|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 1, Number 11
 November 1990 
|
|
|
Why do I think God exists?
Q: I'm confused. A Jesuit priest told me the existence of God can be demonstrated. On the other hand, the Church says we need faith to believe. Which is true?
A: There's no necessary conflict between the two statements. The Catholic Church teaches that the existence of God can "by the natural light of human reason be known with certainty from created things" (Vatican I). At the same time, the Church insists faith is necessary to embrace the supernatural truths of Catholicism. Although there appears to be a conflict here, there really isn't.
According to Thomas Aquinas, theological truths can be divided into two groups: those which are knowable by reason alone and those which require revelation (on God's part) and faith (on our part). The existence of God is a truth which falls into the first category. Other truths, such as the Trinity or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, fall into the second.
To say that reason alone can know the existence of God doesn't mean this truth can't also be known by other means. For many, the existence of God is a matter of faith. After all, not everyone has the time, energy, or ability to pursue the question of God's existence through reason alone.
For others, God's existence is something assumed, perhaps because belief in God was part of their upbringing or their cultural heritage. It's something taken for granted.
There's more to Christianity, though, than merely affirming God's existence, just as there's more to knowing a friend than knowing he exists. Reasoning that God exists is just the beginning.
Even the theological virtue of faith, which opens up to us truths about God which reason alone can't provide, is merely the starting point for knowing God. The other theological virtues, hope and charity, which involve trusting and loving God, are also important. Only when we believe in, trust in, and love God can we speak of knowing him, rather than merely knowing about him.
Q: What does the phrase "ex opere operato" mean? I know it has something to do with the sacraments.
A: You're right. Ex opere operato is a Latin theological expression meaning "by the work worked." It refers to the fact that the sacraments really work--they confer grace when the sacramental sign is validly effected, not as the result of activity on the part of the recipient, but by the power and promise of God.
Let's be clear about this. To receive the fruits of the sacraments--that is, to get out of them what you should get out of them--requires one to be properly disposed. This means reception of grace via the sacraments is not automatic. There must be, at least in the case of an adult, a predispositional receptivity to receive the grace which is always available in a validly effected sacrament.
The ex opere operato nature of the sacraments reminds us that while a proper disposition is a necessary precondition to receiving grace in the sacraments, it isn't the cause of that grace. What God offers us in the sacraments is a free gift. Not even our own dispositions, as good as they may be, produce God's supernatural life in us.
Q: I read somewhere that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and a member of the Anglican Church, believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. Is this true?
A: Apparently so. In his famous Letter to a Roman Catholic, Wesley referred to Mary as one who "as well after as before she brought him [Jesus] forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."
Other Protestants also have upheld this ancient Christian belief. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, for example, all taught that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.
Q: A Jehovah's Witness friend of mine said it's not biblical to celebrate birthdays. What do you think about that?
A: Not much. The Bible nowhere prohibits celebrating birthdays. The Witnesses' whole argument is based on the fact that the two birthday celebrations mentioned in Scripture, Pharaoh's (Gen. 40:20) and Herod's (Matt. 14:6), were occasions of evil.
The Witnesses' argument is fallacious. Although bad things happened on two birthdays, we can't conclude celebrating birthdays is bad.
Q: How can Peter be the rock mentioned in Matthew 16:18 when Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:4 says the rock was Christ?
A: Just because a symbol is used a particular way in one passage doesn't mean it can't be used differently in another. Abraham is called "rock" in Isaiah 51:1, but in 1 Corinthians 10:4 Christ is the "rock." Jesus says of himself that he is the light of the world (John 8:12), yet in the Sermon on the Mount he uses the same image for his followers (Matt. 5:14).
In 1 Corinthians 3:11 Paul says, "No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." Yet in Ephesians 2:19-20 Paul says God's household, the Church, is built on "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself as the chief cornerstone."
In John 10:11 Jesus calls himself the Good Shepherd, yet at the end of John's Gospel he tells Peter to feed his sheep, implying that Peter is also a shepherd (John 21:15-17). The same is true of Acts 20:28, where Paul tells the leaders of the Church at Ephesus to shepherd the flock of God.
