|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
WHY CAN’T PROTESTANTS RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST?
Q: Catholics talk about unity, but they seem to undercut their own position by denying Communion to Protestants. Why can’t Protestants who agree about the Church in essentials receive the Eucharist while remaining Protestant?
A: Why doesn’t sleeping together constitute a valid marriage? What you are asking to do is a great deal like saying, "I want to go to bed with my girlfriend and have the Church call it a marriage. Why can’t sex take the place of a marriage vow?" Protestants who agree with the Church in essentials are called "Catholics." One of the essentials they agree on is the need to be united formally with the Church through the rites of reception and under the authority of the local bishop before receiving Communion, just as it is needful for man and woman to be united formally in holy matrimony before sleeping together.
—Mark P. Shea
Q: I believe that the Bible is inerrant, but Genesis 11:11 and Luke 3:35,36 contradict each other. One says that Arphaxad is the father of Salah, and the other states that Salah’s father is Cainan, and Cainan’s father is Arphaxad. Although this may appear to be a small point, it seems to show that the Bible has an error.
A: In Hebrew genealogies, there is no separate word used for "grandfather" or "great-grandfather." The genealogies will often skip a generation or more as is seen when Jesus is called the Son of David. The word "father" is used for any male line ancestor, not only an immediately prior male. Thus, to say that Arphaxad begat (became the father of) Salah is not contradictory to the genealogy that records Arphaxad as the father of Cainan and Cainan as the father of Sala. This is simply the way Hebrews wrote genealogies.
—Jason Evert
Q: My wife is trying to convert a man who believes in Taoism back to Christianity (since he isn’t Catholic). Any help?
A: As you probably know, Taoism (pronounced "dow-ism") is an ancient Chinese religious philosophy commonly attributed to Lao Tzu, the "ancient philosopher." The teachings of Taoism are found in the Tao Teh Ching, an epic poem of eighty-one stanzas. If you were going to engage a Taoist, this would be the place to start. Get the Tao Teh Ching and read it carefully. What you will find are surprising parallels to Christianity. There are vast differences, sure, but the similarities will give you a place to start. Take a look at some of these parallels.
The Tao, the uncreated cause, is transcendent: "In the beginning was the Tao. All things issue from it; all things return to it" (v. 52). "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:1–3).
The Tao is immanent in all things: "It flows through all things, inside and outside, and returns to the origin of all things" (v. 25). "In him [God] we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
The Tao is engaged in creation, which it cares for: "The Tao gives birth to all beings, nourishes them, maintains them, cares for them, comforts them, protects them . . ." (v. 51). "I [Yahweh] have nourished and brought up children . . ." (Isa. 1:2); ". . . and upholding all things by the word of his power . . ." (Heb. 1:3.); ". . . casting all your care upon him; for he cares for you." (1 Pet. 5:7); ". . . for the Lord has comforted his people" (Isa. 49:13).
The Tao warns against judging: "If you close your mind in judgments and traffic with desires, your heart will be troubled. If you keep your mind from judging and aren’t led by the senses, your heart will find peace" (v. 52). "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again" (Matt. 7:1–2).
The Tao teaches universal love: "Love the world as your self; then you can care for all things" (v. 13).
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:39). "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44).
The Tao teaches a way of gentleness to overcome force: "The gentlest thing in the world overcomes the hardest thing in the world" (v. 43). "Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves" (Luke 10:3).
The Tao teaches the paradox of dying to self: "If you want to be reborn, let yourself die" (v. 22). "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Matt. 16:25).
The Tao teaches the paradox of giving up possessions: "If you want to be given everything, give everything up" (v. 22). "And every one that has forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life" (Matt. 19:29).
The Tao teaches the transitory nature of riches: "Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench. Care about people’s approval and you will be their prisoner" (v. 9). "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break through and steal" (Matt. 6:19).
Stressing these and other parallels may soften your friend’s heart and allow him to hear the gospel anew. But keep in mind that there are two huge differences between the religions. Despite the similar language, the Tao and Yahweh are vastly dissimilar. Taoism does not admit a Creator who is conscious and personal or who strives for us. Neither does Taoism admit original sin, though it recognizes destructive behavior. In Taoism there is no need for salvation, only enlightenment.
I suspect that your friend is attracted to the mystical and philosophical aspects of Taoism. It could be that his own Christian tradition is devoid of these. Perhaps you could whet his appetite with the writings of some of our Catholic mystics. I would recommend the work of Meister Eckhart whose work develops themes that are congruent with Taoism but also thoroughly Christian.
One more thing: Remember that conversion is not accomplished by us but by God. Pray for your friend and bring his case before the Lord who "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).
—Larry Nolte
Q: Our son is preparing for First Communion. When we spoke with the DRE in our parish about his also receiving the sacrament of penance, we were told that he cannot make his confession because our parish does not offer catechesis for confession until two years after First Communion. This does not seem right to us.
