|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 1
 January 2000 
|
|
|
Two Thumbs Down
Q: I recently saw the movie
Stigmata, which talks about a "lost gospel"
of Thomas that the Vatican "suppressed" because
it was afraid of what it said. Is there any truth to
this?
A: Not on your life. Though we had fragments of
it earlier, a complete copy of the so-called Gospel of
Thomas was discovered in 1945. Once scholars had a
copy of the whole thing, it was possible to see it for what it
was: yet another gnostic-influenced "gospel" written
in the second or third century, long after the canonical gospels
were penned.
The
Gospel of Thomas presents itself as a collection of
sayings of Christ as written by Thomas the apostle. A few of
these sayings are genuine because they were taken from the
canonical gospels (duh!). Others combine bits of things said in
the true gospels. And still others are wholly made up, not only
lacking any basis in the gospels but also contradicting things
taught in them.
Consider, for example, the final saying Thomas
contains: "Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave
us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will
guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a
living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes
herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’"
(Thomas 114).
This
is just wacky. Jesus was a great respecter of women as
women (i.e., without them having to become like men). After
all, as the Creator, he himself had "made them male
and female" (Matt. 19:4). And so whether one is a
man or a woman makes no difference in salvation. As St. Paul
said, "There is neither male nor female; for you are all
one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
The
so-called Gospel of Thomas is a fake. It was written
between one and two centuries after the apostle Thomas’s
death. It contains some authentic sayings of Jesus because it
is partially based on the canonical gospels. It contains a bunch
of stuff that is silly. It wasn’t written under divine inspiration. It
doesn’t belong in the Bible.
Hollywood has decided to use this literary curiosity as
the latest tool to portray the Catholic Church as sinister,
conspiracy-ridden, and oppressive and, by extension, to
portray all of Christianity in a negative light. The plot of the
movie Stigmata has nothing to do with how the
Gospel of Thomas was actually discovered.
I
must concur with film critic Roger Ebert’s assessment:
"Stigmata is possibly the funniest movie ever
made about Catholicism—from a theological point of view. . . .
The film, a storehouse of absurd theology, has the gall to end
with one of those ‘factual’ title cards, in which we learn that the
‘Gospel of St. Thomas,’ said to be in Christ’s words, was
denounced by the Vatican in 1945 as a ‘heresy.’"
[Really? Where’s the decree from the Holy Office?] "That
doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be out in paperback if there were a
market for it. It does mean the filmmakers have a shaky
understanding of the difference between a heresy and a
fake."
--James Akin
Q: It seems that a trademark belief of many
sects is the claim that Jesus was not God in the flesh. Instead,
they insist he was just a perfect man, a great
teacher—essentially just a created being. What is an easy way
to refute this assertion?
A: One of the easiest ways to demonstrate the
fallacy of the claim that Jesus was a created being is to turn to
John 1:3: "All things came to be through him [the Word],
and without him nothing came to be" (New American
Bible, revised edition).
The
Greek word choris, which is here translated
"without," means "separately" or
"apart from," and it shows that the Word is the
instrumentality by which all things came into being.
(Some Bible versions read, "and without him not even
one thing came into being.")
So
if the Bible says that nothing or not even one thing
came into being apart from the Word’s creative activity, how is
it that the Word himself could have been created? If that were
true, he would be "one thing" which came into
being apart from himself, and this fact would contradict John
1:3.
--Joel S. Peters
Q: A Baptist friend of mine told me that he
is not a Protestant, since the Baptists didn’t break away from
the Catholic Church—they had existed all along under various
names, such as Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations. How
do I respond?
A: Your friend’s desire to look into history to
substantiate the truth of his faith is commendable. However, he
has probably not read a single primary historical source to
substantiate this claim of "Baptist successionism."
Instead, he has probably gotten a hold of the booklet Trail
of Blood by J.M. Carroll, which puts forth the ideas he
passed on to you.
Let’s examine his claims about the sects that he
mentions. He claims descent from the Anabaptists,
Montanists, and Novations, but was their theology of a Baptist
slant?
The
Anabaptists baptized babies, and so can in no way be
considered the spiritual ancestors to the present-day Baptists.
Novations taught that those who had fallen from the faith
should never be allowed to repent and return to the fold, since
God cannot forgive their sin. The same council that defined the
divinity of Christ (Nicea in A.D. 325) condemned the Novations.
Montanists were a movement centering around the false
prophet Montanus, who taught that the heavenly Jerusalem
would soon descend upon his home town, the Phrygian village
of Pepuza, and that, to prepare for the imminent coming of
Christ, one must practice severe asceticism.
For
a person to reject the Baptist successionist view is actually a
compliment to the Baptists. In fact, years after having written
Trail of Blood, Carroll wrote of himself,
"Extensive graduate study and independent investigation
of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the
view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be,
verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render
the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church
groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted
doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when
judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one
of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose
in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are
Protestants, heirs of the reformers" (Baptist
Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History
[1994], 1–2).
