Recently in a local park a young woman struck up a conversation with me that quickly turned to religion. When she found I was a Catholic, she presented me with a comic book tract by Jack Chick called Last Rites. It is a vituperative attack on the sacraments couched in a story where a Catholic dies and is shocked to find while talking to Christ that everything the Church taught was necessary for salvation was a lie.
The errors in its presentation of Catholicism are evident to any thoughtful Catholic. But to many earnest Christians, uneducated in our faith, it is a horrifying story. However misguided they are, we should try to understand why they would earnestly want to save Catholics from what the tract sets forth as Catholic doctrine. Instead of being defensive or dismissive, we should say, “It may surprise you to know that I reject them too-because what’s being presented here is definitely not Catholic doctrine.”
Perhaps we should start by clarifying what sacraments are, because the author of this booklet doesn’t understand them (or willfully distorts them). They are shown as some sort of magic bullet that Catholics have been deceived into thinking will get them into heaven. But what does the Church teach about sacraments? What are they in reality?
Sacraments are visible signs that Jesus entrusted to his Church for the purpose of transmitting his grace to us. So they use physical matter-water, oil, bread, wine-to make tangible the grace being conferred. Explain to the Fundamentalist how scriptural this physicality is:
“The Judaism of the Old Testament was a physical religion. Think of all those animal sacrifices, the blood of the Covenant sprinkled on the people, the eating of the Passover lamb-even the detailed building specifications passed on by Yahweh for the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon’s Temple.
“Jesus’ earthly ministry was also physical. He was circumcised, he was baptized in the Jordan, he healed the sick by touching them, he gave hungry people real bread and fish to eat. He died a physical death-gruesomely so. His Resurrection was physical too. When he first appeared to his disciples, he showed them he wasn’t a ghost-he had real flesh and bones-and invited Thomas to touch him. Then he said basically, ‘Hey, is there anything around here to eat?’
“In short, God knows we aren’t angels but beings with bodies as well as souls. That’s why we Catholics believe Jesus gave us sacraments-to care for our needs.”
Now back to the tract: The dying man, John, is given last rites. This sacrament, also known as the anointing of the sick, can be found in James 5:14, which tells us that being anointed with oil and prayed over by the elders-i.e., presbyters (priests)-brings healing, salvation, and forgiveness of sins.
When Christ condemns John to hell, the author quotes Matthew 25:41. But he goes on to contradict the passage that quotation is located right in the middle of! We all know it well: When Christ comes in glory, he will judge people on whether they fed, clothed, welcomed, and cared for him in the guise of their neighbors in need-in other words, on their good works.
All this makes one wonder whether the author hasn’t taken other Scripture passages out of context and twisted them around to suit his own ideas. The points of doctrine raised on subsequent pages, though, are important enough to go over one by one with the well-meaning Bible Christian.
Good Works
Yes, Catholics have the reputation among Protestants for being scrupulous about “following the rules.” But we do it because we love our Father in heaven; we want to be his obedient children and follow his commandments, and we don’t want to offend him by sin. Anyone who can’t find that concept in Scripture needs to read it more carefully. We’re told repeatedly that we will be judged according to our “conduct” and our “deeds.”
The Church doesn’t teach that we can merit heaven by our own efforts. We know God’s saving grace is a free gift; we can’t do anything to earn it or deserve it. As all the great saints would tell you, no matter how much we do in God’s service, we’re still unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10), hopelessly in debt to him and dependent on his mercy.
It does not follow from this that we aren’t obligated to try to do what is right, to persevere, to finish the race (1 Cor. 9:24). Ask the Fundamentalist, “What would you think of someone who went up to the altar in your church and accepted Christ as his Savior but went on breaking the Commandments and refused to help his neighbors in need? Would you say that such a person was a good Christian, let alone ‘assured of salvation’? Reread the first two chapters of James, and decide for yourself.”
Images
If we’re sensitive we can understand why the panel of Pope John Paul II venerating a statue of Mary raises all kinds of issues for the Fundamentalist. It really does look as if the Pope is worshiping an image; worse yet, it’s the image of a created being. (The fact that the creature is Mary opens up another can of worms-chances are no one has ever explained to this person why we Catholics believe Mary is so special.)
First, consider the question of “graven images.” In Exodus 20:4, the Israelites were forbidden to make images of gods to be worshiped. They were even forbidden to make an image of the Lord, because he is a pure spirit and no image could possibly help them to understand his essence. In fact, such an image likely would have served to reduce him in their minds to one of the animal gods of Egypt.
