Question and Answer with Father Kenny St. Hilaire held on May 5th 2026

I offer this disclaimer: I do not know everything so you know so it’s not that every answer to every question is going to be exhaustive or I mean there are some things that the Church has not defined explicitly so I’ll try to try to present an answer that at least satisfies to some degree the question. - Fr. St. Hilaire

Question 1: The last several words of the Glory Be “…and ever shall be world without end. Amen.” I thought that at the end of time when Christ comes again there would no longer be a world per se, but the Glory Be says otherwise. Is there a conflict between this prayer and end of the world? No. The answer is that there is not a conflict exactly. It just has to do with the translation of the Latin prayer especially the phrase “sequela secularum.” So ‘sequela’ is an ‘age’ or an ‘eon.’ So, the prayer in Latin is Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto. Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in saécula sæculórum. Amen.

So, what it is saying is ‘Glory’. Let all glory be to the Holy Trinity forever;  ages into ages of ages. “World without end” is just another expression for the term ‘forever’ so it IS not and the prayer does not intend to address what we believe about the end of the world or eternity. The world without end is simply a phrase that means ‘forever.’

Question 2: When Christ descended into hell he opened the kingdom of heaven. Upon his rise from the dead did he bring Adam and Eve into heaven? Yes.

Question 3: Actually, there is another question related and it says: “Why is it said when Jesus was crucified that he descended into hell?

Again, we are dealing with a language issue. When we hear ‘hell’ we think separation from God but the word that is translated ‘hell’ in this doctrine is the Hebrew ‘sheol ‘or the equivalent of the Greek ‘Hades’ and neither of those really refers to eternal separation from God. This is referring to what others have called the “limbo of the faith.” 

The timeline starts with creation over there and extends this way [Father pointing at the white board in the ICP library] so any of those righteous followers of God who lived in in this long period of time before Christ died, did not have a Savior. There was no Savior yet, so when they died, they did not suffer eternal separation from God. They are simply awaiting a Savior. So, there’s this concept of the “Limbo of the Fathers” which is kind of a holding pattern if you will. I meant to look up the scripture that that talked about Jesus’ descent to the dead, but I neglected to.

Anyway, the Church’s teaching is that after Jesus died, he did not descend into hell - the eternal separation from God – rather, he descended to the ‘Limbo of the Fathers’ to open up for them the gates to eternal life so to speak and bring them to him.

The icon we have at the back of the Immaculate Conception Church is not strictly speaking the Resurrection. It is depicting this concept because it shows Christ bringing Adam and Eve up from the grave. So, when you hear that in the Creed it does not mean that we believe Jesus was separated from God the Father in hell but rather he was going to the realm of the dead to bring those righteous souls to eternal life.

Question 4: Did, or does Jesus have a soul like ours? Yes

When we talk about a human soul we’re talking about the principle that animates a human being, right? If you had no soul, there would just be a dead body and an incomplete human being. But God, the Holy Trinity, God is being, God is life, so God does not need some some additional principle of life in him. He is life. It doesn’t even make sense to to speak of God without life, right?

So, God per se does not have a soul but the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus, the Word made flesh, does have a soul. There’s a principle in his human humanity that animates his humanity, his being and that is the soul, which is the human soul. So, he is as we know holy, divine, and fully human. He is like us in all things but sin so Jesus did and does have a human soul.

To expand on that or to go in another direction a little bit for a brief moment. “Hypostatic union” is the phrase that we use to describe the reality that in one person may have two natures. In Jesus we have divine nature and human nature complete. He is not half human. He is not all divine pretending to be a human. He’s not all human and not divine, just a really, really good person. He is fully divine and fully human so he has a divine will, and he has a human will. We can’t quite grasp what it means for one person to have two wills, but he did as well have a divine intellect and a human intellect.

One of the one of the classic questions about Jesus posed by theologians is what did he really know as a baby right out of the womb? Did he know every language spoken on earth? Did he know everything there is to know or did he know just what a baby knows?

Onto the next question. [laughter] We don’t know. I mean it’s the whole thing about having two intellects - he had a divine intellect from birth so you can say well in that sense he knew everything. But the scripture also says he learned. “He grew in wisdom and understanding.” Presumably, Joseph was the one teaching him carpentry not vice versa.

