|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 2, Number 3
 August 1991 
|
|
|
A GOOF IN THE BIBLE?
Q: How do you explain Jesus' statement in Mark 2:23-27 that David and his men "entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest" when in fact, according to 1 Samuel 21:1-6, Ahimelech, Abiathar's father, occupied that office at the time?
A: A number of solutions to this problem have been offered by biblical scholars, one of the most interesting of which involves the meaning of the Greek phrase epi Abiathar archieros used in Mark 2:26. Your source renders this as "when Abiathar was high priest." The Greek translated "when" here is epi. Usually it conveys a sense of location, as when translated "upon." Since 18 of the 21 times Mark uses the genitive form of epi he does so with reference to location rather than time, "when" probably isn't the best rendering in Mark 2:26.
Bible scholars have observed a possible parallel in Mark 12:26 where epi refers to the place in Scripture "concerning or entitled the Bush." If we translate Mark 2:26 along similar lines, then Jesus is referring his listeners to David's actions recorded in the section of Scripture "concerning" (epi) Abiathar the high priest.
Because David's eating of the showbread is mentioned in the chapter preceding the section on Abiathar, and since Abiathar is the more important of the two priests in 1 Samuel, it would make sense to refer to this whole section of Scripture as "concerning" Abiathar. Such an interpretation retains the sense of epi as related to location.
Q: How can you claim "Vicar of the Son of God" isn't the official title of the Pope? This is how the papacy is addressed in the Donation of Constantine-- proof enough the Pope is the beast of Revelation 13.
A: The spurious Donation of Constantine does use the expression "Vicar of the Son of God," but only in passing, not as "the official title of the Pope," and it applies the title to Peter alone, not to his successors--that is, it's not used as a title for the popes in general and so is no title for them at all.
"Vicar of the Son of God" is employed by anti-Catholic writers in place of authentic titles such as "Vicar of Christ" or "Servant of the Servants of God" because it tallies up to 666--the number of the beast--and the others don't.
Q: Revelation 3:7 proves Christ is the one who holds the key of David, not Peter. Isaiah 22 prophesies Christ's coming and his authority rather than Peter's. Matthew 16:18 has nothing to do with either.
A: As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn't mean he can't give to Peter, as his "prime minister," the keys to his heavenly kingdom.
In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king's right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the "key of the House of David."
Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king's duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.
Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the "holder of the key of David." Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.
There's a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace--the king isn't. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king's affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he's not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah's chief representative!
Although Jesus is called the "holder of the key of David" in Revelation 3:7, he doesn't hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king's palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes--without losing the authority those keys represent.
It's the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give--the keys of the kingdom of heaven--thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.
Q: Explain to me our Catholic understanding of tradition. One book I read on the subject said tradition cannot change, yet it seems to me it has. The vernacular Mass is a prime example. Before Vatican II, we believed the Latin Mass was part of our tradition. Since then, it seems that it isn't.
A: We must distinguish divine Tradition from mere ecclesiastical tradition or custom. Divine Tradition comes from God, either through the written word of the Bible or through the oral teaching of Christ himself or his apostles. Because it is revealed by God, divine Tradition may not be altered by men.
Ecclesiastical tradition or custom, on the other hand, originates with the Church's pastoral and disciplinary authority and may change.
The example you mentioned, Mass in the vernacular, falls into the category of ecclesiastical tradition. The first Mass, the Last Supper, was probably in Aramaic--possibly in Hebrew. As Christianity spread into the pagan world, the liturgy was translated into Greek and Latin (the vernacular languages of that day). Only with the passage of time and the abandonment of these languages as universal tongues did they take on the quality of sacred languages.
In the Western Church, Latin continued to be the common language of the liturgy until recently. In the Eastern churches in communion with the Catholic Church, Greek and other languages, including Aramaic, are used. The Mass in English isn't an alteration of divine Tradition, but of ecclesiastical custom.
