|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 2, Number 5
 October 1991 
|
|
|
Will I die or just sleep?
Q: Why is it Scripture speaks of death as sleep (Acts 7:59-60)? A Seventh-day Adventist friend tells me this means we become unconscious at death and don’t "wake up" until the resurrection of the dead.
A: Your Adventist friend is mistaken. The Bible speaks of death as sleep because the body looks as if it’s asleep when we die, not because the soul becomes unconscious.
In the first passage you listed, Acts 7:59-60, Stephen, before "falling asleep" in death, cries out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." That this doesn’t support "soul sleep" is clear from Jesus’ similar remark on the cross (Luke 23:46), which didn’t preclude his telling the Good Thief who died with him, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).
If, as the Adventists believe, human beings don’t possess an immaterial spirit which continues after the death of the body, then Stephen’s outcry (as well as Christ’s) is meaningless--there would be no spirit of Stephen for the Lord to receive.
The Bible doesn’t teach the concept of "soul sleep." Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, demonstrates that after death both the righteous and the unrighteous are aware of their fates (Luke 16:19-31).
The apostle Paul also teaches conscious existence after death. He speaks of his desire to depart this life and to go on to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 12:3-4, Paul tells of his being caught up to paradise and of his uncertainty whether this occurred "in the body or out of the body"--certainly an odd way of speaking if he didn’t believe in an immaterial soul or if he believed in "soul sleep."
Q: I was told by a priest that sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is acceptable so long as it reflects a relationship of love. Lots of people seem to believe this, but is it true?
A: The only "relationship of love" that makes sexual intercourse acceptable is a marital one. The priest who told you otherwise wasn’t presenting Catholic teaching on the subject, but his own (erroneous) opinion.
In its Declaration on Certain Problems of Sexual Ethics, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed traditional Catholic teaching on the subject of sexual relations outside marriage:
"Nowadays many claim the right to sexual intercourse before marriage, at least for those who have a firm intention of marrying and whose love for one another, already conjugal as it were, is deemed to demand this as its natural outcome . . . This opinion is contrary to Christian teaching, which asserts that sexual intercourse may take place only within marriage" (no. 7).
Q: Is a Catholic in the state of mortal sin still a member of the Catholic Church, or does he cease to be a Catholic?
A: He remains a Catholic, but he’s cut off from communion with the life of the Church. Through repentance and the sacrament of reconciliation he can be restored to communion both with God and his fellow Catholics.
Q: I didn’t understand your comment about the Eastern Orthodox Church being part of the Catholic Church. I thought the Orthodox were in schism.
A: They are. The answer to which you refer ("Quick Questions," August 1991, p. 29) spoke of Eastern-Rite Catholics as part of the Catholic Church, not of the Eastern Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church. While these two groups share a similar liturgical and cultural tradition, they’re distinct.
Eastern-Rite Catholics are part of the Catholic Church, despite differences in custom and liturgical practice from Western Catholics. While Eastern Orthodox Christians have much in common with Catholics, they’re still in schism--they’ve split off from the legitimate authority of the Pope--and therefore aren’t Catholics.
Overcoming the rift between the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy is at the top of Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical agenda. Mistakes were made on both sides, so we should pray for the Holy Spirit’s aid in healing old wounds and restoring full communion between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church.
Q: Why doesn’t the Pope settle the debate between creationists and evolutionists? It would seem the easy way around a tough problem.
A: He doesn’t do so because a key issue in that debate is beyond his power to settle--the question of scientific fact. His authority to teach extends to matters of faith and morals, not to questions of science. Some people argue the facts support the theory of evolution; others say they don’t. This is more a scientific question than a theological one.
Incidentally, Catholics holding to a form of evolution compatible with Catholic teaching are also "creationists" (although in a different sense of the word) because they affirm the Creator and his necessity.
Q: I read a book by a Scripture scholar who said the Bible is inerrant only in religious matters that pertain to our salvation. He quoted Vatican II as the source of this "limited inerrancy" doctrine.
A: The documents of Vatican II don’t limit biblical inerrancy to religious truths necessary for salvation or even to religious matters in general.
The Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), states, "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (no. 11).
Proponents of "limited inerrancy" claim this last clause is restrictive: Inerrancy extends only to things pertaining to our salvation. Whether or not this is the case (such a reading isn’t required by the Latin), the "limited inerrancy" position is still weak.