Question 5: Why do we genuflect on both knees when we come in for adoration versus one knee at all the other times?

There is a tradition in the Church that when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in the monstrance, we genuflect on both knees but actually the instruction given by the Church some decades ago is that It doesn’t forbid that certainly but it says that genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament whether exposed or reposed in the Tabernacle is on one knee.

We are going to touch on this topic in other questions but basically the Church establishes norms to give some instruction to the faithful about what to do but the norms are not absolute in the sense that this is what you must do and you can’t do anything else.

So, we see that when it comes to receiving Holy Communion there are two options there in terms of receiving in the hand or receiving directly on the tongue. The universal norm really is receiving on the tongue but the Church offers that option but it’s not that receiving in the hand is just out there I mean there’s permission for that too, but there is as I said we’ll get to it this topic on some other questions so I’m going to actually set that aside for the moment.

But genuflection on both knees before the exposed Blessed Sacrament is just an added degree of respect and reverence. I’m pretty sure that the reason that the Church said that genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament whether exposed or reposed is on one knee is just that it is the same Sacrament equally present. We wouldn’t say that the Sacrament becomes more present or that the Lord becomes more present suddenly when exposed on the altar. It is every bit as present there as in the Tabernacle wherever the Sacrament is.

Way back when there was that distinction, but some people still continue to do that. I will do that a lot of the time, but I don’t do it absolutely every time I pass before the Blessed Sacrament exposed on two knees, sometimes just one - especially if I’m carrying something.

But to answer the question, it is still done today as a matter of tradition even though the Church has said you don’t have to do to genuflect on both knees.

Question 6: Can you explain who Melchizedek is or was and his significance in priestly ordination. “You are a priest forever like Melchizedek of old.”

Melchizedek is a bit of a mysterious figure. He appears in Genesis 14, and it gives us very little Information. It simply says “Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine and being a priest of God Most High he blessed Abram with these words ‘Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the Creator of heaven and earth and blessed be God Most High who delivered your foes into your hand.”

So, Melchizedek is a priest but he’s not in the hereditary priestly line of Levites - he's before that time. The twelve tribes of Israel came along after long after Melchizedek. That is similar to Christ - Christ not in that priestly line. His priesthood is not the hereditary thing even though he comes from the line of David so there’s an element I mean certainly his his identity as king comes through that line but also the fact that Melchizedek offered bread and wine which the Church understands that as a foreshadowing of Christ. The fact that his priesthood is not hereditary points to it being more universal and eternal.

Priestly ordination is the conferral of a Sacrament by which a man is conformed to Christ, the priest, whose priesthood is eternal and universal and not tied to that hereditary line. I’m not from the tribe of Levi as far as I know.

Does the Levite lineage go back to Aaron? No, Levi would have been before Aaron. Aaron is in Exodus and Levi is in Genesis. Abraham and his sons and then Jacob who was renamed Israel had the twelve sons one of whom was Levi. I don’t know for sure the connection between Aaron and Levi but if I had to guess I would say the Aaron came from the line of Levi. I wouldn’t stake my life on it.

There’s not a whole lot said about Melchizedek. There’s reference in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament.

Question 7. Where did the teaching of Original Sin come from?

I don’t know how far back when that exact phrase was used to describe reality, but the reality has been there since the fall. We all know the story of Adam and Eve, the disobedience of what God had told them about eating of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden and fruit the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil. So, this rupture was introduced to the relationship between God and humanity and that rupture basically is passed down by the very fact of human generation.

Someone who is not in friendship with God or in in their nature is not in friendship with God generates children who are not by their nature in friendship with God. So, original sin is different than personal sin. We don’t have a personal responsibility for original sin. It is not our fault that when we came into this world, we were not in friendship with God. Baptism is given to us by the Lord as the sacrament that that restores friendship with God and gives us new life and opens up all of the possibilities that that relationship with God entails.

I don’t know how right this is, but I think of original sin more in terms of lack of friendship than sin because when we talk about sin we ultimately default to ‘personal sin’ and something that is our fault and that we’re that we’ve done wrong. The Church teaches, of course, that it is original sin but it’s different from personal sin and it just refers to basically that rupture of friendship between God and humanity which is ours because we came into the world when we did and not before the fall.

