|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 1, Number 8
 August 1990 
|
|
|
DID JESUS DIE ON A CROSS OR A STAKE?
Q: A Jehovah's Witness told me Christ wasn't put to death on a cross, but on an upright stake. She said that the cross originated in paganism.
A: As an instrument of torture and execution, the cross did originate in paganism, but that's not what your Witness friend meant. She meant its use within Christian circles had its origin in the pagan corruption of the early Church.
According to Fr. John McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible, which Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of citing as allegedly supporting some of their beliefs, "The cross on which Jesus was crucified was either the T-shaped crux commissa or the dagger-shaped crux immissa or capitata. The latter form is suggested by the fact that the title was affixed above His head (Matt. 27:37). Since the execution of Jesus was committed to Roman soldiers, it is altogether probable that the Roman manner of execution was followed."
Your friend doesn't have to rely on what a Catholic writer says. The New World Translation of the Bible itself suggests Christ died on a cross. In John 20:25 Thomas, when questioning the Resurrection of Jesus, declares, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe."
Note that Thomas refers to the print of the nails (plural) in Christ's hands, which points to a crucifixion, not the print of the nail (singular), as would be expected if the Lord were nailed to an upright stake.
Q: A Fundamentalist and I were discussing infant baptism. He brought up Mark 16:16, saying one must believe first and then be baptized--not the other way around as with infant baptism. He also said that John 3:5 uses the word "man" (KJV) and thus doesn't support infant baptism. How do I reply to this?
A: Fundamentalists point to Mark 16:16 as demonstrating the necessity of faith in order to be saved, but they stop half way. The passage says one who believes will be saved. The Catholic Church teaches this too. But it also includes baptism in addition to believing--something which Fundamentalists who cite the passage conveniently ignore.
Many Fundamentalists, while claiming Mark 16:16 teaches the absolute necessity of faith, don't really believe this. They make exceptions--for example, for infants who die without coming to faith in Christ.
If faith isn't necessary for an infant to be saved, why is it necessary that an infant be baptized? The Catholic Church teaches that faith is a prerequisite for receiving the sacrament of baptism in the case of an adult. Since an infant is incapable of making such an act of faith for himself, he isn't require to do so.
So far as John 3:5 goes, the Greek word translated "man" in the King James is tis, an indefinite pronoun, which really means a certain one or someone--in other words, a human being. Since infants are human beings, they're included.
Q: I read a biblical scholar who said you can't reconcile the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. He wrote, "There are different stories in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke that defy harmonization; in the former the heavenly communication about the child to be born is made to Joseph, but in the latter to Mary. One cannot claim without further ado that it actually came to both of them!"
A: The biblical scholar whom you quoted is exaggerating. He seems to be creating a difficulty rather than discovering one in the text. Be wary of scholars who use contradiction as the explanation of first resort when interpreting Scripture. This isn't standard operating procedure with secular historians in their field, so why should it be in biblical studies?
There's no problem reconciling the two accounts because there's nothing to reconcile. Matthew mentions an angelic communication given to Joseph in a dream (Matt. 1:20). Luke mentions one given to Mary (Luke 1:26-38). Neither account claims to be exhaustive, and neither claims that communication occurred only to the person mentioned. And there's no logical difficulty with an angel speaking to both of them about Mary's pregnancy.
Under the circumstances, it's obvious Mary would have been told. Wouldn't it be strange if Joseph hadn't been notified? After all, virginal conceptions were as extraordinary then as they are now. It's to be expected that some sign would have been given to Joseph indicating the child's conception was the work of the Holy Spirit.
There's certainly no internal, literary problem with angelic communications being given to both Mary and Joseph such that you could say the accounts "defy harmonization." The story flows quite fine as it is.
Q: Why is there a difference between the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments and the Protestant one?
A: Differences between Christians over the enumeration of the Ten Commandments shouldn't surprise us. The Bible itself gives slightly different versions of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21.
In Exodus, a man's wife is ranked with his possessions as part of his household. In Deuteronomy, the wife is distinguished from a man's possessions. If you follow Exodus, the prohibitions against coveting a neighbor's wife and his property could be counted as one commandment. If you follow Deuteronomy, they could be counted as two separate commandments. This is mainly a difference in emphasis.
If the biblical number ten is to be maintained (Deut. 4:13; 10:4; Ex. 34:28), then what is given as a single commandment in one book must be divided into two in the other. Catholics and Lutherans generally follow Deuteronomy in counting prohibitions against coveting another's wife and property as two separate commandments.
Most Protestants count these together and regard the prohibitions against idols and the worship of false gods as two distinct commandments, which Catholics and Lutherans regard as one.
