|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
DID NEWMAN REJECT INFALLIBILITY?
Q: Is it true that Cardinal John Henry Newman, the Anglican convert from the Oxford Movement of the last century, rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility up until the definition at Vatican I and only accepted it out of obedience afterward?
A: No, it is not true. Cardinal Newman professed that he personally believed that the pope must be infallible, but he questioned the issuing of a formal definition of the doctrine at that particular time. He was not alone among the Church hierarchy in holding this opinion and was perfectly within his rights to do so. Once the definition was issued he embraced it unhesitatingly.
Q: Several times I've heard the quote "Rome has spoken, the matter is finished." What is the origin of this statement?
A: The statement, sometimes rendered as "Rome has spoken; the cause is finished" or in Latin " Roma locuta; causa finita est," derives from a statement Augustine made early in the fifth century.
In a sermon to his flock, Augus-tine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said "The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished (Sermon 131:10)." This has developed over the centuries into the commonly known formula.
Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church are authoritative only if approved by the bishop of Rome.
Q: I'm seriously considering leaving the faith. My pastor and others who preach at my parish do not live up to what they are teaching. How can the Church be true when it produces such hypocrisy?
A: Please don't leave the Church. You are misplacing the blame. If <|a preacher, religious, or layman fails to live up to the standards he is preaching, the blame lies with him and not with the message he preaches. His actions say much about himself but not about the teachings of Christ.
Jesus certainly practiced what he preached, but if someone else preaches Jesus' message exactly the same but does not practice it perfectly, it is not logical to conclude that the message of Jesus must be flawed.
By way of analogy, if it were proven tomorrow that Albert Einstein was a child molester, that would not disprove the theory of relativity.
A system should not be judged by its worst adherents but by its best, those who actually live up to its standards. Judge the Catholic Church by its saints, not by its hypocrites.
Q: What can you tell me about the "Miracle of St. Joseph" that was apparently revealed to a mystic in California in the 1970s? What exactly is the "miracle" and has the Church approved the revelation?
A: The purported revelations, known variously as "the miracle of St. Joseph" or "The City of God-St. Joseph's Hill of Hope" were given to Frances Marie Klug, known as "Mother Frances" to her devoted followers, in Southern California beginning in 1967. The contents of the revelations are contained in a seven-volume series of books titled Stories from Heaven.
According to her devotees, Klug acts as the spiritual medium for Christ and the saints. Her voice is said to change when the heavenly personages are supposedly speaking through her. She is referred to as the "funnel" and "instrument" of heavenly teaching.
Unlike most private revelation, the "miracle of St. Joseph" boldly claims to be the source of new doctrinal revelation. The "miracle" is the heretofore unrevealed belief that St. Joseph is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, as fully God as Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the Blessed Virgin Mary is also "part of the Divine." It is unclear just what Klug means by this statement but her followers maintain that the Virgin Mary is the incarnation of God the Father.
The "revelations" have been condemned in the strongest possible terms by the bishops of the dioceses of Orange and San Bernardino as well as the archbishop of Los Angeles. Their joint statement of condemnation refers to the "heretical" doctrines espoused, the "spurious" revelations received, and characterizes the organization "St. Joseph's Hill of Hope- City of God" as "independent of the Roman Catholic Church, its jurisdiction, and its favor."
Q: A friend of mine contends that the Bible nowhere makes the prophecy that Mary would be a virgin, only that she would be a young girl. He says that's what it means in the original Hebrew. Is he correct?
A: The controversy surrounds the translation of Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." This Old Testament prophecy is quoted in the gospel of Matthew (Matt. 1:23) and specifically applied to the virginal conception of Christ.
Christians have always cherished this prophecy of Isaiah and its miraculous fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. Likewise, non-believers have attacked this prophecy in an attempt to discredit Christ and his Church; the attack is a weak one that is easily refuted.
The Hebrew word translated as virgin, almah, can also be translated as "young woman" but as Strong's Hebrew Lexicon notes "there is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a young woman who is not a virgin."
Additional evidence that the correct translation is "virgin" is supplied by the Septuagint version of the Bible, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made several centuries before Christ. It was translated by Jewish scholars for use by Greek-speaking Jews, mainly in Alexandria.
The Septuagint translates the Hebrew almah into Greek as parthenos. This Greek term has the precise meaning of "virgin." So several centuries before the birth of Christ, before there was any reason to attack his Church, the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 was clear: almah = parthenos = virgin.
Q: How can a couple live together for years and then have their marriage annulled?
A: This question proceeds from an assumption that the length of time a couple spends together makes it married. It doesn't. The state may have a provision for "common law marriages" under which a couple which lives together long enough becomes regarded by the state as married or pseudo-married, but God does not. If a couple lives together for years without getting married in God's eyes, the are still unmarried in God's eyes.
This is the principle which allows an annulment after a period of years. If a couple were never sacramentally married in God's eyes, the mere passage of time does not create the sacrament between them. Thus, if it can be established that their initial contracting of the marriage was invalid (due to an impediment or the fact that the couple did not exchange valid matrimonial consent), then, no matter how much time has elapsed, the two are not married because there never was a marriage in the first place.
