|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 7/8
 July/August 1994 
|
|
|
CAN PRIESTS ORDAIN PRIESTS?
Q: 1 Timothy 4:14 says that Timothy was ordained by priests.
Doesn't that contradict the Catholic teaching that only a bishop can
confer Holy Orders?
A: This verse does not say that Timothy was ordained by priests.
At most, it says that priests laid their hands on him at the time
of his ordination, but this does not mean that it was they who conferred
the sacrament upon him.
When someone is ordained to the priesthood, the bishop imposes hands
on the candidate, followed by any already-ordained priests who are
present. These impositions of hands have different significance. The
bishop places his hands on the candidate to impart the Holy Spirit
to him for ministry, to confer on him the sacrament of holy orders.
When the new priest's colleagues lay their hands on him, it is not
to confer the sacrament, but to symbolize their union with him in
the priesthood and their sharing a common Spirit through the sacrament.
This explanation of the two impositions can be found as early as the
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, which was written in the
early 200s.
In 2 Timothy 1:6 Paul states, "Hence I remind you to rekindle
the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands."
Timothy's ordination was received through the laying on of Paul's
hands, and Paul had the powers of a bishop as part of his powers as
an apostle. Thus someone of episcopal rank ordained Timothy. If 1
Timothy 4:14 means that presbyters (priests) laid their hands on Timothy,
it was the same situation as modern priests laying their hands on
a candidate after the bishop actually confers the sacrament.
Yet there is a question whether 1 Timothy 4:14 even refers to priests
laying their hands on Timothy. In most modern Bible translations the
verse is rendered this way: "Do not neglect the gift you have,
which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders
[presbyters, priests] laid their hands upon you," but the verse
can also be translated this way: "Do not neglect the gift you
have, which was given to you . . . with the laying on of hands for
the presbyterium [priesthood]." In other words, the laying on
of hands was to make Timothy a member of the priesthood; it was not
the priests who laid their hands on him.
Q: In the December 1993 issue This Rock ran a "Fathers
Know Best" column on the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son
as well as the Father. How can we show this from Scripture?
A: One proof is that the Holy Spirit is referred to in Scripture
as both the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20, Rom. 8:10-11, 2 Cor.
1:21-22, Eph. 3:14-16) and as the Spirit of the Son (Rom. 8:9, Gal.
4:6, Phil. 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11). Statements saying that the Spirit
is "of" the other two Persons of the Trinity indicate that
his Person is tightly bound up with and originates from them (just
as the Son is the Son "of" the Father).
A second proof is that the external relations of the Trinity model
their internal ones. In Acts 14:26 the Spirit is said to proceed from
the Father, but a chapter later, in 15:26, Jesus states that he will
send the Spirit from the Father. The same relation is reflected in
Acts 2:33, where Peter states that Jesus has received the Spirit from
the Father and sends him.
A philosophical explanation of this is found in the Council of Florence,
which stated in 1439, "Since the Father has through generation
given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father,
except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from
whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Son" (Decree for the Greeks).
The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Father
has given all things to the Son, including the procession of the Holy
Spirit. For more information see the Catechism of the Catholic
Church 246-248, 264.
Q: Eastern-rite Catholics use leavened bread in Holy Communion,
but Western-rite Catholics use unleavened bread. Why the difference?
A: The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul
in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread"
of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because
that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.
When the Orthodox Church broke from Rome in 1054, the Patriarch of
Constantinople condemned the West for using unleavened bread, but
that was a spurious charge. The Council of Florence approved the use
of either kind of bread in 1439, so the use of leavened or unleavened
bread is a question of licitness, not validity. This was infallibly
defined.
The council stated, "We have likewise defined that the body of
Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread and
that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of
these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church,
whether that of the West or of the East" (Decree for the
Greeks).
Western-rite Catholics are not permitted to use leavened bread, however
(Code of Canon Law 926). The Church desires uniformity to show that
the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice everywhere. Using
leavened bread would not invalidate the Eucharist, but it would be
a grave error to disobey the Church and a long, venerable tradition.
Eastern-rite churches in communion with Rome are allowed to retain
their own tradition of using leavened bread.