Question 8: The number 3, 7 and 40 are used in the Bible a lot. Is there a reason?

I know some of the reasons or some of the significance of numbers but not all of them. The number seven usually indicates completeness in some way. For example, in the story of Creation we have God creating all that exists in the course of six days, and you could say well then six should mean completion because he was done after six. But Genesis goes on to describe that seventh day and it seems that when God rests on the seventh day then the story is complete. So, seven indicates some sort of perfection or completeness. Seven sacraments, for example.

The number six connotes incompletion or even evil like something’s wrong. Think about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man stepped over Lazarus every day as he went out of his house. Basically Lazarus, the poor man begging at his door. And then the rich man says that he has five brothers. So, there’s six of them all together and something’s wrong. If he had treated the poor man as a brother, then there were seven of them then there would have been goodness and completeness.

Forty is a number that occurs very often. Forty years in the desert or forty days in the desert when Jesus was tempted. I don’t exactly know what the significance or deepest meaning is of forty. I don’t know if it simply signifies like a large number like it was a long time or if there is something deeper than that.

Twelve is another really significant number. Twelve tribes, the twelve times twelve and so forth. Was twelve considered a generation or was that twenty or was it forty? I don’t know – forty seems long for a generation. I would think that twenty would be more likely to be a generation.

Question 9: It is said that there are other books about Jesus’ life that are not in the Bible. Is this true and who decides what information is included in the Bible we have now?

That is a good question. It touches on the Church’s authority to discern the Canon. That’s canon with two ‘n’s instead of three which is basically a list. What is the official list of the books that belong in the Bible? The Church has defined that.

I’ve heard people say that it was in the three hundreds -I think the official list came somewhat later than that - but in any case, the Church has listed all these books and said these are inspired by God. Other books, other writings even from the very early times in the Church or in the history of Christianity, the Church has looked at and said we don’t believe that those are inspired by God.

There are lots of different gospels, for example. I think there’s a gospel of Philip; a gospel of Thomas; a gospel of Mary Magdalene; a gospel of James but the Church doesn’t say that those are inspired by God. The Church does say that the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark and Luke and John are all divinely inspired. It is ultimately the Church that we trust to issue that teaching by her divine authority so we don’t just regard that as the decision of a few people who got together and said we like this one and we don’t like that one so let’s call this one official. But we trust that it was actually the Holy Spirit guiding the Church in the establishment of the Canon - that official list of inspired works.

Other books about Jesus’ life that are that are not in the Bible - we would call those ‘apocryphal books’ - like all those gospels I mentioned. It is not that the Church is saying that those are without any value. The Church is simply saying we don’t we don’t really regard those as divinely inspired.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I don’t know all of the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls but many of them contain Scripture. They contain writings for the prophets and the Pentateuch and so forth. They may have included some of the other writings as well that are that we would call apocryphal.

The Protestant tradition calls seven of the books that we have in our Bible apocryphal. Anyone name them?

Maccabees? Yes, that’s two of them. Esther, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, parts of Daniel, like the story of Susanna is not in the Protestant Bible. Anyway, we call those deuterocanonical books. I think apocryphal simply means something hidden. Deuterocanonical: deutero means second so it’s like a second list but I couldn’t tell you the whole history of why that that term was point.

Anyway, we have seven more books than a Protestant Bible. I believe some of the Orthodox have even more books than we have but I’m not expert on that either. There are there are writings from the early centuries that pertain to Jesus that are not in the Bible. The Church in as far as she was aware of those at the time would have reviewed those and not seen them to be divinely inspired.

Question 10: How would the laity know if we have a bad Pope? Would we even know?

 That’s a good question. There are lots of people who look at what a Pope says or decisions that a Pope makes and deem him a bad Pope. I don’t think ‘bad Pope’ is technical theological term. There have certainly been popes in the history of the Church that were corrupt and behaved badly.

I think what this question is probably getting at is more doctrinally related. If a Pope comes along and is officially teaching to the contrary of established Church doctrine, we would say well that’s bad. But we also have to distinguish between the development of doctrine and going against doctrine and there’s lots and lots and lots of ink that’s been spilled over that question because sometimes a development or what some call a development might look to others like a contradiction.  I would say the way the laity would know is if there is a really, really, blatant, obvious and certain contradiction of established Church teaching.