Consider an analogy. A marriage is a special kind of contract (an especially serious kind known as a covenant), but, even with regular human contracts that bring about a partnership, if the contract were illegal for some reason then the partnership it attempted to bring about does not exist, no matter how long the two "partners" have been working together. In the same way, a marriage must be valid before God from the time it was contracted, or it is not valid at all and thus can be annulled-that is, determined to have been invalid from the beginning.
Q: How valid is the consecration of the bread and wine in a Lutheran or Episcopal Holy Eucharist liturgy? I am a Lutheran considering becoming a Catholic, and I have always believed/sensed that Holy Communion in the Lutheran church is in fact holy, and not a sham.
A: For the consecration of the elements to take place, it must be performed by a ministerial priest, whose role is different from that of the universal priesthood all believers. Since the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the other ancient Christian churches have preserved the ministerial priesthood through the apostolic succession of bishops, their Eucharist is valid.
Unfortunately, the ministerial priesthood has not been retained in Protestant churches. Most Protestant churches (all but the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition) have rejected the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood and thus ceased to perpetuate it, breaking the apostolic succession in their circles.
It is equally unfortunate that, while many Anglicans/Episcopalians profess belief in a ministerial priesthood, the apostolic succession was ruptured in their circles, and their priesthood is no longer valid. After Henry VIII broke away from the Church, his successor, Edward VI, introduced a drastically altered and in<-valid version of the rite of ordination, with the result that the apostolic succession (which had previously been present in the Anglican Church) ceased, and its ministerial priesthood stopped.
This does not mean that Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans do not experience a real encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist. They can receive Jesus spiritually in communion, they just do not receive him in the full, sacramental manner he intended and which he wants them to experience. These communions are not just "a sham" but can be genuine spiritual encounters with Christ.
Upon entering Catholic life, one does not need to look back upon one's former communions as simply empty shams; one can view them as spiritual encounters with Christ, encounters which gave one the grace to approach Christ even more closely, finally coming to receive the fullness of the Eucharist he wanted you to have.
Q: Why can only priests consecrate the Eucharist-why not laymen too?
A: The simplest answer is-because that's their job. Asking why only priests can consecrate the Eucharist is a little like asking why only congressmen can vote on bills. It is what their function is. Human society requires a division of labor. Within civilization there is no such things a true jack-of-all-trades. Given that human nature requires society ("It is not good for the man to be alone," Gen. 2:18) and that society requires a division of labor, human nature indirectly requires the existence of all sorts of occupations: farmers, rulers, clerks, carpenters, and priests -men who minister in the holy things.
The holy things are the most important things there are, meaning that they, of all things, require a specialist to minister them. Among the holy things are conducting the proper corporate worship of God, the blessing of the people, the teaching of the people, and the pastoral governance of the people -all of which are attributed to both Old Testament priests and New Testament presbyter-priests.
The chief act of corporate worship for a priest is the offering of sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. For the Old Testament priests this was the slain animal offerings; for the New Testament priests it is the offering of the living Christ to his Father as he presents himself to his Father in his heavenly intercession on our behalf as our high priest. If God required specialists to perform even animal sacrifices, how much more will he require specialists to play a role in the living Christ's offering of himself to his Father!
This is all the more apparent when one considers the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If any layman could consecrate the elements, Christ would suffer innumerable offenses in the Eucharist. Only someone who has been specially trained and who is specially trustworthy must be allowed to minister in this sacred event.
We can see the disaster that would result if every Christian were able to consecrate the elements if we look at 1 Corinthians 11:20-30. The Corinthians were offending Christ in the Eucharist in such a way some of them were becoming sick and even dying. Given that this is how much God the Father values the Presence of his Son in the Eucharist, how could he possibly allow every Christian, no matter how sinful, improperly educated, heretical, or even mentally unbalanced to consecrate the elements?
Innumerable disasters would result, and there is simply no way God would allow anyone other than a person specially trained in the proper administration of the sacrament to do the consecration.
Q: What can you tell me about the so-called Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church? Are they in union with the pope? I have my doubts after hearing that their infants receive a sacrament called "Chrismation."
A: The Byzantine Rite is one of several Eastern rites recognized by and in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Its origin can be traced to the ancient city of Byzantium (modern-day Istanbul), renamed Constantinople when the emperor Constantine relocated his capital city there from Rome in A.D. 330.
Although in full communion with the Church in the West, the Byzantine Rite retains distinctive features. Byzantine churches are beautifully adorned with icons, and the sanctuary is separated from the congregation by an iconostasis, a screen covered with icons. Leavened bread is used for the consecration of the Body of Christ in the liturgy (not called the "Mass" in Eastern rites), which is either the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or that of St. Basil the Great. Communion is received under both kinds and administered by the priest from a spoon.
Byzantine Catholics operate under a different code of canon law. They also celebrate a somewhat different liturgical year with some unique feasts and saints. In addition to Lenten fasting prior to Easter, they also fast before Christmas, the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, and the Assumption.
Chrismation is simply another term for the sacrament we know as Confirmation. Following ancient custom, it is administered in the East to infants at the time of their baptism, along with the Eucharist.
Latin Rite Catholics are often surprised when attending a Byzantine liturgy (which you are free to do at any time and which does fulfill your obligation to attend Mass) to find more prayers for the Pope than in the Latin liturgy.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