Baptist professor and historian James Edward
McGoldrick adds, "Perhaps no other body of professing
Christians has had as much difficulty in discerning its historical
roots as have the Baptists. A survey of conflicting opinions
might lead a perceptive observer to conclude that Baptists
suffer from an identity crisis" (ibid., 1).
Encourage your friend to continue studying the history of
Christianity by giving him the writings of the Church Fathers.
As Newman said in his Essay on the Development of
Christian Doctrine, "To be deep in history is to cease
to be Protestant."
-- Jason Evert
Q: At a local Catholic school [in Baltimore,
Maryland] the prayer always ends with "James Cardinal
Gibbons, pray for us." Is it proper to invoke a person in
public prayer if they have not even been proposed for
beatification? And have any steps been taken for his
beatification?
A: While we can privately invoke the
intercession of anyone we hope is in heaven or purgatory, a
person cannot be invoked in public prayer—prayer
done under church auspices—until the Holy See has declared
the person blessed. This ruling excludes also the
"venerable" from public reverence. Canon law
states, "Only those servants of God may be venerated by
public cult who have been numbered by ecclesiastical authority
among the Saints or the Blessed" (CIC 1187).
To
find out the status of Cardinal Gibbons, we called the
Archdiocese of Baltimore, and they said that they know of no
steps taken toward his canonization. He has not been declared
a servant of God, venerable, blessed, or a saint.
-- Peggy Frye
Q: Is it possible for a person with a mortal
sin still on his soul to die and go to heaven?
A: No. "To die in mortal sin without
repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining
separated from him forever by our own free choice. . .
(Catechism of the Catholic Church 1033). But it is
important to understand what a mortal sin comprises and the
ways mortal sin can be forgiven.
In
order for a sin to be mortal, there are three conditions that
must be met: The sin must have grave matter, one must have
adequate knowledge that it is a grave offense, and one must
commit the offense with deliberate consent (CCC 1857–1859).
If one of these conditions is not met, the sin will be venial, not
mortal.
There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: contrition and
attrition, which are called also perfect contrition and imperfect
contrition. Perfect contrition does not mean the perfect
degree of contrition, but the perfect kind of
contrition—that is, sorrow for sins based on charity, or
supernatural love of God. Imperfect contrition is sorrow for sin
based on anything other than charity (such as being sorry for
our sins because we fear the punishment of hell and God’s
wrath).
Perfect and imperfect contrition are not mutually
exclusive. A person can have both at the same time. Both
perfect and imperfect contrition assume the resolve to sin no
more. Even with this resolve, it is possible to commit the same
sin in the future. What is important is that at this moment in
time we make a firm resolution to turn away from mortal sin.
Under normal circumstances, for a mortal sin to be
forgiven, it must be confessed in the sacrament of penance. If
the penitent has perfect or imperfect contrition for his sin,
confesses all his mortal sins since his last good confession,
resolving not to commit the sin again, and receives absolution
from the priest, his mortal sins are forgiven.
What happens if confession to a priest is impossible, and
one is close to death or in danger of dying? Provided a person,
finding himself in this situation, has perfect contrition for his
mortal sins, and resolves not to sin again and receive
sacramental confession as soon as possible, his mortal sin is
forgiven. Imperfect sorrow is not contrition under these
circumstances.
-- Jan Wakelin
Q: When should Communion be distributed
under both forms? My pastor said that it should be done
regularly only in monasteries and convents.
A: Perhaps your pastor is expressing concern
for the reverence with which Communion should be received or
for preserving the understanding that Christ is fully present
under both forms. However, he is wrong.
There have been times throughout history where the
distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for
reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early
Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received
generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the
form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass
was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s,
distribution of Communion under one form only was required in
order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception
under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole
Christ.
By
the time of Vatican II, the Council saw no reason not to begin
restoring the reception of Communion under both kinds. This
was done in stages. In 1970 the Holy See approved for the
United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General
Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which
gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday
Masses (AGI 242:19).
The
Holy See extended this permission in 1984 to Sunday Masses
in the U.S., when it approved the bishops’ directory, This
Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and
Reception of Communion under Both Kinds. The directory
stated that, in addition to weekday Masses, "Communion
under both kinds is also permitted at parish and community
Masses celebrated on Sundays and holy days of obligation in
the dioceses of the United States" (HLS 21).
The
only exceptions are in those cases where the size or
circumstance of the congregation would not permit reverent
reception of the Precious Blood or when the congregation is so
diverse that the priest cannot tell if its members have been
sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both
kinds.
And
finally, far from being appropriate only in monasteries and
convents, the law states: "Communion under both kinds
is to be desired in all celebrations of the Mass, though this is
not possible in all cases" (HLS 19).
-- Rosalind Moss
Q: Can Catholics be cremated? I was taught that cremation is a pagan ritual and therefore forbidden.
A: Early Christians opposed cremation because pagans often cremated their dead as a sign of disdain for the Christian's belief in the physical resurrection of the body. To protect belief in this doctrine of faith, the Church forbade cremation. That prohibition was lifted in 1963.
The Church still recommends that the faithful be buried, but Catholics may be cremated so long as cremation does not demonstrate a denial of belief in the resurrection of the body (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2301).
--Karl Keating
|