Question 11: Where do the Borgia popes come in then?

Big sinners, huh? Mega. Obviously on the wrong side. The son becoming Pope because his father was. Pretty much outliers. A person’s sinfulness does not negate their identity or the work they did, the good they contributed. I mean we all know that there have been in very recent times immoral clergy. I mean there’s been terrible behavior carried out by men of the cloth. That doesn’t erase the sacrament of Holy Orders, right? They need to be removed from ministry; they can’t continue doing what they were doing but their identity is still ‘priest’ because ‘priest’ is not just a job. It is an identity. There is a Sacrament that confers an identity.

So, no, being Pope you’re not ordained Pope. It is not an identity per se, but a similar principle applies that just because a man becomes Pope and then does immoral things doesn’t mean he’s not a Pope. He was still legitimately elected presumably so he remains in that until … I mean maybe there would be situations where his behavior could lead to his removal from that ministry. I’m pretty sure that that could happen, but I guess what I’m saying is we don’t have to question that someone was a valid Pope because of their immoral behavior.

If they were officially teaching in their role as Pope a contradictory doctrine, then you have to start wondering what happened here because the Holy Spirit guarantees the truth of the Church; basically that the Church will not fall into error in matters of faith and morals. It is a big topic.

Question 12: When the Pope speaks infallibly what things can he speak that way about? Is there a certain class?

Only matters pertaining to faith and morals like doctrine and morals in very limited circumstances. For example, if the Pope is on the plane and gives an interview and he makes some comment about morality, we shouldn’t read the interview and say, ‘Oh he just issued an infallible statement about morality.’ Infallible statements are issued very rarely and with very, very, precise language so that it is clear that he’s speaking, that he’s invoking the charism of infallibility when he’s making this statement. It is very rare which is good. I mean I don’t think you would want popes throwing infallible statements out left and right all the time. He’d have his theologians very busy working to make sure that he was not straying.

Question 13: May a Catholic attend a Christian denominational church if a relative or friend asked them to go? It would not be a regular attendance but probably a rare occurrence. Would it be considered as a sin to simply be present?

It would not be sinful. I think the only way they would venture into the territory of sin would be it would depend on their own personal engagement in what’s going on. So, if you go to another denomination service and they are teaching something contrary to the Church and you’re saying, “Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.” Okay, well you are not on right track embracing wrong teachings. You would not receive communion if you were to go and participate. But if you went and you listened to the proclamation of Scriptures and you sang songs of praise and you know and did that kind of thing that, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. You might even have an opportunity to bear witness to give testimony to others who are there.

So, it just depends on how fully you are embracing what’s being presented there. But to step foot in the door certainly there’s nothing objectionable about that. I would say also this would be in addition to going to Mass on Sunday if we’re talking about Sunday worship. You wouldn’t replace going to Mass with going with a friend or relative to that service. There is nothing wrong with engaging in dialog with someone who sees things differently than you. That’s actually a really good thing to do engage in dialog with someone who sees things differently. It doesn’t mean that you have to embrace everything that they propose but you can listen and discern what’s good and what is not.

Question 14: Why is Confession sometimes referred to as Reconciliation?

This is a good question. The Sacrament actually has a number of names Confession and Reconciliation are just two of them. It is an indication of what happens there. Confession is what you do - that’s what you are doing when you are confessing that you have sinned. But that’s not all that happens. You are also receiving forgiveness. God is forgiving the guilt that you’ve incurred through sin. That’s definitely an important aspect of Confession.

But then we’re also talking about a relationship. If someone does something wrong to me, I can forgive them without ever saying another word to them. I can forgive that sin I don’t hold it against them, wish them all the best and never talk to them again. We can part ways but on good terms. We can say, “You did that to me, and I forgive you but I’m not hanging out with you anymore.” That’s forgiveness - you’re not holding a grudge against the person you’ve forgiven.

Reconciliation is different in that it implies the restoration of the relationship. When we go to Confession, we’re not only relieved of the guilt of our sin - receiving forgiveness - we are also restored to the relationship with God that became ours in our Baptism and that relationship is strengthened and deepened. I think calling it a Sacrament of Reconciliation highlights the relational nature of the sacrament.

Question 15:  Can you gain an indulgence for others?

