|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 8
 September 1993 
|
|
|
TEEN ANGEL, WHERE ARE YOU?
Q: Do we become angels when we die, as some popular songs
suggest?
A: No. Angels are a completely separate order of beings from
men. Angels are pure spirits whose natural state is to be disembodied.
Men are only partially spiritual beings whose natural state is to
be embodied (Gen. 2:7).
These natural states correspond to the final destiny of the beings
in question. Since angels are by nature disembodied (Summa Theologiae,
I:50:1, 51:1), they will remain disembodied throughout eternity. Men
are naturally embodied, so even though they are temporarily separated
from their bodies by death, they will eventually be re-embodied and
spend eternity in a physical state (Job 19:25-26, 1 Cor. 15:53; cf.
ST III sup.:75:1, 3). This is what we mean when we confess that "we
look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to
come" (Nicene Creed).
The connection between a man and his body is so strong that while
dead he is not fully a human being, only a disembodied soul, as Thomas
Aquinas taught (ST I:75:4). The soul is so closely united to the body
that it is the essential form of the body (this is a defined Catholic
doctrine; see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
97). As a result, the body begins to break down when the soul departs;
it has lost the essential form that holds it together and keeps it
alive (Jas. 2:26).
The notion that a man is a soul contained in a body is a false idea
that comes from Plato, who viewed the body as the prison of the soul.
We occasionally speak of the body in this way (2 Cor. 5:1-4), but
this language is not to be pressed. The twentieth-century philosopher
Gilbert Ryle was wrong when said Christians view man as "a ghost
in a machine." It would have been more accurate to say man is
a ghost and a machine.
This make it clear that expressions of pop culture that imply men
can become angels, such as the songs "Johnny Angel" and
"Teen Angel" or the movie "It's a Wonderful Life,"
are misleading on this point, whatever their other merits may be.
Q: Protestants often say we don't need priests because all
Christians are priests. This is the doctrine known as "the priesthood
of all believers." What are we to make of it?
A: The Catholic Church agrees that there is a sense in which
all believers are priests. In 1928 Pope Pius XI stated, "The
entire Christian family . . . the prince of the apostles rightly calls
'a chosen race, a kingdom of priests'" (Miserentissimus
Redemptor, citing 1 Pet. 2:9).
Vatican II declared, "Christ the Lord . . . made the new people
'a kingdom of priests to God, his Father' (Rev. 1:6; cf. 5:9-10).
The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit,
are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that
through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices
and proclaim the perfection of him who has called them out of darkness
into his marvelous light (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-10)."
"Although they differ essentially and not only in degree, the
common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical
priesthood are none the less ordered to one another; each in its own
proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial
priest, by the sacred power that he has, forms and rules the priestly
people; in the person of Christ he effects the Eucharistic sacrifice
and offers it to God in the name of all the people. The faithful indeed,
by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of
the Eucharist. They exercise that priesthood, too, by the reception
of the sacraments, prayer and thanksgiving, the witness of a holy
life, abnegation, and active charity" (Lumen Gentium
10; cf. 11).
Thus the Catholic Church also teaches that all Christians are priests,
although instead of calling this "the priesthood of all believers,"
it refers to it as "the universal priesthood." This is distinct
from the ministerial priesthood, which is only held by some within
the Christian community. The idea that there can be two parallel priesthoods,
one common to all people and one composed of full-time ministers,
is not foreign to the Bible.
The places where the New Testament uses the phrase "kingdom of
priests" (alternate translation: "royal priesthood")
are quotations of Exodus 19:6, where God tells Israel, "You shall
be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Yet a few verses
later, God tells Moses, "Go down and warn the people, lest they
break through to the Lord to gaze and many of them perish. And also
let the priests who come near the Lord consecrate themselves, lest
the Lord break out upon them" (Ex. 19:21-22).
Even though God had just said all Israel would be a kingdom of priests,
there was still a special, parallel priesthood called to full-time
service. This was even before the institution of the Aaronic priesthood
in Exodus 28-29, so there can be a separate, ministerial priesthood
even when the Levitical priests are not in view.
When Protestants argue that the fact all Christians are priests implies
that there can be no ministerial priesthood, they are simply wrong.
They don't know their Bible.
Q: When did Jesus ordain the apostles as priests, assuming
he did so at all?
A: He ordained them when he instituted the Eucharist and told
them, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor.
11:24). This is defined Catholic dogma (Council of Trent, Doctrine
on the Sacrifice of the Mass, can. 2).
Although this was when Christ constituted the apostles as priests,
this is not obvious from the common English translation of his words
as "Do this in remembrance of me" (Greek, "Touto
poieite eis ton emen anamnesin"). The meaning of two key
words--poieite and anamnesin--are not adequately
brought out by this translation.
Poiein has sacrificial overtones. In the Septuagint (LXX),
the Greek version of the Old Testament, there are about seventy sacrificial
uses of poiein. One example: "Now this is what you shall
offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs a year old, day
by day, continually" (Ex. 29:38).
