|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 1
 January 1994 
|
|
|
WHERE IS THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD?
Q: Does the Jewish religion still have a priesthood today?
Is it Levitical? Do its priests still offer sacrifice?
A: No, there is no Jewish priesthood today. According to the
Old Testament, the only place from which it was appropriate to offer
animal sacrifices to God was the Temple in Jerusalem. In A.D. 70 the
Temple was destroyed, meaning Jewish priests no longer had a place
to sacrifice. Since the Temple is still in ruins today, there is currently
no place for sacrifice. Therefore, there is no active priesthood in
Judaism.
This does not mean that there are not people who could be called upon
to be priests were the Temple rebuilt. Unlike the other tribes of
Israel, the tribe of Levi is not thought to have completely lost its
identity. Many Jewish people, with names such as Levit, Levin, and
Levine, are thought to be of the tribe of Levi. They are given special
roles to fill in Jewish synagogue worship because of their priestly
heritage. Those with names such as Cohen, Kahan, and sometimes Katz
are thought to come from the priestly family within the tribe of Levi.
In recent years there has been discussion of rebuilding the Temple,
and much of the discussion has centered around whether it would be
possible to rebuild the Temple without destroying the Dome of the
Rock, a Muslim shrine built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Recent archaeological evidence has suggested that the Holy of Holies--the
most important chamber of the Temple and the place where the Ark of
the Covenant was kept--lay outside the Dome of the Rock, meaning
it would be possible to rebuild the Temple, including the site of
the Holy of Holies, without disturbing the Dome of the Rock.
Stories have circulated about Jewish men of Levitical descent training
in Israel for active service in a restored priesthood. Last year one
group of ultra-orthodox Jews even tried to lay a foundation stone
for a new Temple.
Not all Jews support the movement to rebuild the Temple. Some have
aired concern that if it were rebuilt, they would have to face the
problem whether or not to bring back animal sacrifices--an issue
many Jews don't want to wrestle with.
(If you are interested in seeing the Dome of the Rock, the Temple
mount, and other historic sites in Israel, consider joining the staff
of Catholic Answers on its tour of the Holy Land, which is scheduled
for August 31, 1994 through September 9, 1994. We will visit these
and many other sites that are important for apologetics. For more
information, see the advertisement that appears in this issue.)
Q: Every year during Lent I'm asked why Catholics fast and
abstain. How can I explain our Lenten practice?
A: Explain that Lent is the forty days before Easter in which
Catholics pray, fast, contemplate, and engage in acts of spiritual
self-discipline. Catholics do these things because Easter, which celebrates
the Resurrection of Christ, is the greatest holy day of the Christian
year (even above Christmas) and Catholics have recognized that it
is appropriate to prepare for such a holy day by engaging in such
disciplines.
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen noted that the Protestant attitude is summarized
by the line, "First comes the feast, then comes the hangover,"
while the Catholic attitude is "First comes the fast, then comes
the feast.")
The reason Lent lasts forty days is that forty is the traditional
number of judgment and spiritual testing in the Bible (Gen. 7:4, Ex.
24:18, 34:28, Num. 13:25, 14:33, Jonah 3:4). Lent bears particular
relationship to the forty days Christ spent fasting in the desert
before entering into his public ministry (Matt. 4:1-11). Catholics
imitate Christ by spending forty days in spiritual discipline before
the celebration of Christ's triumph over sin and death.
Fasting is a biblical discipline that can be defended from both the
Old and the New Testament. Christ expected his disciples to fast (Matt.
9:14-15) and issued instructions for how they should do so (Matt.
6:16-18). Catholics follow this pattern by holding a partial fast
on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Abstinence from certain foods is also a biblical discipline. In Daniel
10:2-3 we read, "In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three
weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor
did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks." Catholics
use a practice similar to Daniel's when, as a way of commemorating
Christ's Crucifixion on a Friday, they abstain from eating meat on
that day of the week during Lent. The only kind of flesh they eat
on Friday is fish, which is a symbol of Christ.
Even the Ash Wednesday practice of having one's forehead signed with
ashes has a biblical parallel. Putting ashes on one's head was a common
biblical expression of mourning (1 Sam. 13:19, Esther 4:1, Isa. 61:3;
see also Esther 4:3, Jer. 6:26, Ezek. 27:30, Dan. 9:3, Matt. 11:21,
Luke 10:13). By having the sign of the cross made with ashes on their
foreheads, Catholics mourn Christ's suffering on the cross and their
own sins, which made that suffering necessary.
