|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 6, Number 7/8
 July/August 1995 
|
|
|
Will we recognize them in heaven?
Q: Why did Mary Magdalene and the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when he appeared to them after the Resurrection? Will we too have trouble recognizing our loved ones after we have been resurrected?
A: Of the four gospel accounts only Luke and John mention anyone having difficulty recognizing Jesus after he had risen from the dead.
Luke (24:13-35) recounts the episode of two disciples on the road to the village of Emmaus on the day of the Resurrection. It wasn't a case of them not recognizing Jesus because his appearance had somehow changed. We are told "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" until he had explained how the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by him.
In the gospel of John, the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when they are fishing near the Sea of Tiberias and Christ is standing on the shore (John 21:1-14). But we're told that the boat is at least a hundred yards off shore, so it's not surprising that they didn't recognize him at once.
Similarly, Mary Magdalene didn't recognize Jesus immediately outside the tomb until he called her by name (John 20:14-16). Perhaps in this instance he was some distance away also. More than likely she was so intent on finding his dead body ("Tell me where you have laid him and I will take him away") that his risen body escaped her recognition. Mourning, she also may have not looked Jesus in the face until he said her name, and her eyes were full of tears in any event (20:13). And she might have been supernaturally prevented from recognizing him, just as the disciples on the road to Emmaus had been.
Thomas was able to identify Jesus' body (John 20:24-29), and the rich man had no trouble recognizing Lazarus and Abraham even without their bodies (Luke 16:20-24), so we will have no trouble recognizing our loved ones--provided we end up in the same place.
Q: During a recent meeting on proposed renovations in our church, it was stated that Vatican II mandated moving the tabernacle out of the main body of the church and into a separate chapel. Is this correct and in what document of the council is this stated?
A: This is not correct. The documents issued by the Second Vatican Council do not mandate changes in the placement of the tabernacle. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy grants power to national conferences of bishops to adapt sacred furnishings to the needs and customs of their respective regions (Sacrosanctum Concilium 128).
The document referred to was the Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharist Mystery (Eucharisticum Mysterium), a post-conciliar document, issued by the Vatican following the Council. After recommending that the Blessed Sacrament ought to be reserved in a truly prominent location and one suitable for private prayer and devotion, the instruction states, "It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures" (ibid. 53).
It goes on to say, "The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped" (ibid. 54).
The Code of Canon Law states, "The tabernacle in which the Blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer" (CIC 938:2).
Many church renovations are undertaken under the "authority" of a document titled Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. This document, promoted widely by "liturgical experts," was passed by the American bishops' committee on the liturgy in 1977, but it was never brought before the entire body of bishops for a vote, presumably because its backers realized that it would be voted down.
It has been published anyway in book form, giving many the idea that its recommendations are of binding authority; in fact, it has no authority at all and can be ignored.
In an eyebrow-raising move, the book's editors added an appendix of photographs that showcase renovations even more radical than the text promotes. As Thomas Day, author of Where Have You Gone, Michelangelo?, has noted, the "presider's chair" in the photographs isn't a chair at all--it's a gigantic concrete throne.
Through poor liturgical art and architecture and through a jettisoning of traditional symbols--all advanced by Environment and Art in Catholic Worship--the focus of the Mass shifts from the altar to the priest. (Needless to say, in the photographs tabernacles are well hidden.)
Q: Aren't Protestants justified in talking about Catholic excesses in honoring Mary to the exclusion of Jesus? I just watched a video entitled Catholicism: Crisis of Faith. One scene shows a statue Mary, instead of Jesus, crucified on the cross behind the altar. Who was it that died for our redemption anyway, Jesus or Mary?
A: Jesus died for our redemption. Scripture tells us, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Heb. 4:12).
Protestants (and Catholics!) are justified in criticizing instances in which some Catholics honor Mary to the exclusion of Jesus (see This Rock, May 1994), but this isn't one of those instances. The video you mention sets a new low for anti-Catholic rhetoric, and this scene is typical.
The statue of the woman on the cross is real, but it isn't a statue of the Blessed Mother. Located in a monastery in Quito, Ecuador, the statue is of a saint known as Santa Liberata or "she who received the liberation." It is said that her father, a Portuguese prince, wanted her to marry a non-Christian and corrupt prince. When she refused her fathers wishes, he ordered her crucified.
This is not an instance of "Mariolatry" but rather a fitting tribute to young martyr who would rather die than betray her Savior. For her fidelity to Christ, she shared in the same kind of death he did, as have numerous other martyrs throughout Christian history (such as many of the Japanese martyrs).
Q: Is a priest obligated to baptize a baby even if the parents are not married or are not practicing the Catholic faith?
