|
L e t t e r s
Great Popes
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 3
 March 1999 
|
|
|
In a "Dragnet" item in your November 1998 issue ("Gospel According to Andy Rooney"), I think you made a mistake when you wrote "John Paul II may end up being only the third pope to have ‘the Great’ appended to his name." I remember a homily last year by a priest friend of mine during the feast of St. Gregory, and he mentioned there were three.
In the 1997 Catholic Almanac you will find these three as "Great" popes: Leo I (September 29, 440 to November 10, 461); Gregory I (September 3, 590 to March 12, 604); and Nicholas I (April 24, 858 to November 13, 867). So John Paul II would be the fourth, and I believe rightly so!
As I understand it, "the Great" title was a given spontaneously while these popes were alive, which truly makes them Great, versus after they are gone we discover how great they were.
Bill Hegedusich
New Market, England
Editor’s reply:
There seems to be some question as to Nicholas I’s stature as "the Great." For instance, the Catholic Almanac grants him the title but the Catholic Encyclopedia does not.
So Overall We’re At 6.5
On faith, answers, morals you rate a big 10. On print, format, font for This Rock you rate a 3 (and that’s being overly generous!).
Don’t be cute! Pages printed on dark backgrounds of pale blue, gray, sepia; type is pale, small, vague—who needs that? What is it supposed to convey? Compare your quality product with other similar publications.
Take constructive criticism or no contributions. If there is no improvement I intend to cancel.
Phil Killian
Media, Pennsylvania
Resisting Luis Palau
I’m writing in the hope that you’ll print this letter for your subscribers in the state of Maine. Between the months of February and May, international evangelist Luis Palau will hold a number of crusade meetings, radio broadcasts, and "Friendship Evangelist Training" seminars in various Protestant churches throughout the state.
I’m concerned that many Catholics will be challenged by those who are involved in the Luis Palau Crusade and perhaps not be prepared to answer questions about their faith. I direct a small lay apostolate, Christ the King Apologetics Guild, which is dedicated to defining and defending our Catholic faith. I have the approval of my pastor and work to help Catholics and non-Catholics understand the teachings of the faith.
Luis Palau is a former Catholic, and, while none of his broadcasts have had any anti-Catholic sentiments, the message he presents is in opposition to certain teachings of the faith (eternal security, sola scriptura, etc.). According to his autobiography, he was baptized a Catholic but his parents "accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior" at some point after his baptism, so I don’t think Mr. Palau was brought up in the Catholic Faith.
Christ the King Apologetics Guild’s address is P.O. Box 479, North Waterboro, Maine 04061; phone (207) 247-3104; e-mail: ouellette@mix-net.net; web site: www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3373/christ.htm. I hope I can be of service to Mainers who might have questions about the Luis Palau Crusade or about the faith in general.
Timothy G. Ouellette
North Waterboro, Maine
Whip Out Psalm 45
Thanks for the article on the biblical nature of Mary’s queenship ("Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?" December 1998). However, I was rather astonished that the author, Edward Sri, made no reference to my favorite biblical text supporting Mary’s queenship: Psalm 45.
This beautiful psalm begins as a praise to the King, and an obvious reference to Christ. It continues, "On your right stands the queen in gold of Ophir." Here we see explicitly that the Messiah has a queen. It then addresses itself to the queen, saying that people will seek her favor (i.e., request her intercession), and that she will make her sons princes over all the earth (wielding her maternal power). It extols the beauty of the queen and finishes with the wish that this song will "make your name forever remembered"; "may the peoples praise you from age to age"—echoes of "Blessed are you among women" and "All generations will call me blessed." Not only do we have here a concise biblical description of Mary’s position and role, but we even have an example of the psalmist addressing her and praising her!
So next time your Protestant friends denounce the "unbiblical" character of this belief, whip out Psalm 45 and use this concise catechism to teach them the truth about the most holy Mother of God.
Eric Ewanco
Framingham, Massachusetts
Doesn’t Take A Rocket Scientist
I am a new subscriber to This Rock. I have followed Catholic Answers and many of the new apologetic authors.
I must tell you I was disappointed in the article by Kevin Orlin Johnson ("The Ten Most Common Misconceptions about Apparitions," October 1998). What are his credentials to make some of the statements he made, particularly "One thing that’s practically the hallmark of a false apparition is the report that a set of rosary beads has changed color"?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what apparition he’s talking about. As one who’s been to Medjugorje two times, I can tell him he’s wrong. Even our Holy Father has said that people should go there based on the fruits of that place. I have witnessed with my own eyes the miracle of the sun and have two rosary beads that have turned colors.