This doesn’t mean the Israelites were forbidden to make any images at all. In Exodus 25:18, the Lord commands them to make two cherubim-with faces and wings-to place on top of the Ark of the Covenant. The Lord understood that the Israelites needed visible reminders of his presence. That’s why he had Moses construct the Ark and the Tent of Meeting (later replaced by Solomon’s Temple).
It’s also important to realize that when God became man everything changed. Jesus was (and is) a real human being with a human body. It is hard to see how anyone could object to pictures or statues of Jesus, Mary, or the saints, all of whom were real human beings.
I suspect that what really bothers many Protestants is that we Catholics seem to have such affection, even reverence, for our images. It makes them think that we are honoring the images instead of the real persons. Try this analogy on the Fundamentalist: “I’m sure you have photographs of your parents, your spouse, your children, and other loved ones that you look at with love and affection (especially when the people they depict are absent or deceased) and treat with respect. But you’d never confuse them with the real people they represent. Well, we Catholics don’t either.”
We must realize this is a sticky wicket for many non-Catholic Christians. They don’t understand how we can honor Mary, the saints, and the angels without detracting from Christ, the one mediator between God and man. The answer is pretty simple: We honor them because they are in Christ. Jesus ascended into heaven but promised to be with us always, and we know that all these holy ones are reigning with him in heaven (cf. Heb. 12:22-24). So in Christ we have fellowship with them, just as we have it with our fellow Christians who are still on earth. Like us, they are all members of the Body of Christ (I Cor.12).
Mary
You might begin by saying Catholics give such special honor to Mary because she is special. Try going over the words of the Hail Mary (a very biblical prayer, incidentally): “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” Sound familiar? It should-it’s all taken directly from Luke 1. Hard to get more scriptural than that.
These words from the Bible tell us that Mary is specially blessed. A person who is filled with grace has no room for sin. Both Mary and the unborn Jesus are called “blessed” in the same sentence. An angel (Gabriel) and a holy woman (Elizabeth) both address Mary as a being superior to themselves. That is why we believe that God has exalted her above the angels and all other saints in heaven, second only to Christ himself.
Now let’s look at the rest of the prayer. “Holy Mary-” As we saw above, Luke 1 tells us that she is “full of grace” and “blessed among women.” That sounds holy to me.
“Mother of God-” This one’s easy. If someone is a Christian, he believes that Jesus is God-not just the Son of God, but God the Son [John 1:1]. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus, she must be the Mother of God. And, as if that weren’t enough, Elizabeth calls her “the mother of my Lord.” Does this imply, as some Christians say, that Catholics believe God needed a mother? When God the Son, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became a member of the human race, he had to be-like all of us-a son of Adam, born of woman. To do that, a mother is exactly what he needed.
“Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” We are all sinners and need others to pray for us, and a Fundamentalist would agree that the most important thing is to die in the Lord’s love. Considering what we believe about Mary, how could we doubt that her prayers are especially powerful (cf. James 5:16)? Ask the Fundamentalist if he has ever really looked at Catholic images of Mary. Point out that she is always depicted in an attitude of prayer. How can an image of someone praying be an idol?
But by honoring Mary, aren’t we neglecting Jesus? No, we’re not. We can’t say the Hail Mary without blessing the name of Jesus and proclaiming our belief that he is God made man. Mary’s whole reason for being-one that she fulfills perfectly-is to bring Christ to the world and the world to him. That’s what she was created for, and God keeps using her for that until the end of time. Besides Jesus, she’s the only human being in history who has obeyed perfectly the will of the Father.
The Mass
Now let’s turn to the page in Last Rites on the Mass, which betrays an ignorance so deep that I’m tempted to call it willful blindness. But for now let’s give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say only that he has no idea what he is talking about. For starters, I hope he is not trying to prove that the Mass “doesn’t exist” because the word “Mass” isn’t found in the Bible. The word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Scripture either-but no Christian would conclude that the Trinity doesn’t exist.
Actually, I think his real objection is his mistaken idea that the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice means that we think Jesus continues to die. That certainly would be unbiblical-but, once again, it isn’t what the Church teaches.
Of course Christ’s one sacrifice of himself on the cross was sufficient for our salvation. His death, which took place at one moment in time, is indeed finished. What this author doesn’t get is that his sacrifice is not simply his death; it is his offering of himself to the Father in perfect obedience-and that’s eternal. (1 Peter 1:18 tells us he was “chosen before the foundation of the world.”) Each Mass is part of that one sacrifice.