Q: I heard that we get our guardian angels at baptism. Is
this true, and does it mean that the babies of non-Christians do not
have guardian angels?
A: The idea that we get our guardian angels at baptism is
a speculation, not a teaching of the Church. The common opinion among
Catholic theologians is that all people, regardless of whether they
are baptized, have guardian angels at least from the time of their
birth (see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford:
TAN, 1974], 120); some have suggested that prior to birth babies are
taken care of by their mothers' guardian angels.
The view that everyone has a guardian angel seems well founded in
Scripture. In Matthew 18:10 Jesus states, "See that you do not
despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their
angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven."
He said this before the Crucifixion and was speaking about Jewish
children. It would therefore seem that non-Christian, not just Christian
(baptized) children have guardian angels.
Notice that Jesus says their angels always behold the face of his
Father. This is not merely a declaration that they continually stand
in the presence of God, but an affirmation that they have continual
access to the Father. If one of their wards is in trouble, they can
serve as the child's advocate before God.
The view that all people have guardian angels is found in the Church
Fathers, notably in Basil and Jerome, and it is also the view of Thomas
Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I:113:4).
Q: If the Reformation was a rebellion, why has God blessed
the English-speaking, Protestant countries with more freedom and prosperity
than the Catholic countries have received? Does God bless apostasy
and curse faithfulness?
A: English-speaking countries that are predominantly Protestant
(Great Britain, America, Canada, Australia) have received a great
deal of political freedom and material prosperity. But freedom and
prosperity are not indicators that a person or a country is right
with God.
When it comes to freedom, some would say that the problem with these
countries is that they have too much freedom. In the name of individual
choice the citizens of United States have taken the lives of thirty
million unborn children--five times the number of Jews that Hitler
killed. The situations in Canada, England, and Australia are no better
when it comes to abortion.
There is freedom to produce, purchase, and view unprecedented amounts
of pornographic, violent, and ungodly entertainment. There is freedom
that makes possible the confusion of gender roles that our society
is experiencing, not only through the homosexual movement, but through
the much broader feminist movement.
While freedom has been collapsing into libertinism in some areas,
it has been severely curtailed in others. Teachers can hardly mention
God in the public schools into which most families are forced to put
their children due to the government subsidies these schools receive.
Freedom is also curtailed by high tax burdens in "English-speaking,
Protestant countries." (Yes, most countries have
high taxes, even "non-English-speaking, non-Protestant countries,"
but "English-speaking, Protestant countries" usually are
expensive welfare states with abnormally high tax rates.) High taxes
make it difficult for families to make ends meet, and this means middle-class
mothers of young children find themselves forced to work outside the
home. It used to be enough in affluent countries that the father alone
was employed.
Countries that commonly are considered Catholic (and no such country
nowadays is really that, but there are a few, such as Ireland, that
maintain a Catholic ethos to a degree), while usually having low GNPs,
tend to avoid some of the social problems found in the richer, "English-speaking,
Protestant countries." They tend, for example, to have lower
rates of abortion, divorce, and pornography.
Q: How can Christian theologians say that God is both just
and merciful? To be just means to give someone what he deserve, but
to be merciful means to give him better than he deserves. Given those
definitions, a person could not be merciful without being unjust or
be just without being unmerciful.
A: The problem here comes from a confusion about what is meant
by the word "just." To do justice to a person, in this context,
means to give him at least what he deserves. Thus if I owe a person
a favor, it satisfies justice for me to repay him the favor, but this
does not stop me from going beyond what justice alone requires and
doing him an additional favor.
This has been the standard answer to this question for centuries.
Thomas Aquinas said, "God acts mercifully, not indeed by going
against his justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus
a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him
only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally
or mercifully.
"The case is the same with one who pardons an offense committed
against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift.
Hence the apostle [Paul] calls remission a forgiving: `Forgive one
another, as Christ has forgiven you' [Eph. 4:32]. Hence it is clear
that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness
thereof. Thus it is said, `Mercy exalts itself above judgment' [Jas.
2:13]" (Summa Theologiae I:21:3 ad 2).
Q: How can Christian theologians say that God is perfectly
merciful if he still punishes some people? Wouldn't he be more perfectly
merciful if he forgave everyone?
A: No. The word "perfect" can be taken in different
senses. Sometimes it means "completely" or "in every
case." If this were the sense in which God were perfectly merciful,
then he would forgive sins in every single case, thus forgiving everyone.
But "perfect" has other meanings--for example, it can
also mean "in the best way."
