Bringing you the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ
and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC
Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's
magisterium
I have several questions to ask, but feel
I must first explain some of my personal background.
Both my parents are Christian; my dad is Catholic,
my mom is Methodist. I was baptized Catholic.
When the time came for me to receive my First
Communion, my dad refused to contact a priest
so I couldn't receive a religious education.
My mother ended up sending me to church
with my friends, who worshipped in an Assemblies
of God church.
As a teenager I received Confirmation in a
Methodist church, accepting Christ as an adult
into my daily life. I then felt a calling
by God, and a desire to dedicate my life to
his service. The problem was I didn't know
which brand of shepherd's crook I should carry.
Since Confirmation, I've felt a longing, as
though something was still lacking in my life.
That is the impetus for this e-mail, though
I still have great reservations about the
practices of the Catholic Church. In answering
my questions, I hope you can better educate
me on how the Catholic Christian side thinks.
Since the Vatican possesses great wealth,
and liquidatable properties, why doesn't
it auction them off instead of closing
parochial schools?
If the Pope is selected by God, then
why do Cardinals hedge their bets by voting?
When Jesus gave Peter the keys, he supposedly
established the papacy.
If this is the case, then how can
these keys be transferred to others?
Doesn't Peter still hold these keys
in Heaven?
What is the nature of the Mass?
Is Mass the re-sacrifice of Christ
on a weekly basis, as some write?
<If this is the case, then Mass isn't
necessary.>
Why would it be necessary for a person
to consume the literal flesh and blood
of Christ?
Aren't the same purposes accomplished
through the Holy Ghost?
Why are some books not accepted by Protestant
churches in their canon?
Doesn't God decide who is or isn't a
saint, and if so, then what is the whole
purpose of canonization on Earth?
When did Jesus say that others could
act in his name to absolve sins?
How do priests confess their sins?
Where does the Bible establish the primacy
of Rome?
Since Antioch was where the Church
was once centered, isn't its patriarch
the true successor to Peter?
Since icons, statues, etc. are all supposed
to depict things that reside in Heaven
or Earth, aren't they against biblical
teaching?
Isn't the Catholic practice of annulment
unnecessary to God?
If a marriage was sacramentally
unfulfilled, then how would marriage
to another person conflict with previous
actions?
The Methodist church teaches that the
Apostles were partly wrong in what they
called sacraments, and only accepts Baptism
and Communion as sacraments of the Gospel.
What does the Catholic Church teach on
the nature and validity of its sacraments?
Do not good works accompany true faith?
If that is the case, then why would
works be required for faith?
Aren't other people, as well as the Pope,
able to establish moral principles through
the power of the Holy Spirit?
Can anyone articulate and define
such principles?
Because Christ was "The Ultimate
Sacrifice" then isn't a "real" or "true" priesthood
unnecessary?
Is not the priesthood of Christians
composed of true believers?
I do realize this is a multitude of questions,
possibly best left up to a priest to explain.
I wished to receive the opinions of many people
from many backgrounds, and that is partly
why I have asked these questions. Most likely I will have more questions.
If I do would you answer them?
I appreciate your efforts, and thank you in
advance for your help.
In Christ,
Lori
{ Since I was never grounded in the faith, can you educate
me on how the Catholic side thinks? }
John
replied:
Dear Lori,
You ask some very important questions.
You have obviously put some serious
thought into this. It is people like yourself, who ask
these kinds of questions that ultimately
make the strongest Catholics.
Your background both, within the
Methodist, and the Assemblies of
God traditions will be a great asset
to you. I have a (Baptist|Charismatic)
background. I found the biblical
foundation
I received when I was a Charismatic
Baptist has proven to be a great
asset.
Let's look at some of these questions:
You said:
Since the Vatican possesses great wealth,
and liquidatable properties, why doesn't
it auction them off instead of closing
parochial schools?
First of all, this is a practice rather
than a doctrine. God did not
guarantee that the Church would always
be the best steward of her finances.
Having said that, from the very beginning,
the Church has allowed the local
Church under the local bishop to
administrate the day to day business
of running parishes and Catholic
schools. In the
past, many have proposed, that the Church should divest
herself of her assets and give the
money to the poor.
