|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 4
 April 1993 
|
|
|
WANNA BET?
Q: A book I'm reading made a reference to "Pascal's Wager" but without any explanation. I gather it has something to do with proving the existence of God. What light can you shed on this?
A: "Pascal's Wager," so-called because it was devised by the brilliant Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), is an apologetics method in the form of a wager aimed at getting atheists and agnostics to consider the possibility that God exists and that there is a heaven and hell. The beauty of Pascal's Wager is that it is an appeal to the chief god worshipped by atheists: their reason. Fr. Joseph H. Cavanaugh, C.F.C., explains in his apologetics handbook, Evidence for Our Faith (available from This Rock), "Pascal addresses his argument to the typical man of the world who regards making money and amusing himself, not as a means to the end, but the real purpose of existence. Even if he refuses to consider his ultimate destiny, Pascal maintains such a man cannot avoid wagering about it. In practice, he must stake everything on one of two propositions, either (A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not. Man cannot refuse to wager for by doing so he implies that there is no purpose in life.
"Under one guise or another, human selfishness is always urging man to stake everything on 'B.' Pascal tries to show that it is far more reasonable - even from the viewpoint of self-interest - to stake all on 'A.' If you bet everything on 'B' and 'A' is the truth, you lose an eternal good. But if you stake all on 'A' and 'B' is the truth, you lose only a few temporal pleasures.
"Pascal describes the thoughts of the typical man in these word:, 'I know not whence I came or whither I go. I only know that on quitting this world, I shall fall forever either into nothingness or into the hands of an angry God [Heb. 10:31] . . . And yet I conclude that I should pass all the days of my life without bothering to inquire into what must happen to me. Perhaps I might find some solution to my doubts, but I do not want to take the trouble. . . I intend to go forward without looking ahead and without fear toward this great event, facing death carelessly, still uncertain as to the eternity of my future state [Pensees III, 194]. . . . In other words, Pascal thinks it is not merely a moral tragedy but an intellectual blunder to wager on 'B,' that is, to refuse to recognize a purpose in life. He feels sure the typical man would soon have faith if he renounces pleasure. At least he should search for the truth. 'According to the doctrine of chance, you should search earnestly for the truth, for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost. "But," you say, "if God had wished me to worship him, he would have left me Signs of his will." Indeed, God has done so [Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14- 16]; but you ignore them.' "
Q: How come, when you defend the Immaculate Conception in your seminars and articles, you never use the strongest argument? Mary had to have been immaculate (and thus sinless) because it was from her that Jesus took his flesh and his human nature, If Mary had not been immaculate, and had been subject to the physical and spiritual corruption of sin, Jesus would have inherited that corruption also.
A: The reason we don't use that argument is precisely that it's not a good one. Your line of reasoning is commonly called the "argument of necessity," meaning that God needed to make Mary immaculate for the reason you mentioned. The problem is that God didn't need to make Mary immaculate in order to carry out his plan for the Incarnation of Jesus. He could just as easily have allowed Mary to be conceived in original sin and still preserved Jesus from becoming contaminated by the corruption of her sinful nature (which, by the way, is what Protestantism maintains was the case).
The way to prove this is to use your argument against you. Since your premise rests on the thesis that if Mary were not immaculate she would have passed along the taint of sin to Jesus, it would follow that Mary's mother, Anne, would have had to have been immaculate in order not to pass on her sinful nature to Mary. And Anne's mother would have to have been sinless, and her mother would have had to have been sinless, and so on.
You can see why this argument won't work: It sets up an unworkable, not to mention unbiblical, regression of "immaculate conceptions" from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gen.1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ's once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Luke 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).
Don't use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant, the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did. For a more detailed discussion of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception see Bishop Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1988 ed.) and Patrick Madrid, "Ark of the New Covenant" (This Rock, December 1991).
Q: Why does the Catholic Church pronounce anathemas upon those who disagree with its teachings? This was done, for example, at the Council of Trent. Isn't it presumptuous of the Catholic Church to "damn to hell" someone who refuses to submit to its doctrines?
A: The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there), and the term anathema sit does not mean "let him be damned to hell," but "let him be cut off." There is a great difference.
First, let's examine the biblical meaning of the Greek word anathema. It literally means to be suspended, placed on high, or set aside. In the Bible the term is sometimes used in the positive sense of being to something which is dedicated to God.
For example, in Judith 16:23, "Judith dedicated as a votive offering [anathema] to God all the things of Holofernes that the people had given her, as well as the canopy that she herself had taken from his bedroom."