Q: Your answer to the question about cannibalism and the Eucharist in the December 1990 issue of This Rock disturbs me. The promise in John 6 of the flesh of Christ to eat and his blood to drink sounds literal. Christ is present substantially (rather than your supernaturally); if we eat only the accidents (appearances), how do we eat Christ, who said unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will not have life?
A: Your question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).
In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.
We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine.
Q: St.Thomas Aquinas didn't believe human life begins at conception. He taught that ensoulment doesn't occur until several weeks later (delayed animation). How does this square with current Catholic teaching against abortion from the time of conception?
A: Notwithstanding his belief in delayed animation and ensoulment, Aquinas still taught that abortion was wrong from the moment of conception. He believed it to be a mortal sin expressive of a homicidal will, even if in the early stages of pregnancy, as he thought, homicide isn't actually committed.
Aquinas's opposition, then, squares perfectly with the Church's teaching, even if there's a difference between why Aquinas thought abortion was wrong and why Catholic theologians and moralists today think it is.
Why did Aquinas believe ensoulment happened some time after conception? Because he accepted the science of his day, which taught the theory of the spontaneous generation of life (the idea that life spontaneously arises from non-living matter).
As applied to human reproduction, this theory suggested the (apparently) non-living elements contributed by each parent--"fetal matter" in the case of the mother and seminal fluid in the case of the father--were transformed from non-living matter successively into vegetative, animal, and finally human life.
Each of these stages was thought to come about by the infusion of a soul: vegetative life by the infusion of a vegetative soul, animal life by the infusion of an animal soul, and human life by the infusion of a human soul.
Since, according to Aquinas, the soul is the form of the body--that which gives life and makes an organism the kind of creature it is--if an organism possesses distinctively human qualities, we can concluded it possesses a human soul.
Because early scientists observed nothing distinctively human at primitive stages of human development (they knew nothing of genetics and possessed no microscopes), it was concluded no human soul was present.
Modern biology has shown the conceptus does have distinctively human traits. It is living and possesses a human genetic code to guide its growth and development. If Aquinas had had the benefits of this knowledge, his principles would have led him to conclude ensoulment occurs at conception.
Q: I have two questions for you about Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern-Rite Catholicism. First, what is the main difference between them (other than that one isn't Catholic and the other is)? Second, where can I go for a basic, general history of Eastern-rite Catholicism?
A: The main difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern-Rite Catholicism is ecclesiological--it has to do with what each perceives the nature and structure of the Church to be.
The Orthodox view the Church as a federation of local churches, while Catholics, Eastern-Rite or otherwise, see it as an organic communion, with the successor of Peter--the pope--as an essential component of that communion.
Despite this and other differences we can't consider here, there's a great deal Eastern-Rite Catholics and Orthodox have in common, including a mutual cultural and liturgical tradition.
As a result, many Eastern-Rite Catholics prefer to think of themselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" rather than as "Uniates," the latter term being one used frequently in a derogatory sense against Eastern-rite Catholics by the Orthodox.
In answer to your second question, for a good overview of Eastern-Rite Catholicism see Hubert Jedin's History of the Church, vol. IX, pp. 335 ff. and vol. X, pp. 473 ff. The New Catholic Encyclopedia also has articles on the subject and many related topics.
Q: What is the answer to a friend who says we are worshiping the Babylonian goddess Ishtar when we honor Mary? He uses Jeremiah 44 as proof because we call Mary the Queen of heaven.
A: The fact that a pagan deity was known as the queen of heaven doesn't mean this term can't rightfully be applied, in another sense altogether, to Mary. The pagan king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, is called the king of kings by Daniel (Daniel 2:37), yet this doesn't preclude Jesus from being called by the same title (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).
Since the destiny of all Christians is to reign as kings and queens with Christ in heaven (Eph. 2:12; Rev. 1:6; 5:10), and since Mary is the preeminent Christian, there's nothing wrong with giving her the title which Christ, the King of kings, bestowed upon her in making Mary his mother.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