Anamnesis also has sacrificial overtones. It occurs only eight
times in the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. All but once
(Wis. 16:6) it is in a sacrificial context: "There is in these
sacrifices a reminder [anamnesis] of sin year after year"
(Heb. 10:3). "And you shall put pure frankincense with each row,
that it may go with the bread as a memorial portion [anamnesin]
to be offered by fire to the Lord" (Lev. 24:7). "On the
day of your gladness . . . you shall blow over your burnt offerings
and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve
you for remembrance [anamnesis] before your God" (Num.
10:10). Psalm 38 (39) is titled, "A Psalm of David, for the memorial
offering [anamnesin]." Psalm 70 (71) its titled, "To
the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering [anamnesin]."
In these cases the term anamnesis can be translated as "memorial
portion," "memorial offering," or "memorial
sacrifice."
Thus in the remaining two occurrences of anamnesis (Luke 22:19,
1Cor. 11:24), Christ's words, "Do this in remembrance of
me," can be translated as "Offer this for my memorial sacrifice."
Given the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, there is little
doubt this translation is appropriate. To tell someone, "Offer
this for my memorial sacrifice," is to direct him to fulfill
a priestly function (see Heb. 5:1). So the Church has correctly regarded
Christ's words as the institution of the apostles' priesthood and
as the basis for all future priests who offer the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Q: Anti-Catholic writer Robert Morey claims the Catholic
Church teaches the ridiculous idea that God's grace is an actual substance.
Is this true?
A: No. Robert Morey does not know what he is talking about.
Grace is not a substance but a quality--that is, it is a modification
or an accident of a substance.
This is taught by Thomas Aquinas (ST I:II:110:2, "Whether grace
is a quality of the soul?"). Aquinas considers the idea that
grace might be a substance and rejects it: "Every substance is
either the nature of the thing of which it is a substance or is a
part of the nature, even as matter and form are called substance.
And because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance
. . . but is an accidental form of the soul" (ibid.). The teaching
that grace is a quality rather than a substance is something one will
find in any standard manual of Catholic theology. For example, Ludwig
Ott states, "Sanctifying grace is not a substance, but a real
accident [characteristic], which inheres in the soul-substance. (Sent.
certa.) The Council of Trent uses the expression 'inhaerere' ['inheres';
Decree on Justification, chs. 9, 16, can. 11], which is an
accidental mode of being. As a state of the soul, sanctifying grace
falls more closely into the category of quality and as a lasting state,
into the species of habit" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
255).
Morey has been confused by the metaphor that says grace is infused
("poured out on" or "poured into") our souls,
as when the apostle Paul states, "God's love has been poured
into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us"
(Rom. 5:5). Perhaps because he is a Fundamentalist, Morey has taken
a metaphor literally, without understanding its theological context.
Q: Recently my daughter has been meeting with a group of
Fundamentalists who call themselves "the Church of Christ."
Where does this group come from, what does it believe, and who started
it?
A: There are two chief groups that have used the name "Church
of Christ." One is a small, liberal denomination known as the
"United Church of Christ." This is not the one with which
your daughter is involved.
The second was started by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, a father
and son pair of nineteenth-century ministers. Thomas Campbell was
a Presbyterian who came to America and eventually became a Baptist
minister. The group led by him and his son was disfellowshipped (excommunicated)
by the Baptists in 1827, and it went off on its own.
Members of the group began to call themselves the "restoration
movement" (in contrast to the "reformation movement"
of the 1500s) since they claimed to be restoring the true Church and
true gospel, which had been distorted by Catholics and Protestants.
They also called themselves the Disciples of Christ, the Christian
Church, and the Church of Christ. Their Baptist enemies called them
the Campbellites, a name they resent to this day, denying they are
followers of any men.
A wing of the movement broke off and became the liberal denomination
known today as the Disciples of Christ. Later the remaining group
split in two, one part calling itself the Christian Church, and the
other calling itself the Church of Christ. One issue involved in this
split was a controversy over instrumental music. The Christian Church
allows the use of instruments, such as organs, in worship services,
while the Churches of Christ, which are typically more hardline, do
not.
This no-musical-accompaniment position is based on what is called
"the restoration principle": Anything not explicitly mentioned
in the New Testament is rejected. There are numerous references to
instrumental worship in the Old Testament, of course, but the Church
of Christ claims the New Testament records no instances of musical
instruments being used in worship, so it rejects all such use of them
today. (This overlooks the use of trumpets in the liturgy of God's
wrath, which is found in Revelation 8.)
Other distinctives of the Church of Christ include an emphasis on
the role of baptism in salvation. The denomination claims baptism
by immersion is an absolute necessity for salvation and that baptism
must be performed by the Church of Christ in order to be valid, with
the inference that all who are not members of the Church of Christ
are damned.
The form of government is congregational, with each local church functioning
independently of the others. The independence is so highly prized
that members insist their church is not a denomination. Instead the
Church of Christ claims to be God's true Church.
In this is an echo of the Catholic position, which says that the Catholic
Church, being the only Church Christ founded, should not be called
a denomination, since the word "denomination" suggests an
offshoot, and the Catholic Church is not an offshoot of any earlier
church. The chief difference here is that the Catholic Church is historically
correct in its self-assessment, while the Protestant Church of Christ
is historically incorrect.