Besides the physical phenomena that our Lady gives us to help us believe, no one can deny the millions of conversions that have resulted from pilgrimages to Medjugorje. As one who was extremely skeptical and doubtful, I suggest Mr. Johnson experience Medjugorje firsthand before making absolute (and, I might add, erroneous) statements.
I know the Church has not made a final pronouncement about Medjugorje and I stand ready to accept her decision. Even if our Holy Mother Church were to decide against it nothing would have been lost. Millions have returned to God and are now living our Lady’s message of prayer, fasting, penance, and conversion. I believe our Lord said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Lucia T. Romano
Mission Viejo, California
Editor’s reply:
Reports of the Holy Father’s endorsement of Medjugorje are based on comments he allegedly made to a group of pilgrims. He has made no official pronouncement of approval.
Better To Believe In Apparitions Than Not
This Rock generally does an excellent job in trying to defend the faith with sensitivity and caution. However, I cannot commend the slipshod and cowardly approach you took with Kevin Orlin Johnson’s article "The Ten Most Common Misconceptions about Apparitions."
This article lacks objectivity and factual substantiation but what’s really bothersome is the underlying spirit of disbelief. Note the subtle sarcasm in the opening paragraph: "Every day, it seems, the papers are splashed with another report of an angel appearing by a hospital bed, the Blessed Virgin’s image showing up in a window screen, or the face of Christ appearing on yet another tortilla."
It seems that St. Louis de Montfort’s prophecy regarding the twentieth century being the age of Mary is coming true. Johnson writes, "Catholics find these reports embarrassing." Perhaps, if such reports actually exist. But I’ve never heard of Christ’s image appearing on a tortilla, and I suspect Johnson is mistaking the TV listings for "Touched by an Angel" as an angelic hospital apparition.
In point #3 Johnson writes, "People claim to see apparitions just to get in the spotlight. That one happens to be true [in most cases]." Yet he provides no statistical evidence to substantiate this claim. He writes, "[T]he two greatest causes or reports of apparitions are human fraud and human delusion. . . . Least frequent of all is the genuine outreach by God." How does he know this? Is he talking about all of Christianity in all of time or just in this century?
Many apparitions imply a great event in human history will shortly take place. In general the messages are summarized as, "Time is short; repent, for now is the time of God’s great mercy." If this is true, then it stands to reason there would be more apparitions because, as we draw closer to the appointed time, God in his infinite mercy and love desires all his children to come to him. Johnson is amiss to dismiss the majority of apparitions today simply because so many in the past were fake. Keep in mind what Pope Urban VIII (1623–1644) declared: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for if you believe and it is proven true you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe and it shall be proven false you shall receive all the blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."
In point #4 Johnson claims, "[O]ne thing that’s practically the hallmark of a false apparition is the report that a set of rosary beads has changed color." Johnson provides no evidence to substantiate his claim whatsoever. In fact, the great fallacy of his article is the lack of substantiation and continual presenting of broad generalities as fact. Where does he get this stuff? My rosary chain changed color about a month after I bought it. It aided tremendously in my conversion. But according to Johnson that’s somehow associated with a false apparition (even though I was nowhere near a claimed or approved apparition). I guess I should throw them in the trash. (No wait; he said " beads change color" and it was my chain. Guess I’m legit.)
In point #5 Johnson gives his "best advice": "Stick to the sacraments and the normal spiritual discipline of the Church." Here Johnson is arguing that the sacraments far outweigh the importance of apparitions. To that I answer, "Of course. Amen." But Johnson is implying apparitions are not part of the "normal spiritual discipline of the Church." However, the Bible tells us to test everything and to hold on to the good (1 Thess. 5:21). Certainly this advice is part of "the normal spiritual discipline of the Church."
Do the visionaries preach obedience to the Church? Does the reported apparition wish the pilgrims and visionaries to go to Mass? If not then the apparition is false. Other "normal spiritual disciplines" I look for in relation to an apparition is an increase in prayer, fasting, conversion, frequent reception of the Eucharist, and confession. These signs do not prove its legitimacy, but they should at least ease some of the skepticism.
Number 6: "People who don’t bother with modern apparitions just aren’t spiritually gifted enough to understand. No, . . . they’re doing basically what the Church hopes people will do." Excuse me, but where in the catechism does it teach the Church hopes people will not bother with apparitions? Here again, Johnson makes a broad general statement without any substantiation.
He goes on to write, "Whatever the form, [private revelation] is not essential to the faith." And "the most that any post-biblical apparition gets is a negative approval—an official declaration that there’s nothing in the report or in its implications that’s contrary to the faith, so that it’s ‘worthy of belief.’ That means that you can believe it or, if you aren’t interested, not."
