|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 2, Number 6
 November 1991 
|
|
|
Wasn’t Vatican II a mistake?
Q: We should judge a tree by its fruits. Don’t you think Vatican II was a mistake? After all, look at all the nonsense going on today as a result of it.
A: Not everything that happens in the name of Vatican II is the fruit of the council, anymore than everything done in the name of Christ is the fruit of his teaching or of Christianity in general.
Are there abuses and violations of Catholic belief and practice today? Sure, but that means we should redouble our efforts to implement the teachings of the council, not disregard them ourselves.
Q: A Catholic Bible scholar says that at best the Church has defined the interpretation of five or six passages of Scripture, perhaps not even that. If this is so, what’s the big deal about Catholics having a magisterium to interpret the Bible? Outside of the interpretation of these six verses or so, what use is it?
A: The magisterium’s usefulness with respect to interpreting Scripture isn’t based on how many definitive interpretations of individual biblical texts it has rendered. Anytime the Church rejects a heresy or defines a doctrine, it’s interpreting the biblical message, even if the sense of no particular passage is defined.
For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpretation of John 1:1, Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14 (that Jesus is a mere creature and not God himself) was ruled out by the Catholic Church when it defined the divinity of Christ and existence of the Trinity (at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople in the fourth century). This remains so despite the lack of an ex cathedra definition by a pope or a conciliar decree precisely defining the sense of each of these passages. The Church has the power to teach infallibly the overall, doctrinal sense of biblical revelation as well as to interpret particular verses.
Q: A publication I read claims Easter has its roots in a pagan holiday and rituals and as such ought not to be observed by Christians. Colored eggs were used in rituals associated with a pagan god. If this is true, shouldn’t we stop calling the day we celebrate Christ’s Resurrection Easter and stop hunting eggs on that day?
A: No, because whatever it meant for ancient pagans, for Christians Easter is the celebration of Christ’s Resurrection. The fact that when it was first celebrated the feast of the Resurrection coincided with pagan celebrations doesn’t mean it was derived from them. The Jewish Passover (on which Christ was crucified) also coincided with such celebrations, yet this didn’t mean it was pagan.
As for Easter eggs, there’s nothing wrong with painting or hunting them on Easter--provided the real meaning of the day isn’t lost. As with the days of the week (the names of which are of pagan origin), any peculiarly pagan significance attached to Easter eggs was forgotten centuries ago.
Q: I hear a good deal about the Judaizers. Who were they?
A: The Judaizers were a sect of early Christians who believed Gentiles had to convert to Judaism in order to embrace Jesus as the Messiah. For the Judaizers this meant, among other things, observing circumcision, Jewish feast days, and the dietary provisions of the Law. The apostles concluded that since salvation is through faith in Christ--a condition not requiring observance of the customary Law of the Old Testament--Gentiles (and ultimately Jewish Christians as well) weren’t bound to keep Jewish customs as a prerequisite for membership in the Church (Gal. 5:6).
Q: A friend tells me the Council of Carthage in 397 listed only the books of the New Testament. As a result, he says your argument for including the deuterocanonical books in the Bible is flawed.
A: Your friend is wrong about the Council of Carthage. Canon 36 reads:"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.
"Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated" (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma).
Two key points should be noted. First, while the names and divisions of some Old Testament books differ from contemporary usage (for example, the four books of Kings are, in modern Bibles, divided into 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings), the canon is that of the Catholic Bible, not of the Protestant. Second, this canon was to be confirmed by the "Church beyond the sea"--which means Rome.
Q: Christianity seems ludicrous to me. I can’t buy having to check your brains at the door in order to accept incomprehensible mysteries. How can I be asked to accept what I can’t understand? "Faith" as you called it (I call it superstition) is irreconcilable with reason.
A: You have a mistaken notion of the Catholic term mystery. A mystery is not something about which can’t know anything, but something about which we can’t know everything.
God gave us brains and expects us to use them to understand the mysteries of faith, to the extent such understanding is possible. That total comprehension isn’t possible doesn’t mean you have to "check your brains at the door" anymore than failure to entirely grasp quantum physics does.
There’s no real opposition between truths of reason and truths of faith, only an apparent one. When scientists propose as fact what is only an unproven hypothesis, or when theologians mistake their personal opinions for articles of divine revelation, the impression is left there’s a conflict between the two realms, but this isn’t the case. It only appears to be so because someone has erred.
Faith tell us more than we could know by reason alone, but it can’t contradict reason. Furthermore, we can use our reason to better understand our faith. In fact, that’s a classic definition of theology: Faith seeking understanding.
Q: Doesn’t the fact that Jude (verses 14-15) quotes from the Book of Enoch mean that this book should be in our Bible?
A: No more than the fact Paul quotes pagan poets (Acts 17:28) means their writings should be included in Scripture. A biblical author can cite a non-canonical writing as illustrative of a point he wants to make without suggesting everything included in that writing is authentic or from God.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