A: If there is no reasonable assurance that after baptism the child will be raised in the faith, the priest has valid grounds for delaying the sacrament--or even refusing baptism altogether, if it is certain that the child will not receive a Catholic upbringing, something which is required by the sacrament itself. "The Church must have a well-founded hope that the baptism will bear fruit" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Infant Baptism, 1980).
The Church does not take the matter of refusal of the first and most important sacrament lightly. The priest is obligated to keep in contact with the family and to attempt to secure sufficient assurances necessary for the celebration of the sacrament. Once the priest is satisfied that assurances are met, such as the choice of godparents who will be diligent in seeing that the child is raised in the faith, he cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay.
Q: In the Litany of the Blessed Virgin, why is Mary given the title "Ark of the Covenant"? Does it have anything to do with the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark?
A: Not really, though it is related to the movie in a certain way in that in the litany (traditionally said after reciting the rosary) the Blessed Mother is compared to the Ark of the Covenant, which was being sought by Indiana Jones.
In the Old Testament (Ex. 25:10ff) the Ark was a gold-covered box which bore three things: the written word of God on the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments; the budded rod of Aaron, signifying his role as high priest; and a pot of manna, the mysterious "bread from heaven" which God gave to the Jews in the wilderness.
Mary is considered a symbol of the Ark because she, like the Ark, bore within her the Word of God (John 1:14), the true Bread from Heaven (John 6:33-35), and the High Priest of the New Testament (Heb. 2:17).
Q: My son has left the Church and is attacking it for having had the Inquisition. What can I say to respond?
A: Point out that the Inquisition was intended not to convert people, but to find people who were outwardly claiming to be Christian but secretly practiced another religion, such as people who had become Christian outwardly, but who were still secretly practicing anti-Messianic Judaism, Islam, or Albigensianism, this last being a religion claiming that there are two gods, one good and one evil. The Inquisition was thus an attempt to protect the purity of the Christian community.
Also point out that the Protestants had a counter-Inquisition that killed Catholics. Thousands of Catholics were killed in England alone after the Reformation struck there. The same thing was true in Ireland and other areas where the Reformation came. John Calvin, for instance, was known for burning people at the stake.
In addition, Protestants were the big witch-burners. Witch burning never caught on in Catholic countries. When the Spanish Inquisition examined the cases of reported witches, it almost invariably concluded that the charges were false and the accused were not guilty. But tens of thousands of supposed witches were burned at the stake, hanged, or drowned in Protestant countries, including the American colonies.
Q: I am confused about a statement made by the ecumenical council of Florence in 1442. In its Decree for the Jacobites it stated "that no one, whatever almsgivings he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Does this mean we must have a rigorist view on the subject of salvation outside the Church?
A: Florence's decree that no one outside the Catholic Church is saved is absolutely true in the sense that those who lack any and all connection to the Church are damned. But it is possible to have an invisible link to the Church. Being in the Church does not require full, formal communion.
This was the understanding of Thomas Aquinas, who spoke of being in the Church in voto (in desire) rather than in re (in reality), and of the Council of Trent, which taught that we can be justified and consequently saved by water baptism or a desire for it.
In the last few centuries has come a refinement of the Church's understanding of what constitutes the votum (desire) needed for in voto membership. An implicit desire is sufficient. A person who seeks and tries to conform himself to the truth has an implicit desire or votum for Christ and for the Catholic faith because, by seeking to conform himself to the truth, he is seeking to conform himself to Christ (who calls himself "the way, the truth, and the life") and his Church, even if he doesn't know it.
Florence's statement concerning the inefficacy outside the Church of almsgiving and martyrdom is thus to be understood to refer to those who do these deeds in an external fashion that lacks the votum needed for in voto membership.
Imagine a Jehovah's Witness who ostensibly sheds his blood for Christ. His martyrdom would be ineffective for salvation unless he had the required votum and thus the supernatural love needed to make martyrdom effective for salvation. As Paul says, "If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor. 13:3).
Q: An anti-Catholic I know claims that the Catholic Church cannot, even in principle, admit that there are groups of non-Catholic Christians that have survived from the first century. He claims his church is one of these.
A: He's wrong on both counts. First, the Catholic Church could admit the existence of other groups of Christians which had survived from the first century if any still existed, but none do. All of the heretical groups that split off in the first century died out. Anyone who claims that there was a line of doctrinally Protestant people going back through history to Jesus doesn't know Church history.
Second, while some groups, such as the Baptists, sometimes make this claim, they claim descent from heretical groups such as the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world). There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.
Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?
(This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)
The Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.
Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
