|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 11/12
 November/December 1999 
|
|
|
WHO CHANGED THE CANON?
Q: The Catholic Church claims to be the guardian of the Bible, but it demonstrated its hostility towards God's Word when it added unscriptural books to the Old Testament, namely the Apocrypha
A: A few things need to be said here. First of all, the seven books in question-Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch-are properly called the deuterocanonical books.
Second, the label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory), and the "reformers" therefore needed some excuse to eliminate them from the canon. However, these books are "unscriptural" only if misinterpreted. It should also be noted that the first-century Christians-including Jesus and the apostles-effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament.
Third, the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same seventy-three books in their Bibles (forty-six in the Old Testament, twenty-seven in the New Testament)-and thus considering them inspired-for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.
Joel S. Peters
Q: Someone I know is saying that Jesus was not raised physically, that he was raised in a "spiritual body" instead of a physical body. He says Paul teaches this. What is the straight story?
A: This canard is often used by Jehovah's Witnesses to buttress their idea that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. In attempting to prove that Jesus did not physically rise, 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:45 are cited, stating that Jesus was, "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" and "[Jesus] became a life-giving spirit . . . [for] flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom."
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul demonstrates that the resurrected body is endowed with qualities of imperishability, glory, power, and spirituality-in contrast to man's current perishable, dishonorable, weak, and physical body (vv. 42-44). Paul then speaks of man's nature putting on incorruptibility and immortality.
He is not suggesting that matter is an evil to be discarded. Rather, grace builds upon nature, and so the resurrected body is a fulfillment of the natural body, not the destruction of it. The tendency to think otherwise is Manichean, regarding matter as evil and spirit as good. Christians have always rejected this misconception since it contradicts the goodness of God's creation-and the incarnation itself.
In Luke 24:39, the risen Jesus says to the disciples, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (emphasis added). This verse is sufficient to debunk the idea that Jesus did not rise bodily, but John 2:19-22 provides another nail in the coffin. Here, Jesus claims, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Two verses later, it is made clear what Jesus has in mind; "he spoke of the temple of his body." Thus, Jesus prophesied that his body would rise.
The questions to ask are, "If Jesus' body was not raised, where did it go, what was raised, and what is so miraculous?" The idea that Jesus' body was discarded while his spirit rose seems to require more faith than acceptance of the bodily resurrection. In the words of Paul, "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain, and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:17).
Jason Evert
Q: I know someone who is a Christian Scientist, and he doesn't believe in going to a doctor when he gets sick. He tells me it's against his religion. Can you explain this to me?
A: In order to answer this question a little of the background on the Christian Science sect is necessary. It was founded by Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), whose teachings are set forth in the book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, first published in 1875. The book describes a belief system Eddy claims to have "discovered" in 1866.
Throughout her early life, Eddy suffered from various emotional and physical illnesses. As a result she developed a morbid fear of the medical profession. She began to view the physical world as an illusion and maintained that the only reality was the spiritual world-possibly as a defense mechanism to deal with the difficulties of her sicknesses.
To Eddy, truth (which she calls "the divine Principle" or "divine Life, Truth, and Love") is a healing spiritual force. She believed that Jesus came to enlighten humanity regarding this truth: "Jesus taught the way of Life by demonstration, that we may understand how this divine Principle heals the sick, casts out error, and triumphs over death" (Science and Health, 1971 edition, 25). The material or physical world, she maintained, is illusory, a product of a wrong perception of our true spiritual nature.
According to Christian Science, things like sickness, suffering, pain, and sin have no objective reality. So when humans experience these things, they are guilty of misperceptions-what Christian Scientists call "error." Christ came to provide spiritual and physical healing by correcting our wrong perceptions. For the Christian Scientist, Christ's passion and death were ways he demonstrated his triumph over wrong thinking rather than being a physical reality he endured: "Jesus bore our infirmities; he knew the error of mortal belief, and 'with his stripes [the rejection of error] we are healed'" (Science and Health, 20; brackets in original).
Of course, the problem here is that Scripture-as well as human experience-paints a radically different picture. Christ did not come to destroy mere "illusion" or "error." He came to destroy the objective reality of sin and its tangible results: pain, sickness, suffering, and physical death itself. This is why Paul says, "If Christ was not raised, your faith is worthless. You are still in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:17). There is not even a hint here of something illusory or immaterial. Christ's death and resurrection were objectively real, historical events which triumphed over humanity's actual sins.
So for your friend to consider a visit to the doctor, he would be guilty of not having applied the "Truth" or "divine Principle" which Christ taught. In his mind he is not experiencing an objective illness but rather "error," or a mistaken perception that he is sick. Therefore, going to a doctor in search of a physical cure would be diametrically opposed to his belief system and would only fuel the fire of his "error."
