|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 3
 March 1993 
|
|
|
Did Augustine recant?
Q: I heard a Presbyterian minister claim that although Augustine was a Catholic most of his life, and although he believed and taught Catholic doctrines such as original sin, the sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood, purgatory, and infant baptism, near the end of his life he recanted of these beliefs and wrote a book entitled Retractions, in which he repudiated much of his earlier Catholic views. Is there any truth to this?
A: None whatsoever. Here are the facts. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430), bishop, apologist, and doctor of the Church, converted to the Catholic faith from Manichaeeism and was baptized in 387. He lived as a monk for a brief period and was soon ordained a priest. In the summer of 395 he was consecrated bishop of Hippo, the second largest diocese in Northern Africa at that time, and served as bishop for the ensuing 35 years.
Augustine was renowned as a preacher and pastor and especially as a prolific writer in defense of Catholic doctrines. Over his long career, he penned scores of brilliant sermons, letters, and treatises in which he explained Catholic doctrines and defended them against heretical attacks. He championed doctrines such as baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, purgatory, the sacraments as channels of God's grace, and the sacrificial nature of the Mass, but he never "recanted" of any of these doctrines, and he died believing everything the Catholic Church taught.
Your minister friend's confusion stems from his sloppy reading of Latin. Augustine never authored a work entitled Retractions. He did write Retractationes (also known as Retractationum) between 426-427. His purpose was not to recant of any Catholic doctrines he held but, rather, to clarify and enhance his previous efforts to explain and defend them.
As the patristic scholar, William A. Jurgens, explains, "English speaking authors usually avoid the problem of what the title means by the simple expedient of referring to it by its Latin title, Retractationes. When it is mentioned in English and in the English translations now available it is invariably referred to as Retractations or Retractions. The first is an affront to English and the second is incorrect. Actually, Augustine had very little to retract, and the meaning of Retractationes is Reconsiderations, Revisions, Second Thoughts, or, as I have called it, Corrections. With the Corrections, Augustine again invented a new literary genre: a summation and criticism of his own writings. He had originally intended to include in his review his books, letters, and sermons. But when he had completed the review of his books in 426 or 427, he was persuaded to publish the whole work as it then stood" (The Faith of the Early Fathers [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979] 3:163).
Unfortunately for your friend's theory, Augustine's Retractationes contain no tearful apologies or strident denunciations of any Catholic doctrine. His aim in writing was not to repudiate elements of his Catholic faith, but to do a better job of presenting them. He refined his position on various issues--issues he felt he had not dealt with satisfactorily in previous works--and withdrew certain arguments and analogies, replacing them with better ones.
Q: I've always thought that the Holy Family was poor and that in their poverty and humility Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are models for all families. But recently I read someone's claim that the Holy Family was not poor because the Greek word describing Joseph's profession (tekton) indicates that he was a "master craftsman," a class of artisan who made a very comfortable living at his trade. What light can you shed on this?
A: It's true that Joseph is called a tektonos in Matthew 13:55, but the Greek word tekton simply means "craftsman" and does not connote anything with regard to level, skill, or income, and the rendering "master craftsman" is not etymologically supportable. The scanty biblical evidence indicates that the Holy Family was poor, not middle-class, certainly not affluent.
Luke writes, "When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was born. When the days were completed for their purification [40 days (Lev. 12:2-8)] according to the law of Moses, they [Mary and Joseph] took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,' and to offer the sacrifice of 'a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons,' in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord" (2:22-24). This passage suggests that Mary and Joseph were poor. According to the Mosaic law the mother had to purchase and have sacrificed in the Temple a young lamb as a burnt offering and a turtle dove as a sin offering (this being done to expiate ritual impurity related to blood and childbirth, not personal sin). If the parents were too poor to afford the lamb, they were allowed to substitute two turtle doves or pigeons (Lev. 12:8).
Other than this brief glimpse at the Holy Family's financial circumstances, the Bible tells us very little about their economic status. While it's true that the three Magi offered Jesus expensive gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:11), there's no biblical evidence to suggest that they kept these items.