How is this possible? It happens through the Mass, which the Fundamentalist would call “the Lord’s Supper.” (Surely no one-not even this author-would dare to say that isn’t in Scripture.) Most Protestant Christians believe that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial, not really the body and blood of Christ. But this doesn’t square with the early history of Christianity. For instance, when the pagans accused the early Christians of cannibalism, they weren’t under the impression that what was being celebrated was just a memorial meal.
Ask the Fundamentalist, “When you celebrate the Lord’s Supper in your church, do you recognize him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24]? When you eat and drink, do you recognize his body [1Cor.12:29]? We do-that’s why we treat the holy sacrament with such reverence and, indeed, adoration. I suggest you reread John 6 and decide for yourself what Jesus really meant when he said those words at the Last Supper.”
One further point. Consider what the Last Supper was: a Passover meal. Exodus 12 tells us that the Passover lamb was sacrificed to the Lord and also eaten by the people. Jesus, the Lamb of God, makes it clear by his own words that he intended his body and blood to be the new Passover, the New Covenant. It was to be “real food and real drink” for all generations of Christians, just as the original Passover was for all generations of Jews.
Confession
Let’s move to our author’s view of another sacrament: confession (also called “penance,” or “reconciliation”). The protagonist, John, is condemned for thinking that a mere human being (the priest) can forgive sins, and Christ quotes Mark 2:7 in support of this. But think about this for a minute: Who actually said, “Who but God can forgive sins?” Wasn’t it the Pharisees, who were accusing Jesus of b.asphemy? This author couldn’t possibly be agreeing with them, could he? And if not, isn’t he (once again) taking a Scripture passage out of context and twisting it around to fit his own preconceived ideas?
And, of course, there’s the little matter of James 5:16, which tells us to “declare your sins to one another, that you may find forgiveness.” That passage alone tells us that in forgiving sins Christ can and does use human agents.
In any case, no Catholic believes that the priest has authority to forgive sins on his own. That authority comes from Christ (John 20:21-23). It’s one of the powers He delegated to the apostles (Luke 10:16) who then passed it on to the next generation of bishops, as we see happening in Acts, and as Paul reminds Timothy (2 Tim.1:6). The priest is a “stand-in” for Christ himself, as you would know if you’d ever been to confession and heard him say, ” By his authority I absolve you . . .'”
Baptism
On this sacrament our author seems really confused. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells the apostles to baptize all peoples, so it is hardly surprising that in his first speech, Peter proclaimed it to be necessary (Acts 2:38ff). Jesus also said we must be born again “of water and the Holy Spirit” (John 3:5)-but he didn’t say we had to be grownups when it happened. In Acts 10, when Cornelius and his relatives and friends are baptized, and in Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer is baptized “with all his household,” who doubts that children and infants were included?
Our author seems to be saying that a person has to make a conscious decision for Christ before being baptized. Yet in the Gospels, the faith of Jairus saved his daughter’s life, and the faith of the centurion saved his servant from illness. So why can’t the faith of parents initiate their children into a loving relationship with God and start them on the road to salvation? And if, as the author claims, baptism doesn’t make a person a Christian, why do all the Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches have those baptismal fonts the size of swimming pools to immerse people in?
Out of Context
Let us examine the final biblical quotation, “Come out of her,” et cetera (Revelation 18:4). By what authority does this writer know that this refers to the Catholic Church, or indeed to any church? Read in context, it seems much more likely that it means pagan Rome – especially since we know that Revelation was written during the first century, when Christians were being persecuted by the Roman emperors. In short, this writer seems awfully confident that he’s the only one who understands what Scripture means. In fact, I find that he’s distorting Bible passages right and left, just as he accuses the Catholic Church of doing.
The final page of the booklet sums up this author’s mistaken notion that the Catholic Church is some sort of protection racket designed to keep us dependent on priests dispensing sacraments, which he sees as magical talismans from a spiritual vending machine. (He has managed to savage every sacrament except marriage.) He also seems to think that we Catholics have somehow managed to go through life without the one “sacrament” he thinks is essential: “accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Savior.” How could we possibly not do that, when we are constantly encountering him in our Church? Above all, if we’re right about the Lord’s Supper, aren’t we accepting Jesus as our Savior every time we receive him in Holy Communion?
Tell your Fundamentalist acquaintance, “I believe that you need to think and pray long and hard before you give out any more of these pamphlets, and to consider whether, by trying to lead people out of the Catholic Church, you might be opposing God (see Acts 5:39). It seems to me that your time and energy would be far better spent fighting the real enemies of our Lord: paganism, Satanism, secularism, and atheism. Those are the beliefs that really can land a person in hell-and all Christians should unite to fight them. Attacking each other won’t help.”