Yes, the Church teaches that you can obtain indulgences for yourself even while you are still living. I don’t think you can gain indulgences for yourself after you die but you can gain indulgences for yourself or for another person who is already deceased, but you can’t obtain indulgences for someone else who’s still living. They can obtain indulgences for themselves and for the dead.

But yes, and that is a praiseworthy thing to do. If you are looking at opportunities to obtain an indulgence and you think of someone else instead of just your own spiritual wellbeing that is a very loving thing to do.

And certainly when it comes to All Souls Day or the anniversary of a loved one’s death and times like that, you know we are thinking of them; we are praying for them; we are desiring eternal life for them so to go through the steps if you will to obtain an indulgence could be a very loving thing to do for them.

Question 16:  Are we supposed to abstain from me every Friday? If so, can we put that in the bulletin? [laughter]

The Church has established days of fasting and abstinence. There are two days of fasting - Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. And then there are six or seven days of when abstinence from meat is required Ash Wednesday and every Friday of Lent.

Now the Church also teaches us that every Friday we ought to offer some kind of penance or sacrifice some self-denial to remember the gift of Christ - his death on Good Friday and what He did for us. So, if we offer up a little something on a Friday it’s a good way of being mindful of what the Lord did for us. But the Church says that it doesn’t have to be abstinence from meat. You could do something else. When I grew up, we just abstained from meat most Fridays all year round and that way you don’t have to come up with something else.

The answer is that we are not required to abstain from meat every Friday, but we ought to offer some sort of sacrifice in remembrance of Jesus’ gift for us and I suppose we could put that in the bulletin.

Question 17:  Why do you break off a small portion of the host and put it into the chalice before consuming the Eucharist during Mass?

There are two main reasons for this. One is a very ancient reason and that is that in the early days of the Church there would actually be a particle of the bishop’s Eucharist where he was celebrating Mass - part of the host from there would be taken to other places where Mass was being celebrated. And then in those places that particle would be mingled with the precious Blood in the chalice. So, it was a sign of unity. It shows we’re all celebrating the same Eucharist. We are all united even though we’re in different places.

Obviously that practice has been discontinued. The bishop doesn’t send the host from his Mass up here so that we can mix them. But in the early Church where there weren’t as many churches and they were in closer proximity like if you’re in the city of Rome. And I don’t know if that was like every Sunday or how frequent it would have been, but it would certainly be a sign of unity like all of these are in union with this bishop.

The second the second reason is a little more theological and it has to do with it has to do with the fact that the separation of flesh and blood constitutes death. So, one of the reasons that the body and blood of Christ are consecrated separately is to signify that this is a re-presentation of the death of Christ. I mean the priest theoretically could just take the bread and say this is my body and blood. But no, he consecrates the two species separately. The body and blood of Christ were separated in his death. His blood was poured out as he when he died on the cross.

The mingling or co-mingling or co-mixture is to signify that we are not only celebrating and making present the death of Christ but also his Resurrection. He’s resurrected; he’s alive. So, there’s no longer the separation of body and blood that constitutes death. They are united in the Resurrection. So that’s the taking the small particle of the host and placing it in the chalice.

What does the priest say during that co-mingling?

 “May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.”

Question 18:  Do we put up do we put our hands up? Out? Or hold hands or fold our hands during the Our Father at Mass?

Well, what does the Church tell us to do? The Church doesn’t tell us to do any of that. The Church says, “And now the priest says, ‘Formed by divine teaching we dare to say Our Father who Art in Heaven.’

The Church doesn’t explicitly state what the faithful are supposed to do at that point. When there’s an ‘instruction’ i.e., the faithful stand, the faithful sit, the faithful kneel - those are all specified. So, I think you could argue that the Lord’s Prayer doesn’t call for any particular outward expression like that. It doesn’t say “Now everyone joins hands.” It doesn’t say “Now, everyone lifts up hands” or anything like that it. It says, “We pray the Lord’s Prayer” so I would say that’s the norm.

The norm is holding our hands however we were holding them before. But as I said before the norms don’t preclude everything else. If there is a person standing in the church and we’re praying the prayers and they feel moved to lift up their hands, I am not going to yell, “You! Put your hands down!” Does the instruction say to do that? No, but if the person is moved to do that, okay.