Interestingly enough, modern Jews take a third route. They separate the introductory phrase "I am the Lord your God" (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) from the prohibition against false gods and idols, which they count as one commandment. The commandments against coveting a neighbor's wife and his property are listed as one prohibiting covetousness.
Catholics, Protestants, and Jews accept the entire Decalogue. What they differ on is how its components should be numbered, something which, in view of what is held in common by these three groups, is unimportant.
Q: I've never heard this one before, have you? The Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. Her Son said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), therefore, Jesus is his own Father.
A: The question betrays a confusion about how Jesus and the Father are one. Christians don't believe Jesus and the Father are the same person, but that they possess the same nature. Remember the Trinity means there are three persons with one divine nature in God, not three persons in one person.
We can't, of course, fully appreciate what it means to say this. The Trinity is, after all, a supernatural mystery--something which we can't fully grasp. Yet we do know it doesn't mean three persons equals one person.
Keep in mind the difference between person and nature. Person refers to who someone is. Nature refers to what something is. The doctrine of the Trinity says there are three who's (persons) in one what (nature). When we say Jesus and the Father are one, we mean one in nature, in what they are--God. At the same time, when speaking of their persons, we also say the Son is not the Father--they're not the same person.
An excellent explanation of the Trinity is available in Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity.
Q: A friend baptized his baby at home. He says this was approved by his priest, who was present. Is this okayed by the Church?
A: No. According to canon law (canon 861), the ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon. If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded from performing the baptism, someone else deputed to do so by the local ordinary may baptize. In an emergency anyone can baptize, provided he does so with the intention to do what the Church does. Since the situation you describe satisfies none of these conditions, it's not a licit baptism, although it may still be valid.
Q: What are the precepts of the Church?
A: They're duties which Catholics are expected to observe. Most organizations have rules to be followed to foster stability and growth. The Church is no different. Lists of Church precepts have varied according to the needs of the age. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops formulated such a list for Catholics in the U.S. in its document Basic Teachings for Catholic Religious Education:
"1. To keep holy the day of the Lord's resurrection: to worship God by participating in Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation: to avoid those activities that would hinder renewal of soul and body, e.g., needless work and business activities, unnecessary shopping, etc.
"2. To lead a sacramental life: to receive Holy Communion frequently and the sacrament of penance regularly--minimally, to receive the sacrament of penance at least once a year (annual confession is obligatory only if serious sin is involved)--minimally to receive Holy Communion at least once a year between the first Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday.
"3. To study Catholic teaching in preparation for the sacrament of confirmation, to be confirmed, and then to continue to study and advance the cause of Christ.
"4. To observe the marriage laws of the Church: to give religious training (by example and word) to one's children; to use parish schools and religious education programs.
"5. To strengthen and support the Church: one's own parish community and parish priests; the worldwide Church and the Holy Father.
"6. To do penance, including abstaining from meat and fasting from food on the appointed days.
"7. To join in the missionary spirit and apostolate of the Church."
Q: You seem to think Protestantism is a heresy, yet the Catholic Church refers to Protestants as "separated brethren." Which is it?
A: You're presenting a false dichotomy. Protestants are "brethren" because they're fellow Christians. They're "separated" because they're missing elements of the full Christian faith and aren't in communion with the divinely established teaching authority of the Church--the Pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church.
Are they heretics? It depends on what you mean. The Church distinguishes between material and formal heresy. Material heresy exists when a Christian, due to invincible ignorance, believes the wrong thing, either by asserting something as so which isn't true or by denying something which is. Catholics as well as Protestants can fall into this.
Formal heresy involves a Christian who obstinately and culpably denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith. A formal heretic knows he ought to accept the truth he rejects, but still refuses to do so.
Most Protestants aren't formal heretics. They believe what they do because of their upbringing or because they mistakenly believe the Bible teaches Protestant tenets. There's no conscious desire on their part to reject God's Word or the divinely appointed custodian of it.
Q: Is it true that non-infallible teachings of the Church are helpful and valuable suggestions or ideals, but not binding on Catholics?
A: Catholics are obliged to form their consciences according to the teachings of the Church, regardless of whether or not such teaching is presented as infallible. All Church teaching is authoritative. Vatican II said on this subject:
"Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. When their bishop speaks in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, the faithful are to accept his teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul.
"This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra [our italics]. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, and the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will here may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking" (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).
Q: A friend challenged me on the Church's teaching about contraception. He said it doesn't make sense to permit the rhythm method while banning artificial means such as the pill. He said these are just two different ways of doing the same thing--contracepting.