This is all very true, but it’s only part of the picture. For example, the spirit of God working through the miraculous image of Guadalupe was responsible for literally millions of conversions. That is historical fact. Imagine living back in that time. You are there to witness the miraculous image of Guadalupe paraded through the streets for the very first time. Imagine the pageantry and awe the people around you express as this wondrous gift from God is displayed. Then, just as the image passes your view, a man suddenly cries out, "Whatever the form, it’s not essential to the faith."
Okay, so it’s not essential to the faith. But with it my cup runneth over. We Catholics are so blessed. The Eucharist alone makes our cup runneth over, but we belong in the family of an infinite being and his blessings and wonders are endless. Therefore the blessings found in approved private revelation subtract nothing from the established sacraments. If anything they’re complementary. That’s the point Johnson misses.
From here it’s downhill for Johnson. He writes, "That’s why even spectacularly gifted saints can take apparitions or leave them. Louis of France looked up calmly when his servant burst into the room yelling about how Christ was appearing in the Eucharist in the palace chapel, and then the king turned back to his work." I suppose Bishop Zumarraga should have ignored Juan Diego and continued working as Diego unfolded his tunic revealing the miraculous image of Guadalupe. The children of Fatima should have continued to sleep when our Blessed Mother appeared to them in 1917. When the miracle of the bleeding Eucharist occurred during the consecration in 700 at St. Longinus in Luciano, Italy, the people should have said, "Never mind! Get on with the Mass."
In point #9 Johnson makes a strange generalization: "[T]here is no biblical reference for the appearance of anybody’s face on a food item or flower petals." Maybe Johnson is making a case for sola apparitia scriptura (apparitions from the bible alone)? If that’s the case we better burn the Shroud of Turin, Veronica’s veil, and the tilma of Guadalupe.
Finally there is point #10: "Apparitions can be photographed. Nope." How does Johnson know this? By what authority is this conclusion derived—from sola photographica scriptura?
I can not even fathom why such a preposterous statement would be made. I suspect Johnson secretly doesn’t believe in any apparitions, approved or not.
Douglas E. Sparkes
Puyallup, Washington
Your Magazine Of All Publications Should Know
I read your article "The Ten Most Common Misconsception about Apparitions" by Kevin Orlin Johnson and found it full of wrong information. Some portions of the article were factual; others had no backing other than the opinion of the author. Some comments were contradictory to what is already known from offically approved apparitions.
Mr. Johnson states that an apparition can not be photographed. But in 1968, in Zeituin, Egypt,our Lady was photographed and witnessed by over two thousand people. In Akita, Japan, our Lady made herself known to human senses by making a statue cry blood and human tears. These events are photographically documented and approved by the Catholic Church.
Mr. Johnson purports to give guidelines for determining is an apparition is false, such as "the report that a set of rosary beads has changed color,"or the visionary grants an interview with a message given to him, or receives pilgrims. The only official guidelines for discerning whether an apparition is authentic were issued February 25, 1978, by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The guidelines are as follows:
1. The facts in the case are free of error.
2. The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere, and respectful of Church authority.
3. Doctrinal error is not attributed to God, our Lady, or a saint.
4. Theological and spiritual doctrines presented are free of error.
5. Money-making is not a motive.
6. Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result with no evidence of collective hysteria.
In these guidelines there is no mention of rosaries turning color or of visionaries welcoming pilgrims. There are many approved apparitions locally and others currently under investigation where instances of rosaries turning color have been documented, many times converting people back to a religious life. If Mr. Johnson’s guidelines were correct many of the apparitions now approved would be false apparitions, and the Church would be in error.
I bring this to your attention because your magazine of all publications should know how personal opinion not in conformance with the Church’s teaching can be misleading. Misleading in this case may deprive someone of a very special grace or gift God has provided to an individual who may very well need it.
From all the reading and research that I have done on the subject, the best defense against a false apparition is knowing the Church’s doctrine and following the Church’s wisdom. If an apparition leads you away from these, stand clear. A true apparition will lead you closer to the Catholic faith and closer to our Lord Jesus Christ.
George Encinosa
Satellite Beach, Florida
Kevin Orlin Johnson replies:
Some of the points raised in these letters result from the fact that the article in This Rock had to be short. Thanks to the editors at Pangaeus Press, the book from which it was condensed (Apparitions: Mystic Phenomena and What They Mean) is itself a miracle of concision, and it still runs nearly 400 pages. For more information and documentation I can only refer readers to the book itself.