There is this kind of wiggle room and other postures are similar. The bishops conference establishes norms for receiving Communion. Like I said you can receive on the tongue, you can receive in the hand but then there’s a question of what is the sign of reverence that is offered before you receive? So, the United States Bishops Conference says the norm is to make a bow of the head. Well, if the Holy Spirit is stirring in you and urging you to do something else like a genuflection or some people receive kneeling down, I don’t see any reason to deny that. Or in fact, the Church says someone who is kneeling down for Communion should not be denied Holy Communion. But the Church doesn’t say that that is the norm. The bishops say that the norm is standing up and the sign of reverence is a bow of the head.

By establishing that norm, they are not answering the question what form or what expression of reverence does Jesus in the Eucharist deserve? That is not the question that they are trying to answer because if you are answering that question would be flat on our face, right? I mean prostrate in adoration of God. They are saying what is a reasonable way to express reverence that pretty much everyone can do. Not everyone can genuflect or or kneel down on both knees or whatever, right? So, they’re just saying this is the norm but then when it comes to norms if someone has a good reason to do something else that is within reason, then I don’t have a problem with that. Some have a problem with that; I don’t have a problem with that. It seems like the bishops say the norm is standing up but someone who’s kneeling shouldn’t be denied Communion. It seems that they’re also saying you shouldn’t worry too much if someone is moved in their heart to do something different. Allow them to do that.

So, they established norms I think because unity is desirable. Uniform expression is an expression of unity but it’s not an absolute dictum. Does that make sense? Yes.

Question 19:  When we come out of the pew, why don’t we genuflect before and after Communion?

The first thing we should say is that when we genuflect it doesn’t really have anything to do with the pew. Sometimes we think the rule is when I get to my pew, I genuflect before I go in the pew and I genuflect when I come out of the pew right, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the pew.

Our practice is that we genuflect when we pass before the Blessed Sacrament. But I think the custom has arisen because it’s just easier. Let’s say when you are walking down the middle aisle to take your place, and then suddenly you genuflect and the person behind you trips over you. It is just a custom to genuflect before you go into your pew, but the real reason is you are passing in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

Now during Mass, the focal point shifts from the Tabernacle to the altar because the altar is Is the is the place where the main action happens. The altar and the ambo also but principally the altar. You will notice that when I walk from my chair over to the pulpit instead of genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle I bow to the altar because the altar has become the focal point and we don’t genuflect to the altar. The altar is not God; God is in the Tabernacle. That is why we genuflect - on the right knee.

And so, I think that kind of answers your question as to why we don’t genuflect when we’re going up to Communion when coming out of the pew because the altar is still the focal point but then after when Mass is over, you genuflect. Outside of Mass, genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament when you pass in front of it and then during Mass, a bow to the altar of your passing that same way. And honestly, I think some people would debate what I just said so that it is not an absolute rule in every place.

Question 20: Could you explain the garb of a priest? What are the layers they suit up in for Mass and why do they tie such funny knots, anyway?

I brought a demonstration. The first article of clothing is an amice. The priest kisses the small cross on the amice and it puts it on top of the head. The prayer in English: “Place upon my head O Lord, the helmet of salvation to protect me from the assaults of the enemy.” The purpose of the amice, practically speaking, is to cover up the street clothes and also to protect the vestments from oils from the skin and stuff like that. Very practical.

The next garment is the alb coming from the Latin word meaning ‘white.’ I know this is off white. The prayer is “Clothe me O Lord and purify my heart that is washed in the blood of Christ.” Sorry, I just know the Latin and I can’t translate on the fly very well. Anyway, it’s a sign of Baptism. The prayer is “Purify my heart and let me live in accordance with the reality of my Baptism.”

The next part is the cincture. “Gird me old Lord with the cincture of purity that the virtue of continence and chastity may always remain in me.” It is a sign of chastity and self-governance, self-control.

The stole is next. There’s usually a little cross there so the priest kisses the cross on the stole and then puts on the stole and says, “Restore unto me 0 Lord the stole of immortality that was lost through the sin of my first parents.” The stole is actually a sign of authority. And then with this style of vestment the stole is usually crossed; with others it just hangs straight down.

