|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
SHOULD MARY BE CALLED "MEDIATRIX"?
Q: I can accept most of the Church’s teaching on Mary, but I struggle with the Church calling Mary the mediatrix of all graces. This seems to be a violation of 1 Timothy 2:5–6, where Scripture states that Jesus, through his death on the cross, is the one mediator between God and man. Please explain.
A: Mary’s title of mediatrix arises from her cooperation in the Incarnation and in the redemption of mankind. Through her "yes" (Luke 1:38), she became the Theotokos (God-bearer), and, as the "New Eve," she is "the Mother of all living."
Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, "As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience" (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19). Eve made the Fall possible, but Adam effected it; Mary made our redemption possible (by consenting to bring the Savior into the world), but Jesus effected it.
God permitted the redemption of mankind to depend on the free-will decision of a human being. Whether or not we would have a mediator was dependent on Mary’s "yes." Had there been no "yes" from Mary, there would have been no mediator. Thus the graces that come through Jesus may be said to come to us, in a secondary way, via Mary—not as the origin of the graces, but as a conduit. The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.
Even we are mediators, in a lesser sense. The word "mediator" means someone who is a go-between. In 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus as the "one mediator," the Greek word for "one" is heis, which means "first" or "primary" and does not denote something exclusive. In fact, we are all mediators when we pray for one another. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we all share in Christ’s role as mediator, but our efforts at being go-betweens "work" only because of what he has done.
Our mediating in no way diminishes the role of Christ as mediator; in fact, it glorifies the Father, because it is through Jesus that we can approach with confidence the throne of grace (Heb. 4:14–16). How much more does Jesus give his mother Mary the privilege to be a participant in the distribution of grace!
—Peggy Frye
Q: Where does the Bible say that those who forgive will be granted everlasting life?
A: Matthew 18:21–22 recounts Christ telling Peter that he must continually ("seventy times seven times") forgive those who have wronged him. In the parable of the unforgiving debtor (Matt. 18:23–35), our Lord proceeds to point out that God will deal with us mercifully only if we in turn will deal likewise with one another and states that God will deal harshly with us if we do not extend that forgiveness to others.
So it is clear that God demands men forgive one another; not only that, but that men actively seek forgiveness from each other. It is also clear that human forgiveness, both in seeking and in granting, is an integral part of human participation in the divine life of grace and therefore of salvation itself.
—Fr. Hal Stockert
Q: Recently, in our parish Bible study class, the leader stated that heaven is not a place but is in our minds, and he quoted sections 2794–2796 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a source for this opinion. I am deeply troubled by this concept. If heaven is not a place, then why did Jesus ascend into heaven as he left his apostles? Why would he say that he was going to prepare a "place" for them, if one did not exist? Why does the Catechism say heaven is "a way of being"? I have not been back to Bible class since this bomb was dropped on me.
Your distress shows the difficulty of expressing transcendent concepts in mere words. The truth is, we don’t know exactly what heaven is like—even if we did, we could not reduce it to language, which is a human device incapable of containing God.
A: Your group leader’s statement that heaven is "in our minds" is misleading, however. Heaven is within us, in the sense that each Christian is a temple of the indwelling Trinity. But it is no more accurate to say that heaven is only within us than it is to say that, by virtue of our receiving the sacraments, Jesus exists only within us. God and heaven live within us—but they also have an objective life beyond us as well.
God, in a sense, is heaven. In 1 Maccabees 3:18, for example, the author uses "Heaven" as a name for God (to avoid using the name it was forbidden to pronounce). Heaven exists wherever God is. Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17), meaning that, since God took on flesh, heaven itself is here, among us. After death, our experience of heaven will be to enter fully into the intimate love of the Holy Trinity, to our everlasting and perfect joy. To the extent that we participate in that love while on earth, we begin to share the joy of heaven now. Catherine of Siena said, "All the way to heaven is heaven."
You are right that the Bible refers to "heavenly places." We must keep in mind that time and space are finite concepts; God is not bound by them, nor could God live in one physical place, as we think of it, because the physical universe is his creation and cannot contain him. Heaven is a place, but not a particular space.
We must understand the symbolic language of the Bible and the saints as an attempt to communicate the ineffable. We do not understand literally terms such as seeing God "face to face." We rejoice in their meaning: that we will be with God, intimate with him, unhindered by our mortal limitations.