First, even granting (though not conceding) that Dei Verbum restricts inerrancy to matters of salvation, this isn’t the same as limiting it to religious or moral truths. Historical or scientific assertions made "for the sake of our salvation" would be inerrant too.
Second, the theological commission at the Council stated that the term salutaris ("for the sake of our salvation") doesn’t mean that only the salvific truths of the Bible are inspired or that the Bible as a whole isn’t the Word of God. (See A. Grillmeier’s "The Divine Inspiration and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture" in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. III, p. 213.)
If the whole of Scripture is inspired, and if what the biblical writer asserts the Holy Spirit asserts, then, unless error is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit or unless the biblical authors assert only religious truths (which isn’t the case--some make historical assertions, such as the historical existence of Jesus), inerrancy can’t be limited to religious truths.
Third, the language of Dei Verbum no. 11 is taken directly from previous conciliar and papal teaching on the subject. The footnotes to this section refer to Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, documents which reject the idea that inerrancy is limited to religious matters. It seems unlikely the Council would be teaching a position contrary to these documents.
Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ.
Q: As an Evangelical who’s investigating Rome, I’d like some clarification (preferably biblical) on the meaning of the term "virtue," which I’ve always understood to mean generic holiness. In Catholic writings virtues are sometimes called "theological" and other times "moral." What’s the difference?
A: The word "virtue" is used as a synonym for goodness or sobriety or some likable personality trait, but the Church uses the term in a much more precise way. Virtues are special graces given by God to the soul for the accomplishment of particular objectives. They inhere in the soul and are subject to strengthening or weakening. The Church distinguishes between two general categories of virtues: theological and moral.
Faith, hope, and charity are called theological virtues because they are the most important characteristics in a Christian’s life, as Paul explains in Romans 5:1<196>5 and 1 Corinthians 13:13. They pertain (exclusively, in the case of faith and hope, and primarily, in the case of charity) to one’s relationship with God.
Faith is the grace of believing in God’s love for us and in his revealed truths (Luke 1:45; John 11:25-26; Eph. 2:8). Hope is the grace of trusting God will be true to his promise to save us from eternal death if we turn to him in repentance (Rom. 5:2, 8:25; Heb. 6:17-20; 1 Pet. 1:3-5). Charity is a two-fold grace with the primary effect of moving the will to love God fervently and above all things and with the secondary effect of intensifying love for our neighbor (Deut. 6:4-6; Matt. 22:36-40, 25:31-46; Mark 12:28-31; Rom. 13:8<196>10; 1 Cor. 13:1-13).
Moral virtues are so called because they help us live within the moral parameters set forth by the gospel. Chief among them are prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, also known as cardinal virtues (derived from the Latin cardo, meaning hinge, because on them hinge all other moral virtues).
Prudence is the grace to form correct judgments (Matt. 10:16; 1 Pet. 4:7). Justice assists us in dealing equitably with others (Prov. 21:21; 1 Tim. 6:11). Temperance helps us subdue our sensual appetites and make proper use of God’s creatures (1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23-24). Fortitude helps us persevere despite temptations to sin and despair (Rom. 8:32-35; James 5:10-11). Other moral virtues are humility (Matt. 18:1-5), patience (Heb. 10:36-37), obedience (Rom 13:1-7), chastity (1 Cor. 6:15-20), piety (Eph. 5:15-20), and veracity (Eph. 4:15, 25).
Q: Mormon missionaries visited my home recently and, among other things, condemned as unbiblical the Catholic custom of paying priests and bishops. They were quite proud of the fact that the Mormon Church has no paid clergy, claiming they follow the pattern set by the first Christians. I was uncomfortably silent because I had no idea where to look in the Bible for verses that support the Catholic position. Are there any?
A: Yes. Start your response with 1 Corinthians 9. In verses 7-12 Paul takes up this very topic, asking, "Whoever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating its produce? Or who shepherds a flock without using some of the milk from the flock? Am I saying this on human authority or does not the law also speak of these things?
"It is written in the law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is God concerned about oxen, or is he not really speaking for our sake? It was written for our sake, for the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher in hope of receiving a share. If we have sown spiritual seed for you, is it a great thing that we reap a material harvest from you? If others share in this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?"
He goes on to specify that even though he would be completely justified in being paid for his ministry (v. 18), he chose to forego that right in order to eliminate a potential source of criticism from his detractors. He explains in verses 13 and 14, "Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat what belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel." Also see Romans 15:26-27, 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10, and 2 Timothy 2:6.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
