|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 9
 September 1999 
|
|
|
Born of Water or the Word
Q: I've read that being "born again" or "born of water and the Spirit" refers to Baptism. My problem is 1 Peter 1:23: "You have been born anew, not of imperishable seed but imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God." What is responsible for the new birth: the waters of baptism or the word of God?
A: That's like asking which of your parents is responsible for your natural birth. Notice that John 3 mentions the new birth in the context of feminine or maternal imagery (the mother's womb), whereas 1 Peter specifically mentions a masculine or paternal image (the "seed" of the word of God). The new birth is not water alone, nor the word alone, but the "washing of water with the word" (Eph. 5:26). They should be united, not pitted against one another.
In fact, Peter's readers had been led by hearing the word to embrace new birth in baptism. Their new birth in baptism was the result of word being implanted earlier-a spiritual "conception" in more than one sense.
Even if the imagery did conflict, this would not invalidate one or the other. After all, Scripture sometimes uses the same image for different aspects of divine truth: for example, the Church is said to be built on the foundation of Christ (1 Cor. 3:11), the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20, cf. Rev. 21:14), and Peter in particular (Matt. 16:18). Again, the image of a lion is applied to both the Lord and the devil. There is no reason why birth imagery should not be applied to both water and the word.
As it is, though, the happy complementarity of the two images-a paternal and a maternal one-brings out both aspects of the new birth.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: God is all-just, so God punished Adam and Eve for disobedience by removing them from the garden of Eden. But why did God punish all of their descendents by not allowing them to start their lives in the garden? It is not just to punish a child for the sins of a parent. A child has no control of the actions of a parent since we all have free will and since a parent can perform actions before its child even exists.
A: I think the best way to address this is by means of analogy. Suppose your grandfather inherited great wealth that he himself had not earned. Unfortunately, he also had an unhealthy interest in gambling. Before he died, he went to Las Vegas and lost every penny. You, as a grandson, would have been rich, but instead, your inheritance is gone. This is the case with original sin. God gave Adam a gift he did not earn, Adam lost it, and so his descendants did not inherit it. But God is still fair to us because he offers us not just the exalted state in which Adam was created but a much higher state of union with him through Christ. What we have to do is accept the offer.
Jason Evert
Q: My friend says that because the key phrase in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis-"the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women"-was written in the present tense, it means the Church was not authorized to ordain women as of 1994 but that it could be authorized to do so later on.
A: Let's apply your friend's logic elsewhere. If all statements made by the Church in the present tense are ipso facto mutable, this also means that the Church can authorize divorce. After all, the priest only says, "I now pronounce you man and wife" (present tense). So who says the happy couple is still married five minutes from now?
"This is my body" is spoken in the present tense. So there's no guarantee it stays Christ's body after the act of consecration.
Going further, the whole Creed is up for grabs by your friend's interpetation. After all, "we believe [present tense] in one God, the Father," etc. Who says the Church will believe that next year?
Indeed, if we accept your friend's reasoning, atheism is now potentially compatible with Catholic belief. After all, God is I AM (present tense). Who knows if he will still exist five minutes from now?
This is the weakest argument against the authority of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that I have ever encountered.
Mark P. Shea
Q: I've never understood why Catholics cite the story about the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) in reference to Mary's intercession with Jesus. Yes, Jesus did what Mary asked-but only after making it clear that it was not her place to ask him: "Woman, what is this concern of yours to me?" Isn't it obvious that he never intended Mary to have any say in his ministry?
A: Not according to Jesus himself. He explains his objection this way: "For my hour is not yet come." He doesn't say, "For you may not have any say in my ministry," or "For it is not your place to ask anything of me." He is not objecting to the request, only questioning the timing. When his "hour" arrives, she will ask, and he will hear her.
What is Jesus' "hour"? Throughout John's Gospel this term refers above all to the "hour" of Jesus' passion and death (cf. John 7:30, 8:20, 12:23,27, 13:1, 17:1, etc.). Thus, Jesus is in effect saying: "Why are you interceding with me? It is not yet the hour of my saving death."
In other words, Mary's intercession, like yours and mine, draws all its power from the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus' "hour" does not make Mary's intercession improper or unnecessary; on the contrary, it is the very basis for Mary's intercession.
And note that, even before his "hour," Jesus granted Mary's request by turning the water into wine, just as he granted the request of the Canaanite woman who persevered in prayer when Jesus appeared to refuse her request in order to test her faith (Matt. 15:21-28).
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: There is a large mural of the Crucifixion in our church. Above Jesus' head on the cross there are four letters, "I.N.R.I." and next to the cross there is a Roman soldier holding a banner that says "S.P.Q.R." What do these two abbreviations stand for?