Q: None of the books of the Apocrypha, what Catholics call
the "deuterocanonical" books, claim to be divinely inspired--
therefore they cannot be inspired and do not belong in the Bible.
A: No book of the Bible claims itself to be divinely inspired.
Divine inspiration means that God himself authored the exact words
of the text (using the human writer's mind, personality, and background),
and no book states anything like, "The words of this book were
chosen by God" or "This book is divinely inspired."
The term "inspired" (Greek, theopneustos) only occurs
once in the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16), where we are told that all Scripture
is inspired. We first know that something is Scripture and then infer
that it is inspired; we do not first know that it is inspired and
then conclude it is Scripture.
The only non-technical references to inspiration occur when one book
of the Bible reports that God or the Spirit spoke through the words
of a different book (for example, see Heb. 3:7-11, concerning Ps.
95). In no case does a book of the Bible state this for itself. Even
if it does claim to contain divine revelations or visions (as does
the book of Revelation), it does not say of itself that every word
of its text was inspired. That is something we must infer from 2 Tim.
3:16. Since no protocanonical book of the Bible meets your test, it
can scarcely be expected of the deuterocanonical books.
Claiming to be inspired is a different thing from really being inspired.
The Book of Mormon claims to be the Word of God, but isn't; the Gospel
of John doesn't, but it is. To determine inspiration, one must use
an external authority for verification, and the Church is the only
institution that can be that external authority.
Q: Aren't all sins equally offensive to God? After all,
James 2:10 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in
one point has become guilty of all of it."
A: Don't ignore 1 John 5:17: "All wrongdoing is sin,
but there is sin which is not mortal." Everyone sins and falls
short of the glory of God--there is no disputing that. But why
would Paul tell Christians in Rome to keep the faith--"otherwise
you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)--unless he feared for
their salvation? There are other times when the apostle indicates
the necessity of remaining with Christ lest salvation be lost (1 Cor.
9:27, Phil. 2:12). Yet salvation is not lost by every sin; as James
says, "We all stumble in many ways"(Jas. 3:2).
It stands to reason that the Catholic Church would teach that some
human failings are worse than others. Man-made law reflects this insight:
Governments do not hang jay-walkers. As it is with human law, so it
is with divine law. Minor sins are called "venial," and
serious sins are called "mortal" because they involve a
massive rejection of God's law and cause the spiritual death of the
soul.
What James means when he says that whoever fails on one point of the
law is guilty of breaking all of it is not that all humans are equally
guilty if they sin once--then there would be no difference in
the levels of punishment people would receive, yet Jesus says there
will be (Luke 12:47-48; cf. Matt. 10:15, 11:22-24). What James means
is that anyone who breaks one point of the law is guilty of breaking
the law itself, of breaking it as an entity. To give an analogy, anyone
who breaks one part of a plate is guilty of breaking the plate. He
may not have broken every part of it--smashed it into pieces--but
he is guilty of breaking the plate as a whole.
In the same way, a person who breaks one law has broken the law as
a whole; he has become a lawbreaker, which is James's point, as is
clear from the next verse: "For he who said, `Do not commit adultery,'
said also, `Do not kill.' If you do not commit adultery but do kill,
you have become a transgressor of the law" (Jas. 2:11). This
means all of us need mercy and therefore need to be merciful (Jas.
2:12-13).
Q: In light of all the evidence proving evolution, to be
a faithful Catholic does one have to believe that there was an original
couple called Adam and Eve?
A: It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first
parents, many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called polygenism.
It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that there was one set of
parents, and it was they who committed an offense against God, and
that offense has had lasting effects for mankind. This is the doctrine
of original sin, the sin that occurred at the origin of the human
race. C. S. Lewis argued that the existence of original sin is perhaps
one of the most obvious facts of human life, even to non-believers.
Those who hold that there were multiple sets of first parents go against
the teaching of the magisterium on the doctrine of original sin. In
fact, there are even logical difficulties in accounting for original
sin if that calamitous falling can't be traced to a single man, Adam.
In an encyclical issued in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated, "When there
is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism
so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom.