Judas asked a similar question of
Jesus when a woman was anointing
Him. He rebuked Jesus saying the
ointment could have been sold and
the money given to the poor. Jesus
responded that the poor would always
be with us. (Mark 14:3-7)
Practically speaking, the solution
for parochial schools is:
to teach Catholics the importance
of giving their children a Catholic
education
return to traditional, conservative
Catholic teaching in these schools
and
teach individual Catholics the
importance of tithing.
If the Catholic Church were to sell
off its art and treasure it would
vanish rather quickly and, in a short
period of time, the schools would
find themselves in the same situation.
You said:
If the Pope is selected by God, then
why do Cardinals hedge their bets by voting?
Jesus Christ established a visible
Church. He protects the Church
from teaching error and He established
the Papacy.
He does not hand pick every man that
will be Pope. Once we have a Pope,
the Holy Spirit keeps him from teaching
error in the areas of faith and morals.
Nevertheless, he does not guarantee
that the Pope will be a good man,
always making the right decisions
about a practice of discipline and
so on.
You said: When Jesus gave Peter the keys, he supposedly
established the papacy.
If this is the case, then how can
these keys be transferred to others?
Doesn't Peter still hold these keys
in Heaven?
I would ask you to compare the passage
that you've referenced in Matthew 16 with a text
in Isaiah 22:
21 I
will clothe him with your robe
and fasten your sash around him
and hand your authority over to
him. He will be a father to those
who live in Jerusalem and to the
house of Judah. 22 I
will place on his shoulder the
key to the house of David; what
he opens no one can shut, and
what he shuts no one can open. 23 I
will drive him like a peg into
a firm place; he will be a seat
of honor for the house of his
father. 24 All
the glory of his family will hang
on him: its offspring and offshoots
— all its lesser vessels,
from the bowls to all the jars.
Beyond that, the overwhelming evidence
in the post biblical writings of
the early Church (as early as
90 A.D.) acknowledged that the
early Christians understood Peter
transferred his authority to a successor.
In the late first century we see
that Clement, third successor of
Peter, wrote to Corinth with the
authority of Peter. This letter predates
the death of John. John was still
living and writing in Ephesus. Certainly,
he would have taken the leadership
of the Church were there not a Papacy.
Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp(a disciple of John), Irenaeus, and many more all have
written letters pointing to Rome
and the Bishop of Rome as the head
of the Church.
You said:
What is the nature of the Mass?
Is Mass the re-sacrifice of Christ
on a weekly basis, as some write? <If this is the case, then Mass isn't
necessary.>
The Mass is not a re-sacrifice. It
makes the "once and for all"
Sacrifice of Cavalry, present to all who
attend Mass. God, who stands outside
of time always sees Calvary in the "Eternal
Now".
Christ stands before the Father always
pointing to and offering His Sacrifice
on our behalf to the Father. At the
Mass, in a mystical mysterious way,
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
that sacrifice is made present to
us who worship. Again, a study of
the Early Church, will show that
this has always been the orthodox,
understanding of the Eucharist.
You said:
Why would it be necessary for a person
to consume the literal flesh and blood
of Christ?
Aren't the same purposes accomplished
through the Holy Ghost?
Good question!!
First of all, we consume the Sacramental
Presence of Jesus. That is, if you
put the consecrated host under the
microscope you are not going to see
Jesus' DNA. What we are consuming
is the substance of God. We partake
in this Mystery because Jesus is
the Passover Lamb. The Israelites
had to eat the lamb, and so do we. To
get a better understanding, we look
to ancient Jewish Tradition. They
understood that in drinking the blood
of animals they would be partaking
in the life of the animal and thus
it was a forbidden practice. As we
partake in the Blood of Christ,
we partake in the life of Christ.
In simple terms, you are what you
eat.
Why is this necessary?
Well, we are not only spiritual beings,
we are also physical beings and God
chooses to use physical realities
as means of delivering grace.
Can one receive grace strictly
in a spiritual sense?
Yes, of course one can, He is God,
but He chose this means. I suggest
you read John Chapter 6 carefully.
You said:
When did Jesus say that others could
act in his name to absolve sins?
How do priests confess their sins?