But here’s the answer to the knot question. This knot allows for tightening. It is basically a slipknot so it’s not falling down all the time can tighten it, so it stays put - the stole stays in place. “Although I am unworthy to approach your sacred mysteries, grant nonetheless eternal joys.” Or something like that. I better brush up on my Latin as I am going to celebrate a Latin Mass in Spokane.

Then the last part is the chasuble which signifies charity. It covers all. It is important that it goes on after the authority piece of clothing. Charity is more important than authority. “Lord who said, ‘My yoke is easy and my burden light,’ grant that I may so carry it as to obtain unending delights.” With this style it ties around here and then I tie it under here in a little bow.

Now, there are other vestments. If I am going to do Benediction Instead of a chasuble, I put on a cope. A cape is floor length usually. I don’t know of a prayer that’s prayed to go with the cope but seems like there should be one.

Question 21: 1 Corinthians 15:29 “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"

This is a section of that letter where Paul is basically speaking about the veracity of the Resurrection. The part before this he says if there is no Resurrection of the Dead then our faith is in vain. What are you doing? Our preaching is worthless and so on and so forth. He is not in this verse indicating that that’s what they do. He is likely pointing to a local custom.

1 Corinthians 15: “But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead how can some of some among you say there is no Resurrection of the dead? If there’s no resurrection of the dead then neither has Christ been raised and if Christ has not been raised then empty too, is our preaching. Empty too is your faith” and so forth. He's pointing to this practice of being baptized on behalf of the dead. We don’t have much detail about what was going on in that place by people who lived there. Maybe they embraced some of the basic principles of faith but maybe they had introduced some other practices like being baptized on behalf of the dead.

Paul is not endorsing that practice. He’s pointing to the fact that they must believe in the Resurrection if they’re doing this practice. It would be pointless to go through that Baptism on behalf of the dead if you didn’t believe there was a Resurrection. So, I think he is trying to strengthen the argument for the Resurrection even by pointing to a practice that even though it’s not standard, points to belief in the Resurrection.

Is that scripture reading where Mormons believe in baptism for the dead?

I think so. That is one of the reasons they are so strong on genealogy is that they can find out the names of more people that could be baptized on behalf of. I don’t think that appears anywhere else. We as Catholics have never taken that as an endorsement of that practice.

Paul concludes his treatment of logical inconsistencies with a listing of miscellaneous Christian practices that would be meaningless if the Resurrection were not a fact. This practice is not further explained here nor is It necessarily mentioned with approval, but Paul cites it as something in their experience that attests in one more way to belief in the Resurrection.

Question 22:  The numbering of the Psalms

The numbering of the Psalms is different in different Bibles. There are kind of two standard numberings that sometimes you might find a Psalm referred to like this. [Father wrote on the board] When it comes to this question it is actually dealing with the matter of what manuscripts we have and what are the oldest manuscripts we have of the Old Testament writings.

In Hebrew, our oldest manuscripts are called the Masoretic Text. It dates to somewhere around 1,000 AD. Then in Greek we have the Septuagint which is referred to as LXX which is a translation into Greek of the Hebrew Old Testament. And interestingly it includes those seven books that most Protestant Bibles do not include. But our manuscripts of the Septuagint are much older than the Masoretic Text but they’re in a different language. They are in Greek instead of the original Hebrew.

In any case, the Masoretic Text divies up the numbers of the Psalms. It still has 150 but they are separated differently so the division of these biblical texts into chapters and verses is not typically included in the original or the ancient documents. If you went to the Dead Sea Scrolls, you are not going to see Isaiah 40 23:16. You are going to see “Isaiah” and the text of Isaiah. It is later that the numbers and divisions are introduced.

The Masoretic Text has the Psalms divided in a certain way. Let’s say it is represented this way, and they’ve got you know 123456 all the way to 150 and then you have the Septuagint text has all the same words, all the same text. Psalm one lines up; line two lines up; line 3 lines up. But when you get down to what the Masoretic Text has as Psalm 9 and Psalm 10, the Septuagint calls that 9. So, both of these kind of get condensed into that. So, what they have is two psalms there this text numbers as one so then it’s behind by one right so then number 23 over here is number 22 down here.