Q: Why does the Catholic Church permit the use of statues for religious purposes in defiance of God's prohibition against the carving of statues in Exodus 20:4-5?
A: The Catholic Church does not defy any of God's commandments. Your question reveals an ignorance of the biblical facts surrounding statues. In Exodus 20:4 God condemned the carving of statues for the sake of worshipping them as idols--a blasphemy the Catholic Church also condemns. In Exodus 25:18-20, on the other hand, God commands Moses to carve statues for a religious purpose: two cherubim which would sit atop the Ark of the Covenant.
Notice that these angelic images were to serve such an exalted purpose (not because the statues themselves were in any way intrinsically exalted but because of the use to which they would be put) that God was very exacting in the instructions he gave Moses as to the materials to be used and the posture in which they were to be carved. Similar divine commands to carve statues and embroider images of various religious objects are found in Exodus 21:6-9, Numbers 21:6-9, 1 Kings 6:23-28, and 1 Kings 7:23- 39. In each case, the statue or embroidered image was intended by God for a religious use.
Although the worship of anything, not just statues, in place of the True God is idolatry, there are times when statues are not just tolerable but recommended. Just as those Old Testament statues were ordered fashioned by God to reminded the Israelites of heavenly realities, Catholic statues of Jesus and the angels and the saints serve the same purpose.
Q: As an Evangelical Protestant, I'm not accustomed to hearing about different kinds of grace. As far as I'm concerned, based on what I read in Scripture, there's only one kind of grace: God's free gift of eternal life. Yet Catholics refer to sanctifying, sacramental, and actual grace. How do they differ?
A: There are two primary categories of grace: actual and sanctifying. Actual grace is extrinsic to the soul, meaning that it is an impulse to do good or avoid evil that is sent by God and acts upon the soul much like a tugboat gently nudges an ocean liner to move in a certain direction. Sometimes the nudges aren't very subtle, as in the case of Saul who received a massive blast of actual grace on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:1-8. This actual grace "nudged" him to convert to the Catholic faith. Sanctifying grace, on the other hand, is intrinsic to the soul, meaning that it inheres or takes up residence in the soul. When Saul surrendered his heart to Christ and entered the Church the Holy Spirit infused his soul with sanctifying grace.
Moral theologian Germain Grisez explains that, " 'Sanctifying grace' refers to that in Christians by which they are transformed into the adopted children of God. The share in divine life which God offers created persons is a real regeneration, a second birth. Christians possess a new life which is their own (see Rom. 6:4); they are new creatures (see 2 Cor. 5:17), new men and men re-created in justice, holiness, and truth (see Eph. 4:24). This new life is 'grace' because it is a divine gift, 'sanctifying' because it really transforms a person with the holiness of divine life. . . .
"The expression 'actual grace' is used in various contexts with diverse references. The common element lies in the fact that the various realities referred to move people to act in ways which positively contribute to God's redemptive work. Thus, 'actual grace' can refer to God's causality, insofar as God brings sinners to conversion and causes the good deeds of the saints. It can refer specifically to the work of the Holy Spirit in Christians, helping them in their weakness and nourishing their holiness. Sometimes 'grace,' in the sense of 'actual grace,' refers to created entities conducive to anyone's salvation or the good of the Church. A pious thought, a chance encounter, or even a difficulty which conduces to holiness is called a 'grace'" (Christian Moral Principles [Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press 1983], 1:614).
Q: What's the difference between contrition and attrition?
A: Contrition is perfect sorrow for one's sins based on the selfless motive of love of God and sorrow for having offended him. Attrition is sorrow for one's sins based on fear of punishment. For someone in the state of mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17) perfect contrition is required in ordered to reconcile with God.
Q: I would like some clarification on the issue of whether or not Protestants in the state of grace can receive Holy Communion at Mass. My pastor recently said that as long as they are in the state of grace and believe in the Church's teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Protestants may receive Communion just about anytime they wish. Is this really what the Church teaches?