21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace
to you! As the Father has sent
Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this,
He breathed on them, and said
to them,
"Receive the Holy
Spirit. 23 "If you forgive
the sins of any, they are forgiven
them; if you retain the sins of
any, they are retained."
Jesus is speaking directly to the
Apostles and He breathes on them giving
them the Holy Spirit. This is a different
event than the outpouring we see
in the book of Acts. This is specific
to the Apostles and He gives them,
the Apostles, the authority to forgive
sins. Compare this with Matthew 16, Matthew 18 and James 5. Pay particular
note to James 5, when James is speaking
of the elders, which is the translation
for the Greek word presbyter which
was later shortened to priest.
You said:
Where does the Bible establish the primacy
of Rome?
Since Antioch was where the Church
was once centered, isn't its patriarch
the true successor to Peter?
No, it's not. In fact, before Peter
went to Rome, he was Bishop of Antioch.
To this day,
the Eastern Catholic Churches, without
Rome's objections, recognize that
the Patriarch of Antioch is second
in order of primacy to the Roman
bishop. By that they mean, had
Peter not made it to Rome, the successor
he left in Antioch would have been
his successor.
Had Peter not gone to Rome and appointed
a successor there, it is quite possible
that the Chair of Peter would be
in Antioch.
I will have to take up some of these
other questions later. I will also
get you a recommended reading list.
For now be blessed my dear friend!
Under His Mercy,
John DiMascio
Eric
replied:
Dear Sister in Christ,
As my brother John pointed out, you ask some excellent questions. I
had a few things to add to what he
said.
You said:
Since the Vatican possesses great wealth,
and liquidatable properties, why doesn't
it auction them off instead of closing
parochial schools?
First of all, it is important to
note that from a financial perspective,
the Catholic Church is not monolithic.
Each diocese is financially independent
from the Vatican and from other dioceses,
so funds do not flow from the Vatican
to, say, parochial schools in the
U.S.
But more importantly, the art, treasures
and property the Vatican holds, it
holds as a custodian for the benefit
of the whole Church. If it sold it,
then it would go into private hands
where the faithful would be unable
to access or enjoy it, and the funds
would soon be depleted and then you'd
be left with nothing to show for
it. By keeping its treasure, the
Vatican has something of lasting
value that all generations can appreciate.
The Vatican selling its art would
be like:
New York City selling Central
Park to feed the poor, or
Boston selling
the Boston Common to cover a deficit.
The public loses big time.
You said: When Jesus gave Peter the keys, he supposedly
established the papacy.
If this is the case, then how can
these keys be transferred to others?
"Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly
lies behind this saying of Jesus.
The keys are the symbol of authority
and Father Roland DeVoe rightly
sees here the same authority vested
in the vicar, the master of the
house, the chamberlain of the
royal household in ancient Israel.
In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described
as having the same authority."
Other Protestant scholars admit it
too, that when Jesus gives to Peter
the keys of the kingdom, Peter is
receiving the Prime Minister's office,
which means dynastic authority from
the Son of David, Jesus, the King
of Israel, but also an office where
there will be dynastic succession.
He goes on to say some other things. "It
is of considerable importance," Albright
says,
"that in other contexts,
when the disciplinary affairs
of the community are discussed,
the symbol of the keys is absent,
since the saying applies in these
instances to a wider circle. The
role of Peter as steward of the
kingdom is further explained as
being the exercise of administrative
authority as was the case of the
Old Testament chamberlain who
held the keys."
It's important to note that the keys
have to do with the exercise of authority (in particular authority while the
Master is away). It would do very
little good for Jesus to give Peter
the keys alone, only to have them "stay
with him" when he died and went
to Heaven, since, after all, Peter
can't exercise authority on Earth
from Heaven! The specific need fulfilled
by the keys is the need for someone
on Earth to administer the authority
of the Master. (This is illustrated
in the Gospels in the parable of
the faithful steward, Matthew 24:45-51.)
Having the keys "go to Heaven" with
Peter defeats the whole purpose of
having them.
Here is additional evidence that
the early Christians believed that
Jesus envisioned having a successor
to Peter:
In the same sense, the Second epistle
of Clement to James II ('Clementine
Homilies,' Introduction [221 A.D.]),
Peter is represented as having appointed
Clement as his successor, saying:
"I communicate to him the power
of binding and loosing so that,
with respect to everything which
he shall ordain in the earth,
it shall be decreed in the Heavens; for he shall bind what ought to
be bound and loose what ought
to be loosed as knowing the rule
of the Church.'"
