|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
CAN YOU GO TO HELL "ACCIDENTALLY"?
Q: What happens to those who die and do not believe?
A: Depends. If you mean, "What happens to those who die rejecting Christ?" the Church’s answer is uncompromising: They will go to hell. But no one goes to hell by accident. If someone is simply ignorant of the name of Christ through no fault of his own, there is no sin in that. He has not rejected Christ. Moreover, we know Christ is not constrained by our knowledge. He can work in a heart even when that heart is only dimly aware of it.
Jesus speaks of this in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. The ones judged here are "the nations"—those outside the visible communion of the Church. How are they judged? By the way they responded to Christ when he came to them in disguise. "I was sick and you visited me; hungry, and you fed me; thirsty and you gave me something to drink." How do the sheep and the goats respond? With surprise. The point is, we may not know it, but Christ comes to us even when we don’t (or can’t) come to him. This is why the Church counsels us to hope and pray for the dead. We must not pretend we know what God is up to in the lives of others. We know where the Church is. We do not know where it is not.
Mark P. Shea
Q: What relationship does the Catholic Church perceive to exist between itself and various Protestants (the baptized ones who still accept their faith)?
A: Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not just a "spiritual" (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus, it is possible to be out of union with the Church "bodily" (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a spiritual unity with the Church. Likewise, it is possible to be "bodily" united to the Church yet cease to be in communion with her spiritually (as an apostate Catholic is if he keeps going to Communion yet rejects the creed or continues unrepentant in grave sin). The latter form of disunity with Church is more serious than the former.
Mark P. Shea
Q: Why do theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, say that the contemplative life is superior to the active life?
A: Without going into Thomistic philosophy, I will just say that Thomas taught that each act may be evaluated based on its "end," its ultimate purpose or goal. The worthier the end, the worthier the act that leads to it. The goal of all religious life is to follow Christ more closely. Active orders have typically emphasized his external works—preaching, teaching, healing—while contemplative orders focus on emulating his prayer and self-sacrifice, his direct communion with the Father.
Since God is the direct "end" of the contemplative life (the apprehension of and intimacy with God), we say it is superior to external works of mercy, which have other ends (education and physical well-being).
Perfectae Caritatis says that monasteries "are entirely ordered toward contemplation, in such wise that their members give themselves over to God alone in solitude and silence, in constant prayer and willing penance" (7).
Terrye Newkirk
Q: In the Nicene Creed the Catholic Church asserts that the Son of God is eternally begotten, but you also assert that the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary. Can you explain how the Son can be begotten twice?
A: The question you ask goes directly to the necessity of understanding who Jesus is. Scripture affirms that Jesus is both "the Son of Man" (Matt. 12:8) and "the Son of God" (Matt 8:29).
As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit.
But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father.
We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."
Let’s turn our attention to that other great mystery of our faith, the Incarnation. We already have noted that Jesus was both the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." John puts it very simply: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only begotten Son of the Father" (John 1:14). To fulfill God’s purpose of salvation for all mankind, the Son freely chose to become human. In doing this he was subject to the same biological limitations that we are subject to. He had to be born, and he had to die. He was born at a specific time, to a specific set of parents, in a certain place. His being born this way was a historical event, able to be examined in the record of time.
These dual events are precipitated by who Jesus is: true God and true Man. The events are of a different order. The first took place hidden in God’s own being, apart from time, eternally. It was the act of God alone. The other took place in plain view, as a sign to all of us, at a specific time and place, within God’s creation. And while it was surely the work of God, the act of giving birth to the Son was the act of a woman, a human being.
So the Son is not "begotten twice." He is begotten ("caused to be") after the manner of his Father. And he is born, brought forth as a unique human being, after the manner of his mother. They are two different, but complimentary, acts.
Larry Nolte
Q: Why does "bodily unity" among Christians matter? Isn’t spiritual unity the only thing that really matters?