Suppose a person needs 25 dollars to get out of trouble, and he comes
to me for help. I know that if I give him the 25 dollars he will get
out of trouble, learn his lesson, and all will be well. I also know
that if I give him more than 25 dollars he will not learn his lesson
but will use the extra money to go out and get in trouble again. How
would we regard the act of giving him 25 dollars versus a larger sum?
Assuming I do not owe him any money, giving either amount would be
an act of generosity, but which act would be the more perfect example
of generosity? From one perspective we might reason that giving the
higher amount would be more generous and thus more completely or "perfectly"
generous. From another perspective we might reason that by giving
the lower amount I would be helping him more and thus would be more
perfectly generous (generous in a better way).
This gives us an insight into the nature of virtue. To do something
virtuously is not just to do it in a higher degree, but in a better
way.
God is perfectly merciful in that he perfectly displays the virtue
of mercy. This means that he is merciful to the right people, at the
right time, to the right degree, with the right motive, and in the
right circumstances. But some people and some circumstances are not
the right ones. It is not appropriate to forgive a person's sins when
he is defiant and unrepentant. It may be appropriate to continue trying
to lead him to repentance, but it is not fitting for him to be forgiven
even before he has admitted he was wrong.
God is perfectly merciful in the sense that he is merciful in the
best way, not in the sense that he forgives every single sin people
commit. Some sins (those of which people have not repented) are not
appropriate to forgive, so God's mercy is the very thing that prevents
him from forgiving them.
Q: I heard that God's name is supposed to be "Yahweh."
Why do people call him "Jehovah" instead? One sect, the
Jehovah's Witnesses, has even used this word in its name.
A: In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient
Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced
originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did
have written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood
the name should be pronounced "Yahweh."
Shortly before the first century A.D., it became common for Jews to
avoid saying the divine name for fear of misusing it and breaking
the second commandment ("You shall not take the name of the Lord,
your God, in vain," Deut. 5:11). Whenever they read Scripture
aloud and encountered the divine name, they substituted another Hebrew
word, "Adonai" (which means "Lord" or "my
Lord"), in its place.
Eventually Hebrew developed written vowels, which appeared as small
marks called vowel points and were placed above and below the consonants
of a word. In the sixth or seventh century some Jews began to place
the vowel points for "Adonai" over the consonants for "Yahweh"
to remind the reader of Scripture to say "Adonai" whenever
he read "Yahweh."
About the thirteenth century the term "Jehovah" appeared
when Christian scholars took the consonants of "Yahweh"
and pronounced it with the vowels of "Adonai." This resulted
in the sound "Yahowah," which has a Latinized spelling of
"Jehovah." The first recorded use of this spelling was made
by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270.
Interestingly, this fact is admitted in much Jehovah's Witness literature,
such as their Aid to Bible Understanding (p. 885). This is
surprising because Jehovah's Witnesses loathe the Catholic Church
and have done everything in their power to strip their church of traces
of Catholicism. Despite this, their group's very name contains a Catholic
"invention," the name "Jehovah."
Jehovah's Witnesses blast orthodox Christendom for "hiding the
name of God" by replacing "Jehovah" with "the
Lord" whenever "Jehovah" appears in Scripture. They
charge this is a Jewish "superstition" that dishonors God
(which it does not). Yet their own organization has a name that was
invented as a result of the same thinking that produced use of "the
Lord."
Q: Were any of the Gospels written in Aramaic, since Christ
and the apostles spoke that language? Was Hebrew only spoken by the
priests in the Temple? Did Pilate use an interpreter when he spoke
to Christ?
A: We do not know for certain whether any of the gospels were
written in Aramaic. An early Christian writer named Papias wrote (c.
A.D. 120) that Matthew wrote the oracles of Christ "in the Hebrew
tongue." This is ambiguous because "the Hebrew tongue"
could refer to the language known as Hebrew or to Aramaic, which was
the tongue commonly spoken by Jews at that time.
Throughout Church history the accepted opinion has been that Matthew
wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, but since the last century the view has
become common that he wrote in Greek instead. Recently there has been
a number of scholars returning to the earlier opinion that he wrote
in Hebrew or Aramaic. Some have suggested that Mark and Luke were
also written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Two books by scholars advocating a non-Greek origin for some of the
gospels are The Birth of the Synoptics by Jean Carmignac (available
for $7.95 postpaid from This Rock) and The Hebrew Christ
by Claude Tresmontant (available for $21.95).
In Jesus' day Hebrew was not spoken by only the priests in the Temple.