A: Telling a child (or the parents of a child inquiring on his behalf) that he cannot receive the sacrament of penance because "the parish does not offer catechesis for confession" until some future time is faulty in several respects. Let me outline just one serious problem with what you’ve been told.
Strictly speaking, the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not require any catechesis prior to reception of the sacrament of penance. Unlike baptism (c. 865), confirmation (c. 889), Eucharist (c. 913), holy orders (c. 1028), or matrimony (c. 1063), all of which explicitly require various degrees of instruction prior to reception of the sacrament, the only thing required for reception of confession is contrition for sins (c. 987). No conscientious parent rejects a young child’s attempt to say "sorry" for something just because that child has not yet been formally instructed in the notion of contrition and forgiveness, and the Church does not prevent her children from expressing sorrow for sins just because of a lack of prior instruction in the area. By the same token, and with the same reasoning, the other sacrament of healing, anointing of the sick, requires nothing by way of prior catechesis for licit reception (c. 1004).
Don’t misunderstand me: I think catechesis for confession is a fine thing and it should be offered. It can deepen one’s sense of personal sorrow for sin, heighten one’s awareness of the obligation to avoid sin n the future, open one’s eyes to the abundant mercy of God, and generally facilitate a fruitful reception of the sacrament. But to prevent a child from approaching the sacrament of penance simply because "we haven’t taught him how to do it yet" is, at best, an unconvincing excuse for withholding a sacrament and, at worst, a violation of the child’s fundamental right, as a member of the faithful, to approach his ministers for the sacraments in general (c. 213) and to access the graces of Confession in particular (c. 991).
—Edward Peters
Q: The Church teaches that the Host consists not only of the Body of Christ, but also of his Blood. This is nowhere found in Scripture.
A: Not so. In 1 Corinthians 11:27, we read (RSV): "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" [emphasis added]. Whether we eat the Host or drink from the cup, we profane both the Body and the Blood of Christ, so the Host consists not only of the Body of Christ, but also of his Blood. Likewise, the cup consists of not only the Blood, but also the Body of Christ.
—Mario Derksen
Q: I read in a Dave Hunt book that the Catholic Church taught in Vatican II that only some of Scripture is inerrant. Is this true?
A: Hunt grossly misinterprets Vatican II with his quotation from Dei Verbum, paragraph 11. The quotation reads, "We must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the sacred Scriptures." Hunt takes this to mean that we teach that if a certain verse in the Bible does not directly pertain to our salvation, then it is not inerrant. This is wrong. If he had done his homework and checked the footnotes, he’d see that the Catholic Church unswervingly affirms the inerrancy of Scripture.
—Jason Evert
Q: Wasn’t the Catholic Church wrong in condemning Galileo and therefore fallible in what it teaches?
A: The Church freely admits that Galileo’s tribunal was wrong in certain respects, but that does not in any way "disprove" the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility. The Church never has claimed its ordinary tribunals to be infallible. They have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. Only a pope or an ecumenical council is infallible, and then only in special circumstances. While the Holy Office’s condemnation was ratified by Urban VIII, there are three conditions which must be present in order for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: He must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; he must solemnly define a doctrine relating to faith or morals; he must indicate the doctrine is to be held by all the faithful. In Galileo’s case the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first.
—Bill Eichman
Q: My friend and I are having the hardest time figuring out what the "Little Flower of the Child Jesus" is. My friend thinks it is Thérèse of the Little Flower. Can you help us? I know this is not exactly apologetics-related, but we didn’t know whom else we might ask.
A: Thérèse of Lisieux, named a Doctor of the Church on October 19, is also known as the Little Flower—a term she used in her Story of a Soul. Her name in Carmel was Thérèse of the Child (or Infant) Jesus and of the Holy Face. These are just different ways of indicating the same saint. She is not to be confused with Teresa of Avila, also known as Teresa of Jesus, who was the great reformer of Carmel and the first woman Doctor of the Church.
—Terrye Newkirk
Q: Why wasn't Origen, the most prolific writer of Christian antiquity, canonized?
A: Origen (185-254) was born in Egypt. In 230 he visited Palestine and was ordained. Much of his teaching was condemned during and after his lifetime, so few of his many writings remain, except as quoted in the works of other writers.
A chief reason for Origen's non-canonization is that he believed in the apokatastasis, which is the idea that in the end all people and all angels, even the fallen ones, will return to their pristine spiritual state. They will end up in heaven, though after much purgation. In the end, hell, if it exists at all, will be empty, and everybody will be saved. It was a fine theory. The only thing wrong with it was that it was untrue. Our Lord repeatedly taught that hell exists, that Satan and his minions are there, that some (even many) people will be consigned there, and that it will last for all eternity.
—Karl Keating
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