A: No. Bodily unity does matter. Moreover, the more intense our spiritual unity is, the more deeply it matters. Try telling the bride and groom on their wedding night that, if they are spiritually united, bodily union does not matter. Very well then, in an analogical way, what Catholic faith aims at is both spiritual and bodily unity. Paul tells us there is one spirit and one body (Eph. 4:4). That is why the sacrament of Communion is a physical, bodily sacrament, as well as a spiritual one. Jesus does not instruct us just to think communal thoughts and pray communal prayers. Beyond a unity of heart, he also commands a physical act of unity that partakes of his physical being: His words, after all, are "Take, eat. This is my body," not "Take, eat. This is my spirit."
Mark P. Shea
Q: You Catholics claim to have a high view of the Bible, yet you cheapen it with your so-called "infallible" Church documents, which in effect amount to additional Scripture. This violates the warning in Revelation 22:18 against adding to "the words of this book."
A: It is precisely because Catholics have a high view of sacred Scripture that we believe in infallible magisterial documents without making them additional Scripture. Simply being infallible and binding does not make a document equal to Scripture, because Scripture is not simply infallible and binding: It is the inspired Word of God, divine revelation which has God as its principal author. Magisterial documents, even the most solemn and authoritative, are purely human writings, not divine; they are about divine revelation, but are not themselves revealed. God is not their author, only their editor; he does not inscribe truth into them, but only keeps error out. The notion that any inerrant document amounts to "additional Scripture" betrays a shockingly low view of Scripture, one which defines Scripture in purely negative terms as that which is errorless.
Beyond this, the very charge of "additional Scripture" presupposes that the writing of Scripture has ended, a doctrine affirmed by the authoritative teaching of the Church, but nowhere made explicit in sacred Scripture. Revelation 22:18 does not refer to writing additional Scripture, but to tampering with "the words of this scroll," the Book of Revelation itself. Similar warnings can be found in the Old Testament, long before the end of the age of revelation. Ironically, this charge presupposes a doctrine that is explicitly taught only by the authority of the Church!
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: How are you Catholics any more doctrinally united or harmonious than we Protestants? You have your radical feminists, hyperconservatives, New Agers, and everything else, just like we do. And among born-again, Bible-believing Evangelicals there is unity, just as there is among traditional Catholics.
A: It is true that one may find people who believe anything—or nothing—and who call themselves "Catholic" or "Protestant." These labels do not, by themselves, establish unity. Nevertheless, the Catholic rule of faith confers doctrinal unity in a way that the Protestant rule of faith does not.
The Catholic rule of faith is "the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition as understood by the Church"; the Protestant rule of faith is "Scripture alone." Although there are those on both sides (radical feminists, New Agers, etc.) who have no regard for either rule of faith, who heed neither Scripture nor the Church, the difference is among those who do.
While the mere claim to be "Catholic" doesn’t necessarily tell us much about a person’s belief, the claim to follow the Catholic rule of faith, to believe the teachings of Scripture and Tradition as defined by the living Catholic magisterium, does. But the claim to follow the Protestant rule of faith, to believe the teachings of Scripture alone, hardly tells us more than the claim to be "Protestant." One could be Baptist or pedobaptist, Calvinist or Arminian, Anglo-Catholic or low-church Anglican or anything in between.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: Why does the Church practice closed Communion? If unity is caused by sharing in the Lord’s Table, then why not let everybody receive, whether they are Catholic or not?
A: Because unity is not caused by sharing in the Lord’s Table any more than a marriage is caused by intercourse. For those who are out of full communion with the Catholic Church, the spiritual unity must happen first (by entering into full unity with the Church through the rites of initiation), just as those who are not married must be married before they can enter into bodily unity. In both cases, the physical unity naturally flows from the spiritual unity. Eucharist strengthens the unity of the Body of Christ, just as the marriage act strengthens the sacrament of matrimony. But we must do first things first!
Mark P. Shea
Q: Isn't inclusive language just simple justice? Should the Church exclude half of the worshipers by using "man" and "men"& in the Mass?
A: Such a view betrays a lack of knowledge of the history of language. The Latin homo and the Anglo-Saxon man merely mean "person," without regard to sex. Therefore, no one is excluded by such Bible passages such as "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked" or by phrases in the Liturgy such as "for us men and for our salvation." The real problem, if there is one, is that English has no common word that specifically means "male person," parallel to the Latin vir, but it has one, "woman," that means "female person." Perhaps it is men who should feel left out.
Terrye Newkirk
|
[TOP]