For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either
that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive
their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all,
or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it
is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with
what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium
of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin
truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation,
and exists in each one as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
Concerning your presupposition about "all the evidence proving
evolution," understand that the theory of evolution is not only
not proven, but many scholars are abandoning it as at odds with scientific
findings. To learn about problems with the theory of evolution, you
might read Darwin on Trial by Philip E. Johnson and Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
Q: I've heard Fundamentalists argue against the use of holy
images by citing Deuteronomy 4:15, which says God did not show himself
under any form. They say that by having such images we commit idolatry
by trying to force God into a man-made form. What would be a response?
A: Early in Israelite history the Jews were forbidden to make
pictures of God because he had not revealed himself to them in visible
form. Had the Israelites made images of God, they might have been
tempted to worship them, much as the pagans around them worshiped
images. God later revealed himself under visible forms. One instance
is found in Daniel 7:9-10: "As I looked, thrones were placed
and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white
as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery
flames, its wheels were burning fire."
The Holy Spirit revealed himself under two visible forms--that
of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22,
John 1:32) and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).
Most notably, God the Son visibly revealed himself in the Incarnation:
"[A]nd going into the house they [the magi] saw the child with
Mary his mother" (Matt. 2:11).
Since God has revealed himself in the above forms, he can now be depicted
under these forms. Keep in mind that Protestants have pictures of
Jesus in Bible story books, that they depict the Holy Spirit as a
dove, and that they depict the Father as an old man sitting on a throne.
They do all these without the least temptation to worship these images
as God.
Q: QI have heard some traditionalist Catholics argue that
the Novus Ordo Mass (the ordinary Mass you hear in most parishes)
is invalid because it states that Jesus shed his blood "for you
and for all." The Latin has "pro multis," which
means "for many," not "for all."
A: "Many" is a Biblical idiom that often means "all."
Daniel 12:2 speaks of the general resurrection and states, "And
many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some
to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Here "many" means "all." On the last day everyone
will be resurrected, not just some people. The Catechism of the
Catholic Church points out that that when Romans 5:12 states that
by Adam's disobedience "many" were made sinners, it means
that all men were made sinners (CCC 402).
Christ did shed his blood for all men in some sense. 1 John
2:2 says, "[Jesus] is the expiation for our sins, and not for
ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." It is by
the shedding of Christ's blood that the sins of the world could be
forgiven.
It is surprising that some Catholic traditionalists reject the statement
that Christ's blood was shed for all, since ordinarily the rejection
of this proposition may be regarded as the heresy of Jansenism. In
1658 Pope Innocent X condemned as heretical the Jansenist proposition
that "it is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed his
blood for all men without exception." The Pope declared that
this was heretical if understood to mean that Christ died only for
the predestined.
Q: Are non-Catholic marriages valid in the eyes of the Catholic
Church? What if a Catholic marries a non-Catholic?
A: In general, marriages between non-Catholics, of whatever
religion, are considered valid, but the situation is not as simple
as it sounds because there are two kinds of marriage: natural (ordinary)
marriage and supernatural (sacramental) marriage. Supernatural marriages
exist only between baptized people, so marriages between two Jews
or two Muslims are only natural marriages. Assuming no impediments,
marriages between Jews or Muslims would be valid natural marriages.
Marriages between two Protestants or two Eastern Orthodox also would
be valid, presuming no impediments, but these would be supernatural
(sacramental) marriages and thus indissoluble.
When one spouse is a Catholic and the other is a non-Catholic--this
is commonly termed a "mixed marriage"--the situation
changes. Just as the state has the power to regulate marriages of
its citizens by requiring them to get a blood test or to marry in
front of a competent authority, so the Church has the right to regulate
the marriages of its "citizens."
If one participant is a Catholic who has not left the Church by a
formal act, such as by officially joining another church, he must obtain
a dispensation for the marriage, which would otherwise be blocked
by the mixed-marriage impediment or by the disparity of cult impediment.
A Catholic who has not left the Church by a formal act also must obtain
a dispensation to be married in front of a non-Catholic minister.
If either of these dispensations is not obtained, the marriage will
be invalid.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
