|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 9
 November 2003 
|
|
|
Did St. Paul Invent Christianity?
Q: What do you say about the claim that Christianity was invented by Paul, and that Paul deified Jesus?
A: We’d say it flies in the face of Paul’s own testimony that his message was simply handed on from the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23) and his admonition to his listeners to beware of those who sought to "pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7). There are two points to be made here:
First, a human being has no ability to "deify" anyone. Someone either is God or he is not. The central Christian teaching of Jesus’ deity must be examined on the merits of Jesus’ own teachings about himself (e.g., John 8:53–59) and on the merits of the definitive proof of his claim: his Resurrection. Paul’s witness to Christ either succeeds or fails on whether Christ resurrected (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14), not on whether he has "deified" Christ.
Second, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Paul was responsible for inventing Christianity’s distinctive doctrines. Were that the case, we should expect to find the gospel writers either directly or indirectly quoting Paul. This would be especially true of Luke, who was a friend and disciple of Paul (cf. 2 Tim. 4:11). Nowhere do we find the evangelists quoting Paul, directly or indirectly, when writing about Christ or about the doctrines Christ taught that differed from first-century Judaism.
Q: Since canonization is an infallible exercise of the magisterium, how can the Church declare that some saints are not saints after all?
A: In the early days saints were not canonized by the pope but referred to as saints by popular acclaim. In the case of some of these very early ones, there is insufficient historical evidence regarding their sainthood (or even their existence). Thus, several such early saints who had never been canonized infallibly by a pope had their cults suppressed.
As an analogy, consider that there were a number of ancient books that in some places were considered to be inspired Scripture but that the magisterium ultimately declared to be non-canonical. The principle is not exactly the same, since the magisterium never definitively declares someone to be not a saint, as it has definitively excluded all non-canonical books from the canon. The canon of Scripture is closed; the canon of saints is not. Still, in both cases the earlier popular acclaim was not an exercise in infallibility, and is subject to review by the magisterium.
In the case of non-canonized saints, the Church does not even rule out the possibility that subsequent historical discoveries could shed new light on a popularly acclaimed saint, leading to his eventual canonization. All the Church does is say that, based on current information, it is not possible to canonize this figure of popular acclaim, and, as a result, it is necessary to suppress the cult around this figure.
It should be pointed out that St. Christopher is not the subject of such a suppressed cult. Though his day on the Church’s universal calendar was removed, he did exist and is still treated as a saint. He still can appear on particular calendars and have churches named after him.
Q: Do Catholics believe that people “sleep” until the Second Coming and the Resurrection, or is there some sort of consciousness prior to the Second Coming? I don’t understand why, if we have been in heaven and in spiritual form, we come back into our earthly bodies.
A: Death is sometimes figuratively spoken of as sleep because that is what the dead look like they are doing to our eyes—but in heaven their souls are alive and awake and worshiping God, as Revelation shows (cf. Rev. 4–5). This belief is inseparable from Catholic tradition; the "soul sleep" theory is incompatible with the practices of asking the prayers of the saints and praying for the dead in purgatory.
The reason we will come back and be reunited with our bodies is because God designed us to be both physical and spiritual. Unlike animals, we have an immortal soul by nature. Unlike angels, we have bodies by nature. We’re the intersection of the physical and spiritual realms. As a result, as long as our bodies and souls are in a state of separation we are in a condition that is unnatural for us and incomplete.
Since God means for our final destiny to involve a state of wholeness and completion that corresponds to our nature as humans, he will reunite our bodies and souls forever so that our nature as humans is taken into account in our eternal destiny.
Q: How can Catholics claim 2 Maccabees 12 as a proof-text for praying for the dead in purgatory when the dead people being prayed for there were in mortal sin, i.e., idolatry? Also, this passage says that animal sacrifices were offered only in consideration of “the resurrection,” not in consideration of a transition from purgatory to heaven. Nor is there any mention of praying to the dead.
A: First of all, the individuals who died were not regarded by Judah as being eternally lost or in mortal sin. If they were, there would be no point in praying for them. Even if they were in mortal sin, it would not detract from the fact that this text shows pre-Christian Jewish belief in the possibility of the living assisting the dead regarding the consequences of their sins.
Second, it is not clear that the individuals in question were in mortal sin. The text says that they wore "sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear" (v. 40). On the other hand, they died fighting in a battle to defend Israel from pagans. Thus it seems that they were fundamentally doing the right thing (defending Israel from paganism) even though they were somewhat tainted with it themselves. In this mixed state they may well have been guilty of venial rather than mortal sin—like the case of a Christian who wears a good-luck charm while still having a fundamental commitment to following God.
Third, the fact that Judah offers the sacrifices "in view of the resurrection" does not mean that the positive effects of the sacrifice must be suspended until the last day. Rather, it means that the concepts of immortality and resurrection are inseparable in traditional Jewish thought, which could never accept the idea of an eternally disembodied, spiritual "heaven."
Paul indicates this same principle when he suggests in 1 Corinthians 15:19 that if the dead are not raised, then "for this life only we have hoped in Christ." The writer of 2 Maccabees makes a similar statement: "For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead" (12:44). Thus, "in view of the resurrection" means essentially "in view of the fact that this life is not all there is."