In general, with mystic phenomena, passions run high. Some of us suffer from what John of the Cross called a "spiritual sweet tooth"—an eagerness for extraordinary mystic experience so strong it ignores facts, resists the obligation of learning the basics of the faith, and refuses to listen to the bishops, who are the only authority in these matters. Even enthusiasts might not see the full scope of the confusion.
Within two miles of my office in Dallas, Texas, there are a reputed image of Christ in the grain of a broken tree and a plain glass window on which some people see Mary. My mail is always full of reports of miraculous tortillas, cinnamon buns, rose petals - anything. Hundreds are reported every week, and they do lead people away from the sacraments. (The tree, for nearly twenty years now, has had votive candles, pictures, and presents of money left at its base.) Statistically, nonsensical reports vastly outnumber anything worth investigation; and those worthy of investigation far outnumber the real ones.
Because rumors are rife, it’s important to be very careful about asserting that "the Church has approved" or "the Church hasn’t made any decision." In all cases in the preceding letters, these assertions are incorrect or incomplete. Sometimes proponents interpret the bishop’s silence as approval. Even if the bishop is compelled to point out the falsity of a report, proponents frequently disregard him and figure that the Pope, surely, will see the light and affirm that this is real and put that bishop in his place.
Many spread their own conclusions as fact, and people of good will repeat them. But it belongs to the Church, not to individual laymen, to "test everything and hold on to the good." We are bound by obedience to listen to the Church, to which Christ gave that authority, and which he will not contradict by new revelation.
Urban VIII was speaking in the context of approved private revelations, which are never affirmed by the Church as coming from God, anyway. They’re only given the negative approval that there’s nothing in them contrary to the faith; but belief in them is never enjoined on Catholics.
People living full sacramental lives day to day don’t need these extraordinary reminders. And none of us can judge the "conversions" that are supposed to happen around these reports. Emotions fade; it takes a very long time to confirm the spiritual fruits of these things.
The guidelines outlined by Mr. Encinosa – which by the way have been superseded by confidential guidelines we can’t know the content of - simply point out the kinds of things that the bishop and his experts look for; they don’t qualify anybody possessed of this list to judge reports for himself. Are we in a position to determine even the purely natural matter of the seer’s psychological balance? At any rate, wholesale insistence on a disapproved or officially unnoticed apparition qualifies as "collective hysteria."
The purported changing color of rosaries is not accepted as evidence, for these good reasons and many others: (1) It hasn’t been reported around genuine apparitions, not since apostolic days, but it’s reported at nearly every false one. It’s far outside the spectrum of genuine mystic phenomena; there’s no such thing in the Bible; (2) It’s possible from any number of obvious or obscure natural causes. Every specimen presented for examination has been the result of natural oxidation or wear; (3) No case has been sufficiently documented to prove that a rosary really changed color at that place and time; (4) Last, it is trivial—it has no apparent instructive purpose.
Misunderstandings also persist about miraculous images. There aren’t any in the Bible, so they fall outside that rule of thumb. But even if they might be truly miraculous, they’re concomitant phenomena, marginal to the mystic event itself. And the Church isn’t going to affirm that they are definitely the handiwork of God, only that no known natural or artificial process could have done it. In any case, their purpose is just like that of any other religious image: to direct our attention to the basics of the faith.
So, indeed, as Mr. Encinosa points out, the best defense is knowing the Church’s doctrine. Whether Mary appeared at Fatima or not, whether the Holy Shroud is genuine or not, the Gospels are still true, and unchanged.
"For Many" Or "For All"?
It’s true, as you pointed out in "Quick Questions" (December 1998), that even Aquinas and the Roman Catechism of 1566 aren’t final authorities. So even though they both defended saying during Mass that Our Lord died "for many" instead of "for all," that doesn’t mean that we have to translate pro multis that way.
But the Roman Catechism said, "If we consider its potential efficacy, we would have to say that the Blood of the Savior was shed for all men. But if we look to what it actually achieves in terms of mankind’s acceptance of it, we see that it does not extend to the whole. . . The alternate expression, ‘for all,’ was properly omitted, because here it is only the fruit of the Passion which is spoken of" (chapter 3, section 24).
If I remember correctly, Aquinas also maintained that it was actually true that Christ died for all men, but pro multis only refers to those who accepted salvation.
In the 1653 condemnation of the errors of Cornelius Jansen, Pope Innocent X decreed that the statement "It is semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed his blood for all men without exception" was false. In fact, the statement is heretical if understood to mean that Christ died for the salvation only of the elect.
So while it’s true the Church may have changed its mind about the appropriateness of understanding pro multis as "for the multitude," it’s also true that Jansenism remains a heresy.
Don Schenk
Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