In an act of desperation as he saw God's wrath being kindled against him, the evil King Antiochus "vowed to the Lord, who would no longer have mercy on him, that he would set free the holy city, toward which he had been hurrying with the intention of leveling it to the ground and making it a common graveyard. . . [and that] he would adorn with the finest offerings [anathemata] the temple which he had previously despoiled" (2 Mace. 9:13-14, 16). Luke describes the Temple as being, "adorned with costly stones and votive offerings [anathemata]" (Luke 21:5).
In other instances anathema is used in sense of being cursed or cut off. Paul says, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated [anathema] from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin, according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:3). He also warns us, "If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed [anathema]!" (Gal. 1:9, see also 1 Cor. 16:22).
When the Catholic Church uses the term, such as at the Council of Trent and in its official documents, it is in the sense of excommunication or being cut off from the life-giving unity of the Church. If someone knowingly and publicly denies a defined (de fidei definita) doctrine of the Catholic Church, he can be formally declared to be excommunicated, meaning that he no longer enjoys unity with the Catholic Church.
That's why, for example, the Council of Trent said, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (session VI, can. 9). This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy.
An anathema or excommunication is designed to remind the sinner of his eventual fate if he doesn't repent. That's why the Church is always ready to absolve and receive back the repentant sinner. That's why those who willingly disobey the Church's teachings may be anathematized - so that they will recognize the grave danger of such a course and be willing to return to the fold. And, of course, the Lord himself taught that excommunication is the Church's most severe method of dealing with members who sin grievously (heresy, schism, willingly procuring or helping someone to procure an abortion, illicitly ordaining bishops, and apostasy) when he said, "If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses' [Deut. 19:15]. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you
would a Gentile o
r a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:15-18).
Paul expands on the theme of excommunication: "It is widely reported that there is immorality among you and immorality of a kind not found even among the pagans. . . The one who did this should be expelled from your midst. I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus: When you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. . . Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough? Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough. . . . Purge the evil person from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:1-7, 13).
Q: Define "Johannine Gloss."
A: The Johannine Gloss or Johannine Comma, as it is more commonly known, is an interpolated passage which appears in 1 John 5:7-8, shown here in brackets: "For there are three who bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."
The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains that "the bracketed phrases appear in the [Vulgate] version of the Bible, the official version of the Sacred Scriptures for the Latin Rite of the Church. Among scholars these phrases are commonly called the 'Johannine Comma.' On the basis of manuscript evidence scholars seriously question their authenticity. The Comma is absent in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the exception of four rather recent manuscripts that date from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.
"The Comma is lacking in such ancient Oriental versions as the Peshitta, Philoxenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. While the majority of the Latin manuscripts of 1 John do contain the Comma, the earlier and better manuscripts, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, lack it. The earliest manuscript in which it appears dates from the ninth century. '
"The Fathers of the East do not quote or refer to the Johannine Comma in their Christological controversies. This omission indicates that the Comma was not part of the biblical text of their time, for they surely would have used it had it been in the text. Some fourth-century Latin writers, while referring to 1 John 5:8b and giving this a Trinitarian interpretation, failed to give any indication that they knew of the existence of the Comma as a scriptural passage.
"Due to the overcritical spirit that was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Church considered it necessary in its decree of the Holy Office of January 13,1897 to caution its scholars against rashly rejecting or doubting the authenticity of this passage. However, in a decree of June 2, .1927, the Holy Office clarified its earlier statement in declaring that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. No scholar any longer accepts its authenticity. But even though the Comma is not a biblical passage, it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the [early] Christian was fully Trinitarian."
Q: Where can I get solid Catholic apologetics materials in Spanish?
A: Contact tbe Spanish language Catholic bookstore Libreria San Pablo at 3852 E. First St., Los Angeles, CA 90063, (213) 268-5010. Libreria San Pablo also carries audio tapes and videos, as well as an extensive selection of excellent Spanish books and pamphlets which contain biblical refutations of the errors of Mormonism, Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and other sects. Titles we recommend are, Alto a Los Testigos de Jehova (Stop the Jehovah's Witnesses), Dialogo con los Protestantes (Dialogue with Protestants), Los Mormones: Paganismo con Pantalla Cristiana (The Mormons: Paganism with a Christian Veneer), and Por Que Soy Catolico: Respuesta alas Sectas (Why I Am a Catholic: An Answer to the Sects).
Q: Is there any truth to the claim that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek? A Fundamentalist I know, who insists Matthew wrote originally in Greek, argues that there's no evidence in favor of the idea that his Gospel was written first in Aramaic, because there's no extant Aramaic original.
A: This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the sixteenth century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).
This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They're all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can't conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.
Your Fundamentalist friend is wrong to assert there is no evidence to support the idea of an Aramaic original. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it's wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia" (Against Heresies 3:1:1).
Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).
Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).
Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
