|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 4
 April 1994 
|
|
|
WHAT'S THE STREET PRICE FOR INDULGENCES?
Q: One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling
of indulgences. Does the Catholic Church still sell them?
A: That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your
wife?" The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved
the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable
fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being
the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences--but
in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This
practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences,
and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.
In the sixteenth century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its
height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the
problem: "Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as
they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach,
guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which
they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church;
it need not be wondered at that they go astray."
The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church
teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to
eliminate abuses: "Since the power of granting indulgences was
conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Matt. 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23),
and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely
given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of
indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by
the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church,
and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless
or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.
"In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with
the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed,
lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened.
But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them,
and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed
by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general
way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has
been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people,
be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which
have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever
other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places
and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be
prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make
note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial
synod" (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences).
In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and
added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum
Doctrina (cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar
Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello,
1980], 62-79).
Q: Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's
Witnesses called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists
and Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?
A: The word "cult" has fallen on hard times. Used
authentically, it refers to a grouping of people for some religious
purpose; it can also refer to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and
prayer activities carried out within a particular group. Vatican II,
for example, refers to the "cult of the saints," meaning
the honor and devotion Christians show to Christians who are now reigning
with Christ in heaven. Used this way, "cult" carries no
pejorative connotations.
In the last few decades an unfortunate phenomenon has sprung up, primarily
among Evangelical Protestants who have appropriated the word and
used it to categorize religious groups with whom they disagree. Mormons
and Jehovah's Witnesses have become "cultists," and their
religions are branded as "cults." In popular jargon "cult"
implies more than just a religion with odd tenets. It carries the
implication that the group has a hidden agenda, uses deception and
mind control techniques to keep its members in line, and may be satanic
in origin. Calling someone a "cultist" has become a handy
stick with which to beat members of minority religions. Some Fundamentalists
call the Catholic Church a cult.
Of course, some religions are cults, but it's a matter of
prudence whether to trumpet that fact. If you want to evangelize adherents
to such religions, you must avoid approaches that will alienate them.
Be firm but charitable. Don't throw around the terms "cult"
and "cultist." With a little restraint you'll more likely
get your message across. If you start by telling a non-Catholic that
he's a member of a cult (even if he is), it's unlikely that he'll
listen to anything you have to say.
Q: When did the custom of canonizing saints start, and is
it true that canonizations are infallible?
A: Here are excerpts from two articles on the canonization
of saints; they are taken from The New Catholic Encyclopedia
(1967):
"The solemn act by which the pope, with definitive sentence,
inscribes in the catalogue of saints a person who has previously been
beatified. By this act he declares that the person placed on the altar
now reigns in eternal glory and decrees that the universal Church
show him the honor due to a saint. The formulas indicate that
the pope imposes a precept on the faithful, e.g. 'We decide and define
that they are saints and inscribe them in the catalogue of saints,
stating that their memory should be kept with pious devotion by the
universal Church.'
"The faithful of the primitive Church believed that martyrs were
perfect Christians and saints since they had shown the supreme proof
of love by giving their lives for Christ; by their sufferings, they
had attained eternal life and were indefectibly united to Christ,
the Head of the Mystical Body. These reasons induced the Christians,
still oppressed by persecution, to invoke the intercession of the
martyrs. They begged them to intercede before God to obtain for the
faithful on earth the grace to imitate the martyrs in the unquestioning
and complete profession of faith [1 Tim. 2:1-5, Phil. 3:17]. .
"Toward the end of the great Roman persecutions, this phenomenon
of veneration, which had been reserved to martyrs, was extended to
those who, even without dying for the faith, had nonetheless defended
it and suffered for it, confessors of the faith (confessores fidei).
Within a short time, this same veneration was extended to those who
had been outstanding for their exemplary Christian life, especially
in austerity and penitence, as well as to those who excelled in Catholic
doctrine (doctors), in apostolic zeal (bishops and missionaries),
or in charity and the evangelical spirit. . . .