A: "INRI" is an abbreviation for the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum," or "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews," posted on the cross by order of Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. "SPQR" stands for "Senatus Populus Que Romanus," or "The Roman Senate and People," designating the civil authority that presided over the scene.
Edward N. Peters
Q: I was reading that original sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace, not just the lack of sanctifying grace. What is the difference?
A: To lack something is to simply not have that thing; to be deprived of something is to have suffered the loss of that thing. For example, as a human being, I lack wings. However, I have not been deprived of wings, since wings are not part of human nature. Conversely, a bird lacks arms, but is not deprived of them, because arms are not part of avian nature.
When God created man, he could have created us in what is called the state of pure nature, in which we did not have the supernatural endowment of sanctifying grace. Had the human race persisted in that state, children would be born lacking sanctifying grace, but not deprived of it.
Instead, God chose to create man in what is called the state of elevated nature, in which our first parents were endowed with sanctifying grace as a gift not just to them, but to their posterity. Unfortunately, they lost this gift for themselves and for us, and so now we are born deprived of sanctifying grace.
This has consequences for us. While original sin itself is the deprivation of sanctifying grace, it also carries with it a fallen and corrupt nature, which is the stain of original sin.
To give a comparison, suppose God created man in an elevated state in which we were endowed, not only with the arms and legs that are proper to our nature, but also with wings. Suppose then that Adam and Eve did something that not only cost them their own power of flight, but also caused their offspring to be born with stubby, non-functional wings. This would cause problems for human nature, and even if God later restored wings to individual believers as an act of grace, we could still suffer problems from the genetic damage that had cost us our flight in the first place.
James Akin
Q: I heard that the Church has decided that St. Christopher never existed. Is that true, and how does it square with saint canonizations being infallible?
A: First of all, it's not true. The Church has never issued any kind of decree saying that St. Christopher never existed. Furthermore, competent hagiographers, including Protestant ones, tell us that there was a St. Christopher. We just don't know as much about him as some of the legends that grew up around him would suggest.
Second, it would not matter even if there were no St. Christopher. Papal infallibility only applies to those canonizations that the pope has done. St. Christopher was recognized as a saint in the period before the pope became involved in the process, meaning his canonization is not subject to papal infallibility.
The root of the current confusion over St. Christopher's status is based on the 1969 reform of the Roman Calendar. This reform had been mandated by Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), its constitution on the liturgy.
Because the Roman Calendar was getting crowded, especially with saints with local rather than universal followings, the Council declared: "Lest the feasts of the saints take precedence over the feasts commemorating the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or religious family; those only should be extended to the universal Church that commemorate saints of truly universal significance" (SC 111).
A revision of the calendar thus was undertaken after the council, and on February 14, 1969, Pope Paul VI issued a motu proprio with the unwieldy title "Approval of the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the New General Roman Calendar" (AGN). In this document, which is found in a standard Sacramentary, the pope explained:
"With the passage of centuries, it must be admitted, the faithful have become accustomed to so many special religious devotions that the principal mysteries of the redemption have lost their proper place. This was partly due to the increased number of vigils, holy days, and octaves, partly to the gradual overlapping of various seasons in the liturgical year" (AGN 1).
"To put [the] decrees of the Council into effect, the names of some saints have been deleted from the General Calendar, and permission was granted to restore the memorials and veneration of other saints in those areas with which they have been traditionally associated. The removal of certain lesser-known saints from the Roman Calendar has allowed the addition of the names of martyrs from religions where the Gospel spread later in history" (AGN 2).
In the calendar that this document serves to implement, St. Christopher's name is omitted. One can certainly question whether St. Christopher should have omitted from the calendar. The devotions to him were broad-based enough that they would seem to make him a saint of "universal significance." However, nowhere in this is it implied that he did not exist or that he was not a saint.
James Akin
Q: I know there are Bible verses that teach that God "rewards" believers for their good deeds in the next life; but doesn't this refer to some sort of special gifts or honor in heaven and not to heaven itself? Isn't it true that eternal life is a gift of grace, and our good deeds cannot in any way contribute to it?
A: It is true that there are rewards above and beyond eternal life, and that eternal life is a gift of grace; but Scripture plainly teaches that eternal life itself is a reward or fruit of our good deeds.
One passage which spells this out is Galatians 6:7-10: "Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. So let us not grow weary in well-doing [Greek, "working good"], for in due season we will reap, if we do not lose heart. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good [Greek "work good"] to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
In this passage St. Paul specifically states that "eternal life"-not just unspecified "rewards"-is the harvest "reaped" as a result of "sowing to the Spirit" through "well-doing" or "doing good to all men."
One might press the analogy by pointing out that the harvest is still a "gift" of God, since the act of sowing does not make the seed alive or cause it to grow. Nevertheless, the act of sowing undeniably leads to the harvest; and the same is true of our good deeds and eternal life.
Steven D. Greydanus
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