The principle at work in each of these passages permits others to share in Christ's work in a particular way. Christ is the primary foundation of the Church, but the apostles share in this; Jesus is the Shepherd of the Church, but the apostles and their successors are also shepherds in a secondary way (Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:2-4).
Thus, for Jesus to make Peter the earthly rock upon which the Church is founded in no way detracts from the fact that Christ is the ultimate, heavenly Rock. Peter's "rockness" is dependent upon the foundation of Christ, but this dependence makes the solidity of Peter no less real. In fact, it makes Peter's role as rock all the more secure.
Q: The Catholic argument for Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18 is based on the assumption Christ spoke Aramaic. (You say Jesus said, "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.") How do we know he spoke Aramaic, since the manuscripts of the Gospels are all in Greek?
A: Christ spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic (and presumably Greek). We know he spoke Hebrew because he read from the Prophet Isaiah in the synagogue (Luke 4:16). That he also spoke Aramaic is clear from the fact that Aramaic was the common language of Palestine in New Testament times and from the Evangelists' record of Aramaic phrases such as "Talitha, cum" (Mark 5:41) and "Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani" (Matt. 27:46). Here, it seems, the Gospel writers have retained the ipsissima verba--the very words of Christ.
Q: I recently had a discussion with someone who told me that unless a person is baptized in water, he cannot be justified. I remember the Council of Trent said something about baptism of desire, but I couldn't find it. Can you help with the reference?
A: Yes. The Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, in its "Decree Concerning Justification," Chapter 4, says that justification cannot be effected since the promulgation of the Gospel "except through the laver of regeneration or its desire."
Q: The Our Father begins by saying God is "in" heaven. Doesn't this suggest that heaven is a place? If so, where is it?
A: Heaven is wherever God is. So where's God? Everywhere. Then why do we talk about God being "in" heaven as if it were a particular place as opposed to every place?
The answer is that, when speaking about God or heaven, we must use the language of created things, even though God is, by nature, infinitely beyond any creature.
Since the created things of our experience are located in places, when we talk about God being in heaven, it sounds as if we're talking about a physical place. But heaven isn't a physical place, notwithstanding what Mormons believe about the Heavenly Father living on a planet near a star named Kolob.
Saying God is in heaven is a way of saying he isn't stuck on Earth. A moment's reflection tells us he's not in space either. If he were, he would be confined, meaning he would be imperfect and therefore not truly God. The Creator of the universe, in his divine nature, can't be a part of the universe he created.
At the same time, theologians say God is omnipresent--he's everywhere. How, then, can we say he's not part of the universe? If God is everywhere, it seems as if he must be in the universe too and therefore part of the universe.
Consider, though, what we said about God not being confined or limited to a specific place. By definition, to be everywhere at once means not being only at a particular place. God's omnipresence doesn't mean he's spread over space the way peanut butter is spread over a slice of bread or water is spread throughout the volume of a swimming pool.
This is the mistake of the New Age movement, whether in the form of pantheism, which says everything is God, or panentheism, which says God is in everything as sugar is in Kool-Aid.
God is everywhere, say theologians and philosophers, by his power, his essence, and his knowledge. By his infinite power he is everywhere because he gives existence to all things. He is everywhere by his essence because what God is (his essence) isn't separable from what he can do (his power). God is everywhere by his knowledge because he knows all things at all times.
Another way of looking at God's omnipresence is to think of creation as a divine play and God as the playwright. The writer of a play is, in a sense, on every page of what he writes. He creates the setting, the characters, and the events of his drama. Yet he's outside the play itself. It's equally true to say the play is inside of the author--in his mind, that is.
God is both outside the universe he created and sustains (this is his transcendence) and within it (this is his immanence) by his power, essence, and knowledge.
For a more thorough treatment of heaven you should read Peter Kreeft's Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven (available through the Mini-Catalogue in this issue).
Q: I think hell is in this world and that we create it by the lives we lead. That would seem to be punishment enough.
A: It's always dangerous to speak too precisely about what the next life is like because it lies beyond all (current) experience. Still, if the great writers on the subject of the afterlife are any guide, there's truth in your statement that we create our own hell by the lives we lead.
