|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 12, Number 4
 April 2001 
|
|
|
Image Isn't Everything
Q: I've heard Fundamentalists argue against the use of holy images by citing Deuteronomy 4:15, which says God did not show himself under any form. They say that by having such images we commit idolatry by trying to force God into a manmade form. What would be a response?
A: Early in Israelite history the Jews were forbidden to make images of God because he had not revealed himself to them in visible form. Had the Israelites made images of God, they might have been tempted to worship them, much as the pagans around them worshiped images.
God later revealed himself under visible forms. One instance is found in Daniel 7:9-10: "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire."
The Holy Spirit revealed himself under two visible forms-that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32) and as tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Most notably, God the Son visibly revealed himself in the Incarnation: "And going into the house they [the magi] saw the child with Mary his mother" (Matt. 2:11).
Since God has revealed himself in the above forms, he can now be depicted under these forms. Keep in mind that Protestants have pictures of Jesus in Bible-story books, that they depict the Holy Spirit as a dove, and that they depict the Father as an old man sitting on a throne. They do all these without the least thought that these images might be deities.
Q: Are non-Catholic marriages valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church? What if a Catholic marries a non-Catholic?
A: In general, marriages between non-Catholics, of whatever religion, are considered valid. But the situation is not as simple as it sounds because there are two kinds of marriage: natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Sacramental marriages exist only between baptized people, so marriages between two Jews or two Muslims are not sacramental. Assuming that there are no impediments, marriages between Jews or Muslims are valid natural marriages.
Marriages between two Protestants or two Eastern Orthodox also would be valid, presuming no impediments, and these would be sacramental marriages and thus indissoluble once they are consummated.
When one spouse is a Catholic and the other is a non-Catholic, the marriage will be natural or sacramental depending on whether or not the non-Catholic party is baptized. Thus, if a Catholic marries a Hindu, the marriage will be valid and natural; if a Catholic marries a Protestant, it will be valid and sacramental.
All that is assuming that there is nothing to prevent the marriage from being valid. One common cause of marriages being invalid is failure on the part of Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage. As members of the Church, Catholics are obliged to either observe the Catholic form of marriage or be dispensed from it. If a Catholic does not observe the Catholic form of marriage (e.g., by having a non-Catholic wedding) and does not receive a dispensation before the service, then the marriage-whether to a Catholic, a baptized non-Catholic, or an unbaptized person-will be invalid.
Q: The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man" (CCC 2019). Protestants deny that the last two of these are part of justification. How can I show that they are?
A: Look up Romans 6:7. All standard English translations render this verse as some variation on the statement, "He who has died has been freed from sin." The topic here is one of sanctification, the making the believer holy, or freeing him from sin.
What is significant about Romans 6:7 is that when it says the one who has died has been freed from sin, the word for freed is actually the Greek word for justified. What it literally says is, "He who has died has been justified from sin," yet the context is so obviously sanctificational that all standard English translations of the Bible rendered "justified from sin" as "freed from sin." This shows that for Paul there was not a rigid wall between justification and sanctification. The meanings of the two terms overlap in his mind.
Q: None of the books of the Apocrypha-what Catholics call the "deuterocanonical" books-claim to be divinely inspired, therefore they cannot be inspired and do not belong in the Bible. How would you answer this?
A: No book of the Bible claims itself to be divinely inspired. Divine inspiration means that God himself authored the exact words of the text (using the human writer's mind, personality, and background), and no book states anything like, "All of the words of this book were chosen by God" or "This book is divinely inspired."
The term inspired (Greek, theopneustos) only occurs once in the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16), where we are told that all Scripture is inspired. We first know that something is Scripture and then infer that it is inspired; we do not first know that it is inspired and then conclude it is Scripture.
There are some references to inspiration in cases where one book of the Bible reports that God or the Spirit spoke through the words of a different book (for example, see Hebrews 3:7-11, concerning Psalm 95). But in no case does a book of the Bible state this for itself. Even if it does claim to contain divine revelations or visions (as does the book of Revelation), it does not say that every word of its text was inspired. That is something we must infer from 2 Timothy 3:16. Since no protocanonical book of the Bible meets the proposed test, it can scarcely be expected of the deuterocanonical books.
Claiming to be inspired is a different thing from really being inspired. The Book of Mormon claims to be the Word of God, but isn't; the Gospel of John doesn't, but is. To determine inspiration, one must use an external authority for verification, and the Church is the only institution that can be that external authority.
Q: One Timothy 4:14 says that Timothy was ordained by priests. Doesn't that contradict the Catholic teaching that only a bishop can confer holy orders?
A: This verse does not say that priests ordained Timothy. At most, it says that priests laid their hands on him at the time of his ordination, but this does not mean that it was they who conferred the sacrament upon him.
When someone is ordained to the priesthood, the bishop imposes hands on the candidate, followed by any already ordained priests who are present. These impositions of hands have different significance. The bishop places his hands on the candidate to impart the Holy Spirit to him for ministry, to confer on him the sacrament of holy orders. When the new priest's colleagues lay their hands on him, it is not to confer the sacrament, but to symbolize their union with him in the priesthood and their sharing a common Spirit through the sacrament.
This explanation of the two impositions can be found as early as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, which was written in the early 200s.