"Today's sacrifice is like
that offered once by the Once-begotten
Incarnate Word; it is offered by him (now as then),
since it is one and the same sacrifice."
"In the sacrifice of the
Mass, Christ's sacrifice on the
Cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and
its saving power is applied."
You said:
How do priests confess their sins?
Priests (and bishops) confess their
sins to other priests. The Pope confesses
his sins as well (weekly,
at a minimum, I might add) to a priest.
You said:
Doesn't God decide who is or isn't a
saint, and if so, then what is the whole
purpose of canonization on Earth?
Yeah He does. The purposes of canonization
is to determine what God decided.
It takes two verified miracles (worked
through the person's intercession) to canonize a saint. I'd definitely
say that's a case of God making the
decision. The role of the Church
and the process of canonization is
mostly to certify the results of
God's decision.
You said:
Why are some books not accepted by Protestant
churches in their canon?
Well, the answer, not surprisingly,
is long, involved, and messy.
At
the root of it, is the fact that
there were two canons of Scripture
circulating among first century Jews:
the Palestinian canon, which roughly
corresponds to the Protestant Old
Testament, and
the Alexandrian canon,
which roughly corresponds to the
Catholic and Orthodox
Old Testament.
The latter was popularized by the
Septuagint Greek translation, which
was used by Greek-speaking Jews (and
Greek-speaking Christians). Many
of the Old Testament quotes in the
New Testament are quoted from the
Septuagint translation. Anyway, this
state of affairs continued until
around 90 A.D., when the Jews at the Council of Jamnia decided on
their canon. They decided in favor
of the Palestinian canon, in part,
because several of the books in the
Alexandrian canon were only available
in Greek, and the Jews held them suspect. (Some
of these we now have Hebrew or Aramaic
manuscripts for.) Also, several
of these books had very uncomfortable
allusions to Christ in them (such
as Wisdom 2), and relations were
very strained between Jews and Christian
at this time. The Christians, on
the other hand, favored the Septuagint
and the Alexandrian canon.
While
the Christian canon was in flux for
several hundred years most, if not
all, of the lists of canonical books
include books from the broader canon
(which we call Deuterocanonical books).
The Christian canon of the Old Testament
was never formally and infallibly
defined until the Reformation. Luther
objected to Purgatory, which
the Church defended by an appeal
to a pretty plain and obvious text
in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45. His solution
was simple: get around it by adopting
the Palestinian canon and rejecting
the deuterocanonical books, including 2 Maccabees.
I can't let this discussion go by
without mentioning that Luther also
wanted to throw out the
books of James, Revelation, and Hebrews,
among others, but was dissuaded by
his colleagues.
The response of the Catholic Church
was to finally formally (and infallibly)
define the canon of the Old Testament,
including the deuterocanonical books.
The Protestants followed Luther's
example, with due regard to the Church
of England which mandated the deuterocanonical
books at least be included in the
King James Version.
That's about as fair an assessment
of the situation as I can give you.
You said:
Since icons, statues, etc. are all supposed
to depict things that reside in Heaven
or Earth, aren't they against biblical
teaching?
No. Biblical teaching forbids *worshipping*
images or otherwise making them idols (which
we don't do). This is demonstrated
by the fact that God actually commanded
the Israelites to make certain images
of creatures and use them in worship
(Numbers 21:6-9, Exodus 25:18-19).
A longer argument, which I can state
only briefly and probably can't do
justice, goes along the following
lines.
God forbade images because
God had no image but when God became
incarnate in Christ, He took upon
himself an image — He took
the form of man. He joined Himself
to creation, and united God and man.
In fact, He made us partakers of
the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) and
filled us with all the fullness of
God (Ephesians 3:19).
Consequently,
since God took the form of man, and
Himself became a Living Icon, it
is legitimate for us to make a representation
of God in material form. Moreover,
since the saints have a share in
the divine nature and the fullness
of God (and reflect the divinity
of Christ), it is legitimate to make
images of them as well. We would
contend, therefore, that something
substantial happened at the Incarnation, that the God who had no form prior
to that, is now in material form;
and to reflect that awesome truth,
we make images of Christ and those
he has glorified. These images we
venerate, (never worship).