A: Your friend is overlooking a number of important differences between contraceptive and natural means of avoiding pregnancy.
First, to talk about the "rhythm method" without qualification can be misleading. Many people think only of the old calendar-rhythm method. Contemporary methods are usually called Natural Family Planning (NFP) and are more effective than the older technique.
Second, the mere fact that artificial contraception and NFP have the same end in view, avoiding pregnancy, doesn't mean they're morally equivalent. There's nothing wrong with avoiding pregnancy, per se, under certain circumstances. It's the means use to do so which are of concern here.
For example, you can support your family by honest work and diligence or you can rob banks to do it. The end is the same in both instances, but that doesn't mean the means used are morally equivalent. Honest labor is moral. Theft isn't.
Third, NFP isn't contraception. In contraception an action is taken which prevents conception. In NFP, no such action occurs. Instead, sexual relations are avoided when conception is likely to occur.
Fourth, contraception attacks the good of procreation. It acts directly against procreation because some action is taken to thwart that good. Contraception treats procreation as an evil--as something to be acted against. NFP treats procreation as a good, but not one which necessarily needs to be pursued right now.
Fifth, contraception violates the natural link between the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act. This link, as Humanae Vitae teaches, is established by God and may not be broken by man on his own initiative (Humanae Vitae, no. 12). NFP doesn't alter the marital act in any way.
Is it possible to misuse NFP? Yes. It can be used to exclude children from marriage altogether, and that is counter to one of the purposes of marriage. It can be used to exclude children for selfish, unchristian reasons. In such instances, the purpose for avoiding pregnancy is disordered, but not the means (NFP).
There are other important differences between contraception and NFP which can't be gone into here. Two good books on the subject are Catholic Sexual Ethics by Lawler, Boyle, and May and The Teaching of Humanae Vitae by Ford and Grisez (The latter is available from This Rock for $11.00, which includes postage and handling.)
Q: Why is it that Catholicism seems so concerned with corporate salvation? Catholicism focuses on the group, whereas Evangelical Christianity stresses, as does the Bible (John 3:3), that we're saved as individuals.
A: Individual salvation is important and Catholicism teaches it. We don't get to heaven because our parents are Christians (God has no grandchildren) or because we're Americans (see Acts 10:34- 35) or even because we attend church (sitting in church no more makes you a Christian than sitting in a garage makes you a car). We get to heaven because we share in God's grace, his supernatural life within us, which is our personal union with Christ.
Being a Catholic involves personal faith in and obedience to Christ and in the teachings of the Church. It's much more than "cultural Catholicism." You're not a Catholic simply because you're Polish or Italian or Hispanic or whatever. Culture may be a vehicle which conveys the faith to a person, but ultimately Catholicism has to be just that--a faith freely accepted.
Personal faith and redemption are essential. Still, while we're redeemed as individuals, redemption is transmitted to us through the Church, the people of God. It's not just "me and Jesus." There's a corporate, communal aspect to Christianity, as well as an individualistic one.
After all, Christians are part of a family. We're the children of God's household (Eph. 2:19). We are united in Christ's Mystical Body (1 Cor. 12:12-26; Eph. 1:23; Col.1:18, 24).
So close is the bond we have in Christ that Paul can say, "If one part [of the Body of Christ] suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all parts share its joy" (1 Cor. 12:26).
This principle is illustrated by the sacrament of confession. When we sin we not only offend God, but we also diminish our vitality as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, thereby robbing our brothers and sisters in Christ of our spiritual support.
As a result, we need to be reconciled to the Church as well as to God. It's like having a limb cut off. Not only does the limb lose the life of the soul when it's amputated, but other bodily members lose the service of that limb in building up the life of the whole body.
The important point here is that we are redeemed, not merely as individuals, but also as a people. This is made clear by the chief apostle in 1 Peter 2:9:
"You are a 'chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises' of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were 'no people' but now you are God's people; you `had not received mercy' but now you have received mercy."
Q: Here's one you haven't tackled yet, but should have: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
A: Many people, even some Christians, dismiss this question as colossal silliness, the supreme exercise in irrelevance. Yet, the question isn't extraneous for Christians interested in angels (which should be all of us).
Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, medieval scholastics didn't deal with this matter, so we can't cite chapter and verse from them by way of response. Fortunately, philosopher Mortimer Adler addresses this famous question in his book The Angels and Us, in a section entitled "Angelic Occupation of Space and Movement Through It." The argument runs as follows:
An angel, when not manifesting itself in bodily form as in the Bible, is spiritually present at the place occupied by a body on which it acts. It occupies a place intensively by its power, rather than extensively as a body does by its bulk. This is because angels as spirits don't have any bulk as do physical bodies.