It was also used in the synagogue liturgy, and it was the language
in which Scripture was read. Many Jews had at least some understanding
of Hebrew, even though it was not their primary language.
This fact has apologetic implications for Catholics. The next time
someone attacks the Church for having used the "dead language"
of Latin in Church services and older editions of Scripture, point
out that Jesus worshipped in synagogues where the "dead language"
of Hebrew was used.
We do not know whether Pilate used a translator in his conversations
with Christ. As a Roman governor, Pilate would have known Latin (his
native language) and Greek (the international language). He might
also have known some Aramaic, since he was governor of an Aramaic-speaking
territory. Even if he did not know Aramaic, many Jews would have no
problem conversing with him; Greek was the language of commerce, and
many Jews knew it from their business dealings. Thus Jesus' conversations
with Pilate might have been conducted in Greek.
Q: Was the Trinity ever contemplated, expected, imagined,
prophesied, or talked about before the time of Christ?
A: Looking at the Old Testament with our knowledge of the
New, we can see that the Trinity was foreshadowed, but it was not
taught in terms of one God in three Persons. The doctrine of the Trinity
was revealed by Christ to his disciples; it is a doctrine that would
have remained unknown to us unless God had revealed it.
The Old Testament suggests that the Holy Spirit is God. There are
passages that show the Spirit is a Person--for example, when the
Spirit speaks (2 Sam. 23:2, Ezek. 2:2, 3:24, 11:5). There are also
passages showing the Spirit has divine attributes, such as omnipresence
(Ps. 139:7). A Person with divine attributes is a divine Person and,
hence, a member of the Trinity.
One of the most commonly cited intimations of the doctrine of the
Trinity is that God speaks to himself using a plural in Genesis. In
Genesis 1:26-27 God says, "Let us make man in our image,"
and then we read "in the image of God he created him."
The triple-cry of the seraphim in Isaiah, "Holy, holy, holy is
the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isa.
6:3), is thought to reflect the Trinity.
Some have also seen the appearance of three men to Abraham in Genesis
18 as a manifestation of the Trinity, though this is unclear. Genesis
19:1 seems to refer to two of the three men from chapter 18 as angels.
Q: I was wondering whether Jehovah's Witness and Mormon
baptisms are valid and whether we consider them "separated brethren"
as we do Protestants?
A: For a baptism to be valid these conditions must be met:
(1) the minister must use the proper form (the words "I baptize
you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"),
(2) he must use the proper matter (water), and (3) he must have the
general intention of doing what the Church does (administer a genuine
baptism).
Jehovah's Witness baptisms are not valid because Witnesses not only
do not use the proper baptismal formula, they do not use any formula!
Catholic Answers spoke with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
in Brooklyn, New York (headquarters for the Jehovah's Witnesses) and
discovered that Witnesses simply dunk the new convert in water, without
using any words to identify what the action is intended to be. For
this reason Witnesses are not separated brethren; they are not Christians
at all because they lack true baptism.
The case of Mormon baptisms is less clear. Mormons do use the proper
form and matter for the sacrament, but because they do not believe
in the Trinity (Mormons are polytheists) it is not clear that they
have the intention of doing what the Church does by baptism.
One way of trying to settle the issue is to look at what the Church
said about the baptisms administered by earlier groups that denied
the Trinity. The most famous such group was the Arians, who, like
today's Jehovah's Witnesses, said Christ is a created, angelic being
rather than God. In 385 Pope Siricius declared Arian baptisms to be
valid and cited as precedents the decisions of his predecessor Pope
Liberius (reigned 352-366) and of the Council of Ariminum.
Recently the Catholic Church has regarded Mormon baptisms as valid
for purposes of determining marriage cases (annulments, re-marriage).
On February 15, 1991 the current pope approved the conclusion of a
study by the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect) which reaffirmed that the validity of
Mormon baptism should not be challenged.
A letter from the secretary of the Sacred Congregation dated March
31, 1992 pointed out that this did not indicate an endorsement of
the validity of Mormon baptisms and that the practice of administering
conditional baptisms to Mormons who become Catholic may continue.
By regarding Mormon baptisms as valid when determining marriage cases
(which minimizes the number of Catholics married to Mormons who are
allowed to remarry) yet allowing conditional baptism when a Mormon
converts (which minimizes the possibility of an improperly baptized
person receiving the Eucharist), the Church could be said to be taking
a "fail safe" position.
Because it is unclear whether Mormon baptisms are valid, it is unclear
whether they have any title whatsoever to the name "Christian."