You said:
Isn't the Catholic practice of annulment unnecessary to God?
If a marriage was sacramentally unfulfilled, then how would marriage to another person conflict with previous actions?
An annulment is unnecessary to God.
It's necessary, however, to man and
to the Church.
An accurate way of referring to it
is a "declaration of nullity",
which means that it is simply making
known what was already true. It is
simply a legal or juridical device
that possibly allows the person to
freely marry in the Church (otherwise
their previous marriage would appear
to be an impediment).
You said: The Methodist church teaches that the
Apostles were partly wrong in what they
called sacraments, and only accepts Baptism
and Communion as sacraments of the Gospel.
What does the Catholic Church teach on
the nature and validity of its sacraments?
We would recognize the Baptism of
the Methodist Church as valid, because
it is done in the name of the Trinity.
It would effectively be equivalent
to any Baptism performed in a Catholic
Church. We would consider Methodist
communion to be invalid, for many
reasons, not the least of which,
the Methodist Church does not believe
it is confecting the true Body and
Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
You said:
Do not good works accompany true faith?
If that is the case, then why would
works be required for faith?
I'm not sure what you mean by "why
would works be required for faith." but
one important thing to remember is
that in the Catholic understanding,
faith always comes before works (and
grace before faith), and the wicked
man who is justified (made righteous)
is justified by faith alone, apart
from any good deeds. (We believe
this justification happens in Baptism
and, for one who is
already baptized, in Confession.)
You said:
Aren't other people, as well as the Pope,
able to establish moral principles through
the power of the Holy Spirit?
I would argue that only God is able
to establish moral principles. The
Pope's only job is to articulate
and defend the principles Christ
and the Apostles entrusted to us
2,000 years ago.
Can anyone articulate and define
such principles?
Absolutely, and indeed they should.
The Pope does not have a monopoly
on the role of preaching and teaching.
The question is, can you absolutely
trust everyone who does?
Not by a
long shot. While it is good to listen
to anyone whom you believe is trustworthy,
eventually you're going to run into
conflicting stands on moral principles,
and you need an authority who can
make definitive statements on issues
that arise. That's the role of the
Pope: to arbitrate, infallibly if
need be, when disputes over moral
principles arise.
You said:
Because Christ was "The Ultimate
Sacrifice" then isn't a "real" or "true" priesthood
unnecessary?
The role of the priest, in the Catholic
understanding, is to serve as an
instrument for Christ,
the Great High Priest, in making
His once-for-all sacrifice present
for the faithful to partake in. Remember
that the Passover sacrifice (which
Christ's sacrifice fulfilled) involved
two components:
one was offering the sacrifice
the other was eating the flesh
of the sacrificed lamb.
Christ did the first part on Calvary
2,000 years ago, but it's up to us
to do the second part.
To make that possible, Christ established
the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In this
sacrifice, the priest imitates what
Christ did, playing the role, as
it were, of Christ in the mystery
of the Passover. The Great High Priest
then sends down to us, through the
hands of the priest, His own Body
and Blood, through which we become
partakers of the divine nature. (By
the way, the sacrificial nature of
the Eucharist is implied in Hebrews 13:10:
"We have an altar from which
those who serve the tabernacle
have no right to eat"
So while Christ's sacrifice is "done",
its saving fruits, in the form of
the Eucharist, still need to be distributed
to the faithful. This is the primary
role of the priest in the Catholic
faith. He is called a priest, in
part, because he shares in the priestly
ministry of the Great High Priest
and re-enacts the Last Supper.
You said:
Is not the priesthood of Christians
composed of true believers?
We acknowledge a universal priesthood
which is made up of all the Christian
faithful
(cf. 1 Peter 2:9) and there was a
similar priesthood in the Old Testament
(Exodus 19:6) but just as the Old
Testament had a ministerial priesthood,
in addition to a universal priesthood,
so in the New Covenant, there is
also a universal priesthood and a
ministerial priesthood that are distinct
so the universal priesthood is not
necessarily the only priesthood.