This is not to say that Judah had any definite idea of purgatory, or even heaven (or the limbo of the fathers). In Judah’s day, the picture of the afterlife was less clear than it is now (and it is still pretty unclear, but Christian revelation in the New Testament and apostolic Tradition gives us more data than was previously available). Basically, Judah knew that the men were not gone forever and he wanted them to have beatitude. That is why he prayed for them and had the sin offering made.
This doesn’t require him to have any particular knowledge of how or when God would apply these benefits to them. Judah possibly would not have known whether the men would be conscious before the resurrection or not. If not, God could apply the benefits of Judah’s prayer and sacrifice to them on resurrection day. Otherwise, he could apply it to them before that. It’s God’s choice. Judah is simply trying to help the fallen men however he can.
Later Christian theology has retained and refined Judah’s insight by means of the revelation given through Christ, which shows—for example—that the ordinary dead do remain conscious before Judgment Day.
Lastly, nobody claimed this passage as a text showing prayers to the dead. That’s a red herring. There are other passages that deal with that.
Q: I know that God will speak to us at times in our dreams. Can Satan also come to us in this way?
A: First of all, God used dreams as a way of speaking to certain people in the Bible. It is not clear that he does so today, so be careful about concluding that any particular dream comes from God. It is very common for dreams to be perceived as having more of a connection to the real world than is actually the case, and we should be very careful about attributing too much significance to them.
There is no evidence of demons ever speaking to people in dreams—even in the Bible—so you should give even less credence there. Once again, it is very common for the dream state to seem to reflect reality even after one has awakened. Only if you are having obvious demonic activity in your waking life should the question even be considered, in which case you should consult your diocese.
Q: What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on having Masses in the home?
A: The Code of Canon Law provides that "the celebration of the Eucharist is to be performed in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity demands otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a respectable place" (CIC 932 §1).
Since homes are not sacred places (the Code has churches and chapels in mind), Mass ordinarily cannot be celebrated in them. They can be, however, if the priest determines that sufficient reason is present.
Q: What, if anything, was unique or different about the physical birth of Jesus? Some of my Protestant friends claim that Jesus could not have passed through the birth canal for Mary to remain a virgin. Is this true?
A: The Church has dogmatically defined that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. This belief has traditionally been understood by many Church Fathers and others to imply that Mary gave birth to Christ without the rupturing of her hymen. A common patristic expression connected with this idea is the description of Jesus passing from Mary’s womb "like light through glass."
Although this is a common idea in Christian belief, it is not required by the Church’s teaching. All that the teaching requires is the belief that Mary had no sexual contact with a man and that the birth of our Lord did not violate her virginity. If her hymen was ruptured by Jesus’ physical birth, that would not contradict what the Church has defined. Virginity is not defined by the presence of an intact hymen; after all, many women are either born without hymens or lose their hymens in ways completely unrelated to sexual contact. A hymen may be evidence of virginity but it does not constitute virginity.
Q: Suppose a priest is laicized in the “proper” way. How does he usually explain to people his “state,” especially if married after some time?
A: If a priest goes through the process of laicization, he is a Catholic in good standing. He may explain why he sought laicization, but it is a personal matter and he is under no obligation to offer explanations to anybody. If people know that he was ordained a priest, it is appropriate that they be informed that he has been laicized and is in good standing with the Church.
Q: I’ve never understood why Catholics cite the wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11) to support the efficacy of Mary’s intercession with Jesus. He did what she asked, but only after making it clear that she had no right 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 Christ himself. He explains his objection this way: "For my hour has not yet come." He doesn’t say, "For you do 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 his passion and death. Jesus in effect is 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 Jesus. Jesus’ "hour" does not make Mary’s intercession improper or unnecessary; on the contrary, it is the very basis for Mary’s intercession.
Note that, even before his hour, Jesus granted Mary’s request by turning 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).
Q: Outside of baptism using the Trinitarian formula, how many other sacraments are valid within Protestantism? If, for example, the Protestant forms of “holy orders” are not valid, can Protestants have a valid Eucharist? Why or why not?
A: Within Protestantism, the only valid sacrament other than baptism is matrimony. The others all require a valid priesthood, which Protestantism doesn’t have. (At weddings the priest is technically only a witness; through their vows the bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other.) Since there are no real priests in Protestantism, there is no real Eucharist, even in those churches in which the outward form of the Mass is retained.
Q: I have an orthodox Catholic friend whom I respect who seems put out when she enters a Catholic church and encounters a statue of the resurrected Christ on the cross. Wasn’t that the whole point of his life? Why is a crucified Christ better? It seems morbid to me.
A: We like to follow Paul’s example and counsel. He wrote, "We for our part preach a crucified Christ; to the Jews indeed a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1. Cor. 1:23–25).
Here is another verse to remember: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with pretentious speech or wisdom, announcing unto you the witness to Christ. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:1–2).
All the.aspects of Christ’s life—a symbolic lamb, a babe in arms, a preacher, a shepherd, a risen Lord—are depicted in Catholic art, but none more than the Crucifixion. Why? Because that was the goal, the focal point, of Jesus’ Incarnation, even more so than his Resurrection. It was by his suffering and death that he redeemed the world.
|
[TOP]