As the Catechism says (section 1024), "This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity—this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed—is called ‘heaven.’ Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness."
We leave up to God "where" and "how" he fulfills his promise.
—Terrye Newkirk
Q: Is it true that Catholics must totally and without question obey every dictate from their parish priest?
A: Certainly not! There are few areas in which a priest can require one to do anything, and those are connected primarily with the sacraments (e.g., what one is to do as a penance following the sacrament of reconciliation) and one’s behavior in church (e.g., no running in the aisles).
What one does outside of church and outside of these narrowly defined areas is one’s own business—subject, of course, to the Church’s disciplinary regulations and moral.
Even in the areas where a priest does have authority, it is sharply limited. For example, he cannot require a person to do something intrinsically immoral as a penance or demand that a person sing in the choir.
—James Akin
Q: A Baptist friend told me that he believes that so long as your name is "written in the book," you’re saved. How do I answer?
A: True, the Bible uses the metaphor of having the names of all the righteous written in a book (actually, the Greek word means "scroll") which is kept in heaven. In Scripture it is referred to as "the book of life," and your friend is correct. Everyone whose name appears in this book on the last day will be saved: "[I]f any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. . . . [N]othing unclean shall enter [the New Jerusalem], nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life" (Rev. 20:15, 21:27).
People’s names are written in this book during the present life. Paul speaks of certain women who "have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life" (Phil.4:3).
The question is: Does the fact that one’s name was written in the book of life when one came to God and received initial salvation mean that one’s name will stay in the book of life until the last day, when one would receive final salvation?
The answer is: No. Scripture indicates in dozens of places that one can lose salvation, and it does so in specific connection with the book of life metaphor.
In Revelation 3:5, Jesus states: "He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels."
The implication is that if you end up giving in to sin, your name will be blotted out of the book of life and you will be denied before God and the angels, something Jesus elsewhere emphasizes (Matt. 10:33, Luke 12:9).
As Jesus puts it, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 10:22, 24:13, Mark 13:13).
—James Akin
Q: A couple using contraception and a couple using natural family planning have the same goal; they only use different means. So why does the Catholic Church condemn the one and endorse the other?<
A: Differing means can make a world of moral difference. Suppose you and I both need a thousand dollars for some worthwhile cause. You get a part-time job and earn the money. I pull a scam and cheat a poor, elderly widow out of the same amount. See the difference?
The hypothetical couples do not have the same goal. Though both intend in a given sexual union to avoid conception, the similarity stops there. The contraceptive couple is acting directly against the procreative good of their marriage and thereby is setting up a barrier to God’s plan for marital union. The NFP couple is cooperating with the natural cycle of fertility and choosing not to exercise the procreative capacity at certain times. At other times they will use the knowledge gained through NFP to help them conceive. At no time will they act against God’s gift of fertility to them. At no time will they treat that mysterious gift as an intruder needing a mechanical or chemical "fix."
—Fr. Ray Ryland
Q: How can I explain to Protestant friends why Catholics go to confession? They ask, "Can’t God forgive your sins directly?"
A: Father Eamon Tobin has written in The Sacrament of Penance: "In response to this question, the first remark I often make is, ‘Why do we not object to having a mediator, another man, at the sacrament of baptism? Why don’t we just baptize ourselves?’ Baptism, among other things, cleanses us of sin. The sacrament of reconciliation is like a second baptism; it cleanses us of post-baptismal sin. If we have no objections to another man’s mediating to us God’s grace in the sacrament of baptism, why should we object to another man’s mediating God’s grace in the sacrament of reconciliation?
"The primary reason, however, why the Catholic Church asks her members to confess their sins to a priest is simply because the Church has always believed that sin, however private, is a community affair. Every sin, however small, wounds the Body of Christ, the members of the Church. . . . When any of its members sin, they all suffer. Moreover, because my sins wound the community and diminish its effectiveness, reconciliation must include the community and not just God. In the confessional, the priest is the representative of God and of the community. In the confessional, the priest represents the whole Christ, the Head (Jesus) and the members (the Church)" [Emphasis mine].
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "private" sin—not in the sense of a sin that affects nobody but myself. There are secret sins, but there are none which are matters affecting "only myself and God." Likewise, our penitence benefits the whole Church, so we celebrate reconciliation communally.
—Fr. Hal Stockert
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
