regard.

Canonically, the pope holds supreme executive, legislative and judicial authority in the Church. He can serve as long as he wants.

The venerable tradition has been for a pontiff to serve until death. In recent times we saw a beautiful example of this in Pope St. John Paul II who showed us the great dignity of one who serves even in the midst of great infirmity. However, a pope can also resign if he wants. Pope Benedict XVI gave us a great example of humility when, realizing that the Church would be better served by another in that office, graciously resigned in 2013. Although a pope can resign, it is quite rare. The last pope before Benedict to resign was Gregory XII, who stepped down in 1415.

But what if a pope becomes incapacitated? While there are canons that speak to succession of a bishop who has become incapacitated because of illness, captivity or exile, it is unclear if or how these can be applied to the Supreme Pontiff. Perhaps the best answer is to remember that the Holy Father is surrounded by the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia who assist him in his ministry. This assistance takes on different forms at different times throughout his pontificate. As we saw with John Paul II, when his own physical faculties were diminishing the College of Cardinals and the Curia stepped up their game so that his ministry could continue to be grace-filled and fruitful right up to the moment of his death.

As for your final question, according to Canon 401. §1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly. In short, while a bishop is asked to offer his resignation at age 75, that resignation must still be accepted by the Roman Pontiff. More often that not these days, a bishop will serve well beyond his 75th birthday. At present in the United States, there are 22 bishops, including 9 archbishops, who are serving over the age of 75.