Joel S. Peters
Q: I have a 17-year-old son who is concerned about the coming chastisement . He has read about the three days of darkness and is concerned that we are not properly preparing ourselves in case of war. This really bothers him, our not gathering guns for protection of the family. How do I get through to him? He seems to have a conflict between martyrdom and defending oneself.
A: This seems to be an example of a good young man being influenced by bad literature. He must have been reading articles or books or Internet sites that promote the notion that the end is just around the corner. This is not something the Church teaches. Certainly the Holy Father does not share this fear. He is preparing for the turn of the millennium not because he expects the end of the world but because he expects an opportunity for spiritual renewal.
While Scripture refers to events that will presage the end of time, we have no good reason to think these events are occurring today, even given the sorry state of the world. Granted, they may be upon us, but that can be said at any point in history. All we know for certain is that we certainly won't know when the end is about to come.
If I were in your position, I would do everything possible not to give credence to your son's worries. I would not stock up on weapons or emergency supplies (at least not beyond what one might need in the event of an earthquake, fire, or flood). I wouldn't talk about preparing to flee into the woods, and fight the guerrillas. There is a kind of romance in all this, at least in a 17-year old's eyes, that can lead to infatuation with all sorts of kooky ideas and movements.
Your son is at an age of intense passions, and he may be keeping the wrong company or maybe he is not socializing enough with "normal" kids whose interests turn to ballgames and movies. Normally, I wouldn't counsel anyone to encourage frivolities in young people. But in this case, a change of focus seems to be the first order of business.
Karl Keating
Q: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (538) says that Jesus was "driven" by the Spirit into the desert after his baptism by John. It sounds like he was resisting.
A: That is not the intent. The statement is an allusion to Mark's Gospel, where the phrase is used (Mark 1:12). Matthew and Luke also mention Jesus' sojourn in the desert, but without the dramatic phrasing. For example, Luke states: "And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit . . . was led by the Spirit for forty days in the wilderness." This emphasizes the positive cooperation of Jesus with the Spirit.
Mark's more dramatic phrasing is simply part of his style. Mark uses powerful action words to convey to his Roman audience that Jesus was a man of action. Action impressed Romans more than philosophical reflection, which impressed Greeks. Thus, Luke's Gospel, written for a Greek, stresses Jesus' reflective side, while Mark, writing to Romans, stresses Jesus' active side.
The word "drove" does not mean that Jesus was resisting the Spirit. Instead, Mark is trying to show how powerfully the Spirit brought Jesus into the desert. The idea is not of one Person driving and one Person resisting, but both dynamically cooperating.
James Akin
Q: At a parish Bible study I was trying to explain the Trinity. I said today we can understand more than Augustine could because we have the work of Aquinas to stand on, and Augustine understood the Trinity better than the first Christians. My pastor said we can't understand the Trinity at all because it's a mystery. Who is right?
A: You are. Your pastor seems confused about what a mystery is. It's a religious truth about which we can't know everything and about which we would know nothing at all if God hadn't revealed it to us.
Frank Sheed had a good way of explaining what a mystery is and isn't. He said many people think of it as a museum gallery into which we can't enter at all because a brick wall blocks our way. Instead, a mystery is more like an endless gallery. No matter how far down you walk, marveling at the pictures, you're still no closer to the end (the end being complete understanding). You can nderstand more and more, but you'll never get the whole story.
If we understand nothing about the Trinity, then we can't even talk about one divine nature and three Persons. A discussion of the nature-and-Persons issue indicates we understand at least something about the Trinity.
Karl Keating
Q: A Fundamentalist Baptist friend wants to know how the Catholic Church views the curtain being torn in half as Christ expires. He says his church views it as proof that it is no longer necessary for God's people to be under an institutional Church or clergy.
A: Then how to explain the fact that after the curtain was torn in half-after the Resurrection-Jesus proceeded to appoint clergy and establish a Church? Christ's sacrifice and the tearing of the curtain symbolize several things:
1) The Jewish economy (the Law of Moses or the Old Covenant) has been done away with.
2) Our high priest (Jesus) has the right to enter the heavenly tabernacle.
3) We approach God through Jesus and the Christian economy rather than through the Jewish or Mosaic economy.
4) That heaven has now been opened to receive the saints, who were previously kept at Abraham's bosom.
What it doesn't imply is the demise of all rituals (or else we would not have baptism and the Eucharist) or that there will be no priests in the Law of Christ/New Covenant way of approaching God. It simply signifies the passing away of the Jewish economy.
James Akin
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