Perhaps you recall C.S. Lewis' observation about the door of hell being locked from the inside. This is a way of saying we make our own hell. Hell is punishment for sin, and sin, to be truly sin, must be freely chosen. If we end up going to hell, we won't be going unwillingly, crying and screaming that "There's been a big mistake!" in handing down judgment.
You're correct that hell begins in this world. In the life to come our earthly existence will be seen to be the beginning of the journey to our final destiny. Still, although it is true to say that hell (and heaven, too) begins in this life, it's not accurate to say that hell is only in this life.
It's unpleasant to think about hell being a reality beyond the grave, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If the choices we make create a hell in this world, then why not in the next? If we can say yes to God and spend eternity with him, why can't we say no and spend eternity without him?
Q: I recently met someone who has consecrated herself to Mary. Though she tried to explain this procedure to me, I didn't understand it. Can you explain just what this means and where the Church stands on this?
A: In an absolute sense, you can only consecrate yourself to God because he alone has the right to your complete dedication and surrender. Nevertheless, sometimes consecration to God is undertaken through the Blessed Virgin or another saint, not because you can't be consecrated to God in any other way (all Christians are consecrated to God in baptism), but as a special act of devotion to the saint.
Consecration to Mary is often accomplished through an act of devotion promoted by Louis de Montfort. In his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon cites the following from the act of consecration:
"I, [name], faithless sinner, renew and ratify today in your hands the vows of my baptism; I renounce forever Satan, his pomps and works; and I give myself entirely to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Wisdom, to carry my cross after him all the days of my life, and to be more faithful to him than I have ever been before.
"In the presence of all the heavenly court I chose you this day for my mother and queen. I deliver and consecrate to you, as your slave, my body and soul, my goods, both interior and exterior, and even the value of all my good actions, past present, and future; leaving to you the entire and full right of disposing of me and all that belongs to me, without exception, according to your good pleasure for the greater glory of God, in time and in eternity. Amen."
Some people, especially Protestants, have trouble with this. They think there's nothing to be gained by (1) going to Jesus through Mary when you can go to Christ directly and (2) dedicating oneself to serving Mary "rather than" serving Christ.
On both these points Protestant objectors misunderstand what's going on with consecration to Mary. Although they admit this consecration is actually directed to Christ, they're scandalized by the idea it takes place through Mary.
There are a number of things to keep in mind. First, it's not a matter of either going to Jesus through Mary or going to Jesus directly. We can do both, just as I can go directly to Jesus in prayer and I can ask you to go to Jesus for me in your prayer.
Second, taking Mary or any saint as a special patron needn't interfere with my devotion to Christ anymore than loyalty to an earthly figure--a friend, an employer, or a political leader--necessarily involves disloyalty to Christ. Paul said to slaves of his day that service to their earthly masters was service to Christ (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25).
It's not a matter of serving Mary or Christ, just as it's not a matter of serving your neighbor or God. The two Great Commandments say we're to do both.
Q: Our pastor says that for the sake of Christian unity we Catholics may have to let go of some of our beliefs so as not to present undue barriers to Protestants. He said that Vatican II spoke about this as the "hierarchy of truths."
A: In its Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II did say Catholics should recall there is a "hierarchy of truths" when they compare their doctrines with those of non-Catholic Christians (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 11). Nowhere, though, was this interpreted to mean Catholics should abandon "less central" truths for the sake of Christian unity. In fact, Vatican II said just the opposite:
"It is, of course, essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine meaning" (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 11).
Q: During one of the prayers at Mass, the priest says we should pray that we may "Come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity." My friend says this is the same as New Age teaching that we are all God. She says it's a trick of the devil.
A: The prayer to which you refer is taken from the Liturgy of the Eucharist and is said by the priest as he pours water and wine into the chalice. It doesn't mean the Church teaches we are or shall become God himself.
Sometimes Catholic theologians refer to the "divinization of man." Don't worry. This isn't New Age teaching. The Bible says Christians are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4). This means we begin to share in God's divine life of grace in this world. We become divinized when God dwells within us.
Theologians are quick to point out that this sharing in the divine nature, though real, is a created participation in God's life. As creatures we can never become the uncreated God.
|