If they count as separated brethren at all, then, due to the deformities
of the Mormon faith, they are very separated brethren.
It would also be ironic if Mormon baptisms were valid since Mormons
are more heretical than Jehovah's Witnesses, and yet Witnesses have
invalid baptisms.
Q: Aren't the images of Mary with the baby Jesus taken from
pagan representations of goddesses with children? If not, how do you
explain the fact that so many cultures have woman-with-child images
in their religion?
A: Perhaps because there are women with children in every
culture. Motherhood is a profound aspect of the human experience,
and it should be expected to appear in a culture's art and religion.
That two things are similar doesn't mean one is derived from the other.
After all, there are pyramids in Egypt and in Latin American, but
no serious archaeologist believes one kind is derived from the other.
The people in the two places simply made the same discovery: It is
possible to build a stable building in the shape of a pyramid. In
the same way, people in different cultures realized that motherhood
is significant, and mother-and-child images became common in all cultures.
In the past one of the purposes of religious art was to instruct the
illiterate. If you want to convey to someone who can't read that a
given painting is of Christ's mother, how better to do it than by
painting her with her infant Son?
Q: I heard that science has proven that we are all descended
from a single woman. How did scientists prove this, and is this woman
the biblical Eve?
A: Scientists showed this through tests on what is called
mitochondrial DNA, which is DNA found, outside the nucleus of a cell,
in tiny organelles called mitochondria. We inherit our nucleic DNA
(DNA in the nucleus of the cell) from both parents, but we inherit
our mitochondrial DNA from our mothers alone.
It is possible to map the relationships between people through their
mothers using mitochondrial DNA. When scientists examined DNA samples
from people all over the world, they concluded that the whole human
race descended from a single woman who became known as "the scientific
Eve."
The scientific Eve may or may not be the biblical Eve. That we may
all be descended from her does not prove she is the biblical Eve because,
as Christians acknowledge, there may be more than one woman from whom
we are all descended (for example, if the Deluge was universal, not
local, then everyone is descended from Noah's wife).
Though science has not been able to confirm that its Eve is the biblical
Eve, it has confirmed two important pieces of biblical revelation
which many scientists used to deny. The first is that there was a
woman from whom we are all descended, and the second is that there
was a human pair from whom we are all descended.
This is implied by the former because we would all be descended from
the scientific Eve and her husband, or, if she had more than one husband
over the course of her life, we at least would all descend from the
scientific Eve's mother and father. Either way, there is a human couple
from whom we all sprang. Not only was there a scientific Eve, but
a scientific Adam as well.
Q: A priest told my girlfriend that it is okay for us to
touch one another intimately before we are married. Is this correct?
A: No. Jesus stated in Matthew 5:28 that a person can commit
sins of sexual impurity even in his thoughts. He stated, "But
I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart." The same thing is
true of fornication (premarital sex).
Looking at a woman to whom you are not married and indulging in lustful
thoughts counts as committing fornication in your heart. If indulging
yourself in mental lust for a woman to whom you are not married counts,
how much more will intimate touching, in which you partially act out
the sexual desire you have for another.
Though some priests may not like to say so, fornication is a grave
(mortal) sin. The apostle Paul states, "Now the works of the
flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness .. . and
the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21).
This is a severe teaching. It is one many unmarried people find hard
to accept, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture, and we must
hold to it.
Sometimes people rationalize extramarital sexual practices on the
grounds that by committing a lesser sin one may avoid a greater one,
such as fornication, but there are two problems with this.
First, as the Holy Father has made clear in his recent encyclical,
Veritatis Splendor, one may never do something intrinsically
wrong in order to avoid a problem. We cannot do evil that good may
come of it.
Second, this strategy simply doesn't work. If you find it difficult
to restrain yourself sexually, following that priest's advice will
not make it easier to control yourself--quite the opposite.
Q: Are there Bible verses I can cite to support the use
of holy water? Fundamentalists say holy water is a superstition that
has no basis in the Bible.
A: They're wrong. Look up Numbers 5:17, where a ritual is
being described and the text says, "[A]nd the priest shall take
holy water in an earthen vessel and take some of the dust that is
on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water."
This shows that holy water not only has a basis in the Bible, but
that it has been around since the days of Moses. Holy water was used
for numerous Old Testament ceremonies that involved ceremonial sprinklings
and washings. Today we are not bound to perform those ceremonies,
but the fact holy water was used at all proves that it is not a superstitious
or invalid practice.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