A: No, not exactly. Fr. James T. O'Connor, a respected authority on dogmatic and sacramental theology, explains the Church's position. "Because the Lord's Body and Blood are not substantially present, a Catholic is never permitted to partake of the Communion services in such [Protestant] celebrations of the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, like the Lord himself, when he marveled at the faith of the Syro-Phoenician woman [Matt. 15:21-28], the Church does not refuse to take from her table that by which she lives and feed those who stand outside. In specific circumstances individual baptized Christians who are not Catholic may be permitted to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
"According to the norms of the Church, the conditions for such an occurrence are: 1. There must exist a danger of death or some grave and urgent need. 2. A spontaneous request must be made by the baptized non-Catholic. 3. The non-Catholic Christian must be unable to approach a minister of his own Christian community. 4. The person must be suitably disposed spiritually and have shown that he shares the Faith of the Catholic Church in respect to the Eucharist" (The Hidden Manna [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988], 165).
So far, what your pastor said is reasonably though not completely in line with what the Church teaches. Fr. O'Connor goes on to explain that, "All the conditions must be simultaneously fulfilled" (ibid., 165). In other words, the first of the four criteria O'Connor outlines, imminent danger of death or some other grave urgency, must be present along with the other three for the Protestant to licitly receive Communion.
Church laws dealing with non-Catholic Christians receiving Communion are found in the Code of Canon Law, can. 844, sec. 4, and the Instruction issued by the Secretariat for Christian Unity (for English text see The Pope Speaks, 17, No. 2, 173-179 [Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor]. For Latin original see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 64 [1972], 518-525).
Q: Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ?
A: No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.
The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.
If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren't in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?
Q: What does the term ex cathedra mean, and where did the Catholic Church come up with it?
A: Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase which means "from the chair." It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. The concept derives from Jesus.
In Matthew 23: 2-3 Jesus spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair [Greek: cathedras] of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice." Since Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra (with the authority of Moses), we recognize that the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself (Matt. 10:40, 16:18-19, 18:18; Luke 10:16; 2 Cor. 5:18-20), possesses a binding, infallible teaching office which is guaranteed by Christ (Matt. 28:20; John 14:16, 26, 16:13).
Q: Although I know what the Church teaches, I have no idea where to go to find out when and where the Church officially defined its teachings. How can I as a layman find out which councils and papal encyclicals taught a given doctrine? I'd be willing to go to the library and do the research but I wouldn't know where to begin, nor even if a public library would carry the types of books I'd need (our parish library has nothing that's helpful). Where can I find such information?
A: You don't need to spend long hours of drudgery at the library, just a few minutes of drudgery in the comfort of your own home. There are two books that, between them, will furnish you with all the specifics of Church teaching you could ever want. We use them all the time.
The first is The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (Staten Island: Alba House, 1982). Jesuit theologians J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, the editors of this excellent one-volume resource, have catalogued the major doctrines of the Catholic faith according to the official documents of the Church.
The categories include Scripture and Tradition, the Trinity, Christology, justification and salvation, the sacraments (individually treated at length), Marian doctrines, the Mass, ecumenism and the fate of Protestants and other non-Catholics, grace, sexual ethics, the veneration and intercession of the saints, and the use of icons and statues. Relevant passages from the Church Fathers on each subject are cited, as well as pertinent passages from encyclicals and conciliar statements.
The second book you need is Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by German theologian Ludwig Ott (Rockford: TAN, 1974). Under each of its sections Fundamentals cites the Bible verses which explicitly and implicitly demonstrate Church doctrine (a handy feature when dealing with Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) It cites the works of the Church Fathers, and it lists the Church councils which dealt with the issue.
Another reason this book is so helpful is that Ott has outlined the arguments against each doctrine, listing the opponents and explaining why their arguments fall flat. Each doctrine is classified according to its degree of certitude--from de fidei definita (such as the Trinity, the Eucharist, and purgatory) down to opinio tolerata, a theological opinion which is merely tolerated by the Church but is in no way binding on the faithful.
|