"In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi
represented in practice the only criterion by which a person's
holiness was ascertained. A new element was gradually introduced,
namely, the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, i.e., of
the competent bishop. However, the fame of sanctity, as a result of
which the faithful piously visited the person's tomb, invoked his
intercession, and proclaimed the thaumaturgic [miraculous] effects
of it, remained the starting point of those inquiries that culminated
with a definite pronouncement on the part of the bishop. A biography
of the deceased person and a history of his alleged miracles were
presented to the bishop. Following a judgment of approval, the body
was exhumed and transferred to an altar. Finally, a day was assigned
for the celebration of the liturgical feast within the diocese or
province.
"The transition from episcopal to papal canonization came about
somewhat casually. The custom was gradually introduced of having recourse
to the pope in order to receive a formal approval of canonization.
This practice was prompted obviously because a canonization decreed
by the pope would necessarily have greater prestige, owing to his
supreme authority. The first papal canonization of which there are
positive documents was that of St. Udalricus in 973. . . . Through
the gradual multiplications of the Roman pontiffs, papal canonization
received a more definite structure and juridical value. Procedural
norms were formulated, and such canonical processes became the main
source of investigation into the saint's life and miracles. Under
Gregory IX, this practice became the only legitimate form of inquiry
(1234). . . .
"The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set
forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as
its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says,
'Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which
we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even
in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err' (Quodl.
9:8:16).
"The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning
faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should
the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits
that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful
into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization
of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme
pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates
and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges
that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching.
"May the Church ever 'uncanonize' a saint? Once completed, the
act of canonization is irrevocable. In some cases a person has been
popularly 'canonized' without official solemnization by the Church
. . . yet any act short of solemn canonization by the Roman pontiff
is not an infallible declaration of sanctity. Should circumstances
demand, the Church may limit the public cult of such a person popularly
'canonized'" (vol. 3, 55-56, 59, 61).
Q: In a recent This Rock article ("Changing
the Sabbath," December 1993), you stated that Christ used his
authority to alter the sabbath in Matthew 12:8, but a footnote in
my Confraternity Version of the Bible says he did not alter the commandment,
but urged it be interpreted in a more reasonable way. How could he
alter one of the Ten Commandments, anyway?
A: Jesus exercised his sovereign power to abrogate the sabbath
law in at least some way. This is why he states, "For the Son
of Man is Lord of the sabbath" (Matt. 12:8). Both "Son of
Man" and "Lord" are references to Christ's sovereign
power. The footnote in your Confraternity Version is wrong. Footnotes
in Catholic Bibles are not infallible. (See "Dragnet" in
the January 1994 issue of This Rock for a place where we caught
one such footnote in an outright historical error).
The sabbath command is the only one of the Ten Commandments which
can be altered in any way, because only it is a part of the ceremonial
law. This is taught by the Roman Catechism issued after the
Council of Trent: "The other commandments of the Decalogue are
precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable.
Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments
contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed
because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are
in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.
"This Commandment about the observance of the sabbath, on the
other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment,
is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change and belongs
not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle
of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external
worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact
the sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of
the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh.
"The observance of the sabbath was to be abrogated at the same
time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death
of Christ. . . . Hence St. Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians,
when reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites, says: 'You observe
days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest perhaps
I have labored in vain amongst you' [Gal. 4:10]. And he writes to
the same effect to the Colossians [Col. 2:16]."
Q:In ancient Judaism the sabbath was from sundown on Friday
to sundown on Saturday. If Sunday is the Christian sabbath, should
we celebrate it from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday? Is
this why attending an anticipatory Mass on Saturday evening fulfills
our Sunday obligation?
A: The Sunday obligation applies to the modern Sunday, reckoned
from midnight to midnight. This was established by canon 1246 of the
1917 Code of Canon Law.
The ancient Jews reckoned days from sundown to sundown, meaning that
for them the first part of the day was evening. This is why Genesis
1 says things like, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the
first day" (Gen. 1:5). The same custom was observed by the ancient
Phoenicians, Athenians, Arabs, Germans, and Gauls. Today Jews and
other groups who keep the sabbath, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists,
continue to celebrate it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
This way of reckoning time was not the only one in the ancient world.
For example, the Romans reckoned days from midnight to midnight--the
system we use today.