But they both end at 150 so when this gets to 113, 114 this one does the same thing again and it is 112, I believe. But when it comes to 115 then this this one splits it into two so it turns it into 113 and 114 but it’s still one behind until it gets to 146 and 147 maybe and then those two merge into 147 and then they end up 148 149, 150 together.

But it just has to do with what texts they are using for their translation. So, most Bibles these days are using the Hebrew numbering, the Masoretic Text numbering.

The Douay–Rheims Bible - that’s an old Catholic translation - it would follow this numbering and there are some others that follow that but more and more modern bibles seem to be going with the Hebrew numbering which is interesting because this is a more ancient document, but there you have it.

There is a tradition that 70 elders independently translated the Hebrew into Greek and then they all matched up with the same translation.

Question 23:  What are the degrees a priest has? What are your degrees? Are there still high school seminaries? Are religious under the authority of Bishop Daly - sisters and priests.

A priest has either a degree in philosophy or an equivalent number of credits and then a degree in theology and then sometimes he’ll have advanced degrees beyond that. In the United States, he would have typically a bachelor’s degree in philosophy or equivalent and then a master’s degree. It could be an MA in Theology, or it could be a Master of Divinity called the MDiv. Those are the two typical theological degrees in the United States.

In the European or the Pontifical System, there is the STB which is the Bachelor of Sacred Theology. There’s the STL which is the License in Sacred Theology this is more specialized so it would have a specialization like Scripture or Law or Dogma, or Liturgy things like that. And then of course the next one is STD the Doctor of Sacred Theology which is slightly unfortunate in English but that’s what it is.

I have the STL degree. My discipline is spiritual theology. I like to call it mystical theology - that sounds more impressive, doesn’t it? That took longer than a regular degree. In the European system the STB is usually three years and then the STL typically takes another two. It took me the full five years.

Are there so high school seminaries?

Very few. I believe there’s one in Brooklyn unless it closed recently. Mater Cleri Seminary was a Catholic high school seminary operated by the Diocese of Spokane in Colbert from 1962 to 1974.

Are our religious under like sisters and priests under the authority of Bishop Daly?

Yes, to a certain degree. The bishop has jurisdiction in his own territory. While religious communities do have their own superiors but as long as that community is within the geographical area that is within the diocese, that bishop has a certain authority. When it comes to Gonzaga University, for example, they have their own superior on site, but when it comes to liturgical matters and things like that, they’re still under the umbrella of the local bishop. Or the Sisters of Providence running hospitals or the Dominican sisters. All of that is under the umbrella of the bishop’s jurisdiction even though he is not really the one who is doing their day-to-day operations and governing that.

Question 24: Is it better to pray for the living or the dead?

I don’t know, I think it would be in some sense better to pray for the living because they still have the chance of growing in greater holiness, but it is definitely important to pray for the dead because they can’t pray for themselves. They don’t have any way of really helping themselves with the purification of their souls, they’re very dependent on the rest of the Church.

Question 25: How many years does it take to become a priest?

 It varies anywhere from probably five to nine years.

Question 26: Does Holy Water ever expire?

No, just when it evaporates. There’s theological debate about the blessing of holy water. For example when the holy water font goes down halfway can you just add more regular water and it’s blessed then the whole thing becomes blessed or do you re bless it? I re bless. I would be on the side that it needs to be re-blessed.

Question 27:  What is the one thing that you, Father Kenny, worry about in the Church? Running out of priests? Bad popes? Non-believers?

Honestly, I don’t worry too much about the Church in a fearful or anxious way because if humanity were going to run the Church into the ground it would have happened by now. Clearly the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the whole course of history is in God’s hands.

I hate to see division in the Church. That is one of the things that does trouble me. Just on all kinds of different matters. Christianity is severely splintered in the world of today. These are sad divisions. It would be a beautiful thing to see all Christians united.

I think the one thing that kind of burns in my mind and in my heart is not so much a worry as a desire and along with that desire is a question. The desire is that everyone would know the Lord. The question is how do we get there? How do we evangelize? How do we win more hearts over to the Lord and as I’ve said many times the harvest is abundant out there. There’s only maybe one and a half percent of the population in our area the goes to Mass. So that that’s kind of the thing that I am really excited about.

Father concluded the Q&A session with prayer.

The complete one hour and thirty one minute audio is available to listen to or download below.  Click on the three dots on the right of the audio to download the file.