There are several offshoots of the Church of Christ movement. One
is a cult based in the Philippines, the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church
of Christ). Karl Keating once debated a minister of this group.
Recently a particularly hard line offshoot of the Church of Christ
has received national media attention. This group prefixes its name
with the name of the city it is in, for example, "the New York
Church of Christ" or "the Los Angeles Church of Christ."
This denomination is collectively called "the Boston Church of
Christ movement," after its original center. This offshoot is
known especially for the way it tells congregants not to have contacts
with family members who have not joined the church. We strongly advise
you to discourage any involvement of your daughter with this group.
Q: Wasn't Martin Luther justified (no pun intended) when
he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28? Although the word
is not in the Greek text, wasn't he justified in adding it due to
the context? After all, Paul says we are justified apart from works.
A: When Luther was criticized for adding the word "alone"
(German, "allein") he used the argument from context,
but the argument fails because Paul does not say we are justified
by faith apart from anything else, but apart from works of the law.
The law he is talking about is the Mosaic Law.
Paul states, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart
from works of law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God
of Gentiles also?" (Rom. 3:28-29a). Paul indicates the law is
something that characterizes Jews rather than Gentiles. He does not
mean God's moral law, for the Gentiles have the moral law in their
hearts (Rom. 2:15).
Paul answers his rhetorical question by saying, "Yes, of Gentiles
also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the
ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith"
(Rom. 3:29b-30). There is an intimate connection between circumcision
and the law Paul says is irrelevant to salvation. But the moral law
has nothing to do with circumcision (1 Cor. 7:19); Paul is talking
about the Mosaic Law. Many other references prove this (Rom. 2:14,
17, 20b, 25-28, 3:21, 5:13-14, Gal. 2:14-16, 3:10, 17, 4:21, 5:3).
One cannot say from Romans 3:28 that we are justified by faith alone
(apart from anything else), but by faith apart from works of the Mosaic
Law.
This does not mean we earn our salvation. The Council of Trent stated,
"nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works,
merits the grace of justification" (Decree on Justification,
ch. 8).
By the way, the phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteus
monon) occurs only once in Scripture (Jas. 2:24), and there it
is rejected. If we want to model our language after the that of the
Bible, as Protestants so often urge us to do, then we should avoid
the term "faith alone" because Scripture explicitly rejects
that idea.
Q: I can't be religious because a religious person always
has to worry about whether he is doing the right thing. But that is
such a prison.
A: The "prison" argument can be applied to any area
of practical knowledge. One could say to an engineer, "Your job
must be very hard on you since you have to make computations of strength
and resistance to figure out how to build something. That makes your
job such a prison." One could say to a doctor, "It must
be difficult to be forced to apply the rules of diagnosis and treatment
to your patients. You must feel trapped."
An engineer or a doctor might sometimes wish for a shortcut, but medicine
and engineering are not prisons. They are ways of arriving at a desired
goal. If you want an airplane to fly, you must build it a certain
way. If you want to cure a disease, you must administer a certain
treatment.
The same is true in theology. The principles of moral theology are
not meant to make us prisoners, but to enable us to do good and enjoy
an eternal relationship with God. Finding the right answer has practical
consequences in theology, just as in other disciplines. Theology is
practical, just as engineering and medicine.
No one wants to fly in an airplane designed by a person who views
modern engineering as a prison, and no one wants to be treated by
a doctor who tries to escape scientific method. Forsaking orthodox
doctrine is no safer than forsaking orthodox engineering or orthodox
medicine. The result is disaster.
Q: Why do Catholics use liturgy? Isn't it much better to
follow the Bible way and worship "in Spirit and in truth"
(John 4:24)?
A: Catholics use liturgy because it is the biblical form of
worship. Jesus joined in the liturgy in the synagogue of his day (Luke
4:16-27). He saw no conflict between true worship and liturgy.
Acts 13:2 says that the Holy Spirit gave a revelation to the Church
at Antioch "as they were liturgizing and fasting." There
is no conflict between Spirit and liturgy here. ("Liturgizing"
in Acts 13:2 is often rendered "ministering" in English,
but it is the Greek verb leitourgeo. The noun form of this
word is leitourgia, from which we derive "liturgy").
In Revelation we read of the heavenly liturgy that is led by the four
living creatures and the twenty-four elders. In this liturgy the living
creatures call out "Holy, Holy, Holy," and the elders continually
cast their crowns at the feet of God while singing responses in his
praise (Rev. 4:8-11). These are liturgical acts; again we see no contradiction
between liturgy and true spiritual worship.
It is proper to say that all churches use some form of liturgy. Liturgy
is worshiping God according to a fixed pattern. It is only a question
of how sophisticated the pattern is. In some churches, it is very
simple. Baptists are known to worship using a liturgy sometimes called
a "hymn sandwich" (a sermon sandwiched between two hymns).
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have liturgies that reflect the sophistication
of the biblical models. Usually Protestants don't realize that they
too participate in liturgical acts, and in common speech we generally
confine "liturgy" to the Mass and other forms of prayer
peculiar to what are called, appropriately enough, the "liturgical
churches."
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