The option of attending an anticipatory Mass on Saturday evening has
nothing to do with the fact the sabbath began at sundown. This provision
was originally introduced for Catholics who had to miss Sunday Mass
for a good reason (for example, because they had to work). The 1983
Code of Canon Law simply states: "The precept of participating
in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated
anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening
of the preceding day" (can. 1248, par. 1).
Sunday is often spoken of as "the Christian sabbath," but
this is not a technical description. Sunday is not a strict replacement
for the sabbath (which has been abolished), but a day the Church instituted
to fulfill a parallel function. Thus Ignatius of Antioch, the earliest
Church Father to address this question, states that Christian converts
"have given up keeping the sabbath and now order their lives
by the Lord's Day instead, the day when life first dawned for us,
thanks to him [Christ] and his death" (Letter to the Magnesians
9 [A.D. 107]).
Q: In the February 1994 "Quick Questions" column
you stated that when a person commits mortal sin he implicitly rejects
God and the entire life of holiness he had led up to that point, including
the reward he would have gotten for his good deeds. When he repents
and comes back to God through the sacrament of confession, does this
mean he will have to start from zero in gaining new rewards?
A: No. The common teaching of Catholic theologians is that
there is a "revival of merit" when a person comes back to
God. When a person comes back to God, he implicitly reaffirms the
prior life of holiness he had led, so his rewards for that life are
restored.
In Infinita Dei Misericordia (1924), Pope Pius XI taught that
penitents have "the fullness of the merits and the gifts which
they lost through sin . . . restored and given back." Thomas
Aquinas taught the same thing (Summa Theologiae 3a:89:5).
Q: I heard there was a "secret Gospel of Mark"
which contained additional material not found in the canonical Gospel
of Mark. Is there any truth to this? What are we to make of this report?
A: Not much. In 1958 Morton Smith claimed to have found a portion
of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria. It discussed a second
edition of the Gospel of Mark, prepared after Peter's death. This
second edition supposedly included stories not found in the canonical
Mark. The longest of these stories was what appeared to be an alternative
account of the resurrection of Lazarus. According to the letter Smith
found, this document was kept at Alexandria (of which Mark had been
bishop), but not generally disseminated. The Gnostic heretic Carpocrates
obtained a copy of the gospel and then revised it, adding his own
Gnostic teachings, and then used it to justify the licentious sexual
ethics of his followers.
The letter is of dubious authenticity. Smith claimed to have found
it handwritten in the back of a book in the library of the Mar Saba
monastery in southern Israel. The book itself dated from the seventeenth
century, and the handwriting of the letter was dated from the eighteenth
century. Smith published photographs of the letter, but since their
publication no other Western scholar has seen the letter.
Even if Smith's account of finding the letter is correct, it is doubtful
that the eighteenth century person who wrote it in the back of the
book had a genuine letter of Clement of Alexandria. He might have
composed the letter himself, expecting someone to find it in the future,
or he may have had a copy of a letter previously forged in Clement's
name.
Even if Clement wrote the letter, it does not prove that the version
of Mark he mentions was genuine. Someone between the time of Mark
and the time of Clement may have added the additional material and
then put forward the Gospel in Mark's name (just as the heretic Carpocrates
is supposed to have done). Few scholars who believe Clement wrote
the letter believe Mark was the author of the Gospel the letter mentioned.
The additional material contains clues that make it unlikely it would
have been written by Mark.
Q: What is fundamental option theory? I understand that
the pope discussed this in his recent encyclical, Veritatis Splendor,
but I don't know what it is or why it is important. Was it one of
the opinions he condemned?
A: The Pope condemned the fundamental option theory, but he
admitted that it had some valid elements.
According to fundamental option theory, each person makes a deep and
basic choice for or against God. Individual acts we perform may or
may not be in accordance with that fundamental choice. For example,
when a person who has made a basic choice in favor of God sins, this
choice to sin is not in accord with his fundamental orientation in
favor of God.
The key claims of fundamental option theory are that individual acts
do not change our basic orientation and that only when our fundamental
option changes against God do we fall out of a state of grace. A person
can commit particular sins without losing a state of grace.