What does this say about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Adler writes:
"The intensive occupation of a place by spiritual power is as exclusive as the extensive occupation of a place by physical bulk. Just as the physical presence of one body at a place excludes all others from occupying that place, so the spiritual presence of an angel at a place excludes all others from occupying that place. One angel intensively occupying the head of a pin excludes all others from being spiritually present there.
"In short, if it ever entered the mind of a frivolous angel to dance on the head of a pin, its whimsical impulse would have to be exercised in a solitary fashion. It could not invite other angels to join it. It would have to dance there alone."
Q: How do you resolve this contradiction in the Bible? Jesus says, "When you pray, go into your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret" (Matt. 6:6), yet he himself prayed publicly with his disciples (Matt. 6:9) and Christians today hold public services where prayer is offered.
A: Jesus made his remark in the context of a certain kind of Pharisaic piety. It's illegitimate to ignore this context and focus only on his words. To do so is to indulge in a crude literalism no Fundamentalist would accept.
In Matthew 6:1 Christ states a principle which he illustrates using three examples, one of which includes his comment on prayer. That principle is to "take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them." In other words, don't do good deeds for the personal praise and prestige they generate from others.
The examples Jesus uses are taken from three characteristic expressions of Jewish piety: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. In each case Christ uses hyperbole to make a point. That this is so is clear from his saying on almsgiving, which obviously couldn't be fulfilled literally: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Matt. 6:3).
The true meaning of Christ's instruction is clear from the previous verse: "When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others" (Matthew 6:2).
Similarly, when Christ speaks of prayer in secret, he wants his disciples to avoid showing off when they pray: "When you do pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them" (Matt. 6:5). Note the reason the hypocrites pray as they do: "so that others may see them."
Q: I recently came across a Catholic book which referred to the Apocrypha. I thought only Protestants used this expression. Is there a legitimate Catholic use?
A: The Apocrypha is made up of works which some have thought to be inspired, but which aren't. Protestants include in the Apocrypha the seven extra books of the Old Testament accepted by Catholics, but excluded from the Protestant canon. These are Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Catholics regard these books as inspired and canonical. For us, they're part of the Old Testament. Since the time of Sixtus of Siena (1528-1569) they've been called deuterocanonical books. Catholics also speak of the Apocrypha, but don't consider the deuterocanonical books as part of it.
The Apocrypha is divided into Old Testament and New Testament works. The Old Testament Apocrypha includes writings such as 3 Maccabees, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, and the Book of Enoch. The New Testament Apocrypha contains works such as the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter, as well as various pseudepigraphical epistles and apocalypses.
Most of these books have little or no historical value. Since they're not inspired, apocryphal books aren't theologically pertinent, except insofar as they reveal popular Jewish or early Christian beliefs or heresies and help us understand the background of the Bible.
Q: According to the Catholic Church, how do we find God?
A: The Catholic answer to that question is the biblical one: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known" (John 1:18).
We find God through Jesus Christ. In the person of Christ God the Father has made himself known definitively. This is the meaning of Jesus' statement, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
This is why Jesus is called the Word of God in John 1:1 and why John 1:14 says, "The Word became flesh and dwelled among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father."
How do we find Jesus? Through his Church, which proclaims the whole truth about him through Scripture and Tradition (See, for examples of this, Matt. 28:20; Romans 10:17; 2 Thess. 2:15).
The Church is the custodian of the Word of God (in 1 Timothy 3:15 the Church is called the "pillar and foundation of truth"), and the Church makes known the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10). It is Christ's Mystical Body (Eph. 1:22-23).
Q: Am I a hypocrite in asking my non-Catholic friends to attend Mass but declining to worship at their churches?
A: No, you're just being sensible. Your Catholic faith happens to be true, and the Catholic Church is the only one established by Jesus Christ, so it's proper for you to invite your friends to investigate your faith and your church. In fact, it's more than proper--it's an act of charity, since you want them to come into the fullness of Christian truth.
On the other hand, it would be wrong for you to worship at (as distinguished from to visit) a non-Catholic church. To do so is to violate the First Commandment. By worshiping there you would be signaling to others either that you believe the doctrines of this other religion to be true or that you don't really believe in your Catholic faith.
Note that you would be allowed to participate in an interreligious prayer service, such as public prayers for the end to abortion.
What you must watch out for is worshiping in some way which is contrary to or undermines Catholic beliefs or which suggests to others that the very real doctrinal differences between religions simply aren't important.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