In 2 Timothy 1:6 Paul states, "Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands." Timothy's ordination was received through the laying on of Paul's hands, and Paul had the powers of a bishop as part of his powers as an apostle. Thus someone of episcopal rank ordained Timothy. If 1 Timothy 4:14 means that presbyters (priests) laid their hands on Timothy, it was the same situation as modern priests laying their hands on a candidate after the bishop actually confers the sacrament.
Yet there is a question whether 1 Timothy 4:14 even refers to priests laying their hands on Timothy. In most modern Bible translations the verse is rendered this way: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders [presbyters, priests] laid their hands upon you," but the verse can also be translated this way: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given to you . . . with the laying on of hands for the presbyterium [priesthood]." In other words, the laying on of hands was to make Timothy a member of the priesthood; it was not the priests who laid their hands on him.
Q: I have heard some modern Catholic scholars suggest that angels are not personal beings but archetypes or symbols of cosmic principles. Is this correct?
A: Nope. Their notion is contrary to the official teaching of the Church. A theologian is also not permitted to reduce the devil or demons to archetypes or to some other impersonal status.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: They are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness" (CCC 330). The Catechism goes on to say, "The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: 'The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing'" (CCC 391, citing Lateran Council IV [1215]).
Q: In ancient Judaism the sabbath was from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. If Sunday is the Christian sabbath, should we celebrate it from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday? Is this why attending an anticipatory Mass on Saturday evening fulfills our Sunday obligation?
A: The ancient Jews reckoned days from sundown to sundown, meaning that for them the first part of the day was evening. This is why Genesis 1 says things like, "And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day" (Gen. 1:5). The ancient Phoenicians, Athenians, Arabs, Germans, and Gauls observed the same custom. Today Jews and other groups who keep the sabbath, such as Seventh-Day Adventists, continue to celebrate it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
This way of reckoning time was not the only one in the ancient world. For example, the Romans reckoned days from midnight to midnight-the system we use today. The Sunday obligation applies to the modern Sunday, reckoned from midnight to midnight.
The option of attending a Mass on Saturday evening has nothing to do with the fact the sabbath began at sundown. This provision was originally introduced for Catholics who had to miss Sunday Mass for a good reason (for example, because they had to work). However, the current legislation does not require any special reason for fulfilling one's Sunday obligation on Saturday evening. 1983 Code of Canon Law simply states: "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day" (canon 1248 § 1).
Sunday is often spoken of as "the Christian sabbath," but this is not a technical description. Sunday is not a strict replacement for the sabbath (which has been abolished-see Col. 2:16), but a day the Church instituted to fulfill a parallel function. Thus Ignatius of Antioch, the earliest Church Father to address this question, states that Christian converts "have given up keeping the sabbath and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead, the day when life first dawned for us, thanks to him [Christ] and his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 9 [A.D. 107]).
Q: A Protestant friend recently accused Catholics of idolatry because his mother-in-law (who is Catholic) put a statue of Mary in her garden "to help the flowers grow." Ever heard of this?
A: No, but his mother-in-law may have expressed herself badly or he may have misunderstood. In either case, it's not idolatry. Idolatry is worshiping a statue as a god. What this woman is doing-based on her son-in-law's description to you-is at most superstitious (unless she worships the statue as some type of flower goddess, which isn't likely) and not a sin.
Here's an easy way to look at it: If she thinks the statue is a god, it's idolatry. If she thinks it's not a god but has intrinsic power, it's superstition. If she thinks the statue has no intrinsic power but by placing the statue is asking Mary to pray that God will bless her garden, it's prayer.
Q: I admit it: I drive fast, since I hate wasting time in traffic and I have a long commute. Someone told me speeding is a mortal sin. Huh? Isn't the speed limit a law of man and not of God?
A: Yes, but breaking the speed limit can be a mortal sin if it threatens harm to you or anyone else. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air" (CCC 2290).
Q: Contraception and natural family planning are only two different means of accomplishing the same goal, which is to avoid having children. So why does the Catholic Church condemn the one and endorse the other?
A: Because the means used to attain an end can make a world of moral difference, as can be seen in the following example: Suppose two people needed a thousand dollars for some worthwhile cause. One gets a job and earns the money, while the other swindles an elderly widow out of the same amount.
In fact, contraception and natural family planning do not have the same goal. Though both intend to avoid conception, the similarity stops there. A contracepting couple acts directly against the procreative good of their marriage and thereby sets up a barrier to God's plan for marital union. The couple using natural family planning is cooperating with the natural cycle of fertility and choosing not to exercise the procreative capacity at certain times. At no time will they act against God's gift of fertility to them. At no time will they treat that mysterious gift as an intruder needing a mechanical or chemical "fix."
Q: Why does John's Gospel report on things that no other Gospel does?
A: According to a tradition that goes back to the second century, John did not originally plan to write a Gospel but was urged to do so by others. Early tradition also records that John wrote last and purposely filled in material not included by the three other evangelists.
These traditions jibe with the last two verses of John's Gospel. The penultimate verse says that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (i.e., John) (John 21:20) "is the disciple bearing witness to these things and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). The plural third-person remark (" we know") seems to be a statement vouching for the Gospel's authenticity written by those who asked him to write.
John's last verse states, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25). The singular first-person remark (" I suppose") seems to be an expression on John's part that although he wrote some of the things Jesus did, there was no way he could write them all down.
|