Historic Catholic theology would say that those sins which do not
change our fundamental option are venial sins and that those sins
which do change it are mortal sins. Whenever a person commits a mortal
sin, he has changed his fundamental option and chooses to be against
God; he loses the state of grace.
But this is not the way fundamental option theorists present their
system. They typically claim that one can commit acts such as adultery,
homosexuality, and masturbation, which the Church has always regarded
as mortal sins, without changing one's fundamental option. Some go
so far as to imply that no single act of sin one commits changes one's
fundamental option; only a prolonged pattern of sinful behavior can
do so.
The effect of fundamental option theory, when it is presented this
way, is to minimize people's awareness of mortal sin and the danger
it poses to their souls. It was this teaching, which undermines what
the Church always has taught concerning sin, that the pope condemned (Veritatis
Splendor 65-70).
Q: How can I defend the book of Judith against Fundamentalist
attacks which charge it with blatant historical inaccuracies, such
as stating that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians instead of
the Babylonians (Judith 1:1)?
A: Some scholars have thought that Judith is a stylized account
of real events and that this explains the supposed "historical
inaccuracies" in the book--they are due to the form of stylization
the author employs. You might compare the book of Judith to the book
of Job, which Fundamentalists view as a stylized account of a real
historical event. They believe the basic story in Job is real, since
Job is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Ezek. 14:14, 20), but because
chapter after chapter of the book is dialogue written in the form
of Hebrew poetry, Fundamentalists concede it is a stylized account.
Other scholars have thought Judith is not a historical book but a
"theological novel"--basically an extended parable--and
that this could be recognized by any Jew reading the work. On this
view, the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is declared to be the king of the
Assyrians in the very first verse of the book is regarded as one of
the cues that would tell the reader he is reading an allegory rather
than history. Nebuchadnezzar was then the single most famous persecutor
of the Jews, and every Jew knew he was king of the Babylonians.
Scholars who adopt this view point out that Judith's name means "Lady
Jew" and that she is placed against the two greatest enemies
of the Hebrew people, Nebuchadnezzar, the king most famous for fighting
them, and the Assyrians, the second most famous enemy of Israel. To
give a modern equivalent of this, suppose you picked up a book that
pitted Miss America against Adolf Hitler, king of the Russians. Would
you identify the work as a piece of literal history or as an allegory
intended to teach a point?
The idea that Scripture contains parables, allegories, and figurative
language is something even Fundamentalists will admit. So long as
the original audience recognized that what it was reading was a literary
device, there could be no objection to including the work in Scripture--it
would not have deceived the intended readers into thinking it was
making factual claims when it was not. The parables of Jesus are a
perfect example of this.
The status of the book of Judith is thus similar to that of the Song
of Solomon. We are not sure whether this latter work is a stylized
account of real events (was the wife of Solomon mentioned in the book
a real person?) or whether it is a straight parable about ideal love.
If the Song of Solomon can go into the Bible, so can Judith.
Q: Papal infallibility can't be true because Pope Zozimus
pronounced Pelagius to be orthodox and later reversed himself. What
do you have to say to that?
A: Zozimus (reigned 417-418) was approached by Caelestius,
who brought a profession of faith from Pelagius for the Pope's examination.
Zozimus examined Caelestius and the profession and found nothing heretical
in them. He said the African bishops' condemnation of Pelagius and
Caelestius had been hasty and instructed Africans with charges against
them to appear in Rome for further investigation.
This prompted outrage among the African bishops since they considered
the Pelagian controversy to have been closed by Zozimus's predecessor,
Innocent I. Zozimus responded by stressing the primacy of the Roman
see and by explaining to them that he had not settled the matter definitively
and that he did not intend to do so without consulting them. He said
that his predecessor's decision remained in effect until he had finished
investigating the matter.
The bishops provided Zozimus with additional evidence against Pelagius,
and the Pope condemned Pelagianism. His initial assessment had been
a tentative judgment, based on partial evidence. He did not issue
a definitive judgment, much less a doctrinal definition, as indicated
by the fact he asked for additional evidence to be sent to Rome. The
case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal infallibility.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