As early as the first century, we
see evidence the Christians had established
their own priesthood. St. Clement,
the fourth bishop of Rome, wrote
in 80 A.D.:
"Since then these things
are manifest to us, and we have
looked into the depths of the
divine knowledge, we ought to
do in order all things which the
Master commanded us to perform
at appointed times. He commanded
us to celebrate sacrifices and
services, and that it should not
be thoughtlessly or disorderly,
but at fixed times and hours.
He has Himself fixed by His supreme
will the places and persons whom
He desires for these celebrations,
in order that all things may be
done piously according to His
good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed,
but they follow the laws of the
Master and do not sin. For to
the high priest his proper ministrations
are allotted, and to the priests
the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services
have been imposed. The layman
is bound by the ordinances for
the laity."
I hope that this addresses some of
your questions. Some of my colleagues
may have additional comments to add,
but write back if you have any further
questions.
Your brother in Christ,
Eric
John
followed up on Eric's answer:
Lori,
You said:
Why are some books not accepted by Protestant
churches in their canon?
Eric Answered:
Well, the answer, not surprisingly,
is long, involved, and messy.
At
the root of it, is the fact that
there were two canons of Scripture
circulating among first century Jews:
the Palestinian canon, which roughly
corresponds to the Protestant Old
Testament, and
the Alexandrian canon,
which roughly corresponds to the
Catholic and Orthodox Old Testament.
The latter was popularized by the
Septuagint Greek translation, which
was used by Greek-speaking Jews (and
Greek-speaking Christians). Many
of the Old Testament quotes in the
New Testament are quoted from the
Septuagint translation. Anyway, this
state of affairs continued until
around 90 A.D., when the Jews at
the Council of Jamnia decided on
their canon. They decided in favor
of the Palestinian canon, in part,
because several of the books in the
Alexandrian canon were only available
in Greek, and the Jews held them suspect. (Some
of these we now have Hebrew or Aramaic
manuscripts for.) Also, several
of these books had very uncomfortable
allusions to Christ in them (such
as Wisdom 2), and relations were
very strained between Jews and Christian
at this time. The Christians, on
the other hand, favored the Septuagint
and the Alexandrian canon.
While
the Christian canon was in flux for
several hundred years most, if not
all, of the lists of canonical books
include books from the broader canon
(which we call Deuterocanonical books).
The Christian canon of the Old Testament
was never formally and infallibly
defined until the Reformation. Luther
objected to Purgatory, which
the Church defended by an appeal
to a pretty plain and obvious text
in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45. His solution
was simple: get around it by adopting
the Palestinian canon and rejecting
the deuterocanonical books, including 2 Maccabees.
I can't let this discussion go by
without mentioning that Luther also
wanted to throw out the
books of James, Revelation, and Hebrews,
among others, but was dissuaded by
his colleagues.
The response of the Catholic Church
was to finally formally (and infallibly)
define the canon of the Old Testament,
including the deuterocanonical books.
The Protestants followed Luther's
example, with due regard to the Church
of England which mandated the deuterocanonical
books at least be included in the
King James Version.
Eric, this is not exactly the case.
There are a couple of things to consider.
The entire canon of 73 books
can be found in the writings of St. Augustine, approved of by Pope Damascus in 382 A.D.
This canon was only in flux because
unlike today communication between
the Churches were far more limited
by time and space. Further, since
no one before Luther really promoted
the heresy of Sola Scriptura (that
is, the Bible as the sole and final
authority), there was no crisis. The
councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage held between 382 and 397 A.D. accepted the
entire 73 book canon however
since the dispute at these Councils
revolved around the New Testament,
the councils emphasized the 27 books
of the New Testament in their councils.
The Council Of Trent simply reasserted
what had always been the accepted
teaching of the Church on the subject.
It is important to note that the
late first century Palestinian Canon
came into existence at the rabbinic Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. By this
point, the Jews no longer had any
authority to set the Canon. The authority
to "bind and to loose" had
been given by Christ to the Church.
Beyond that, the Jews had political
reasons to reject the books written
in Greek. In some of the books, the
Roman Empire was painted in a favorable
light. These books were written about
150 B.C. when Rome was taking over
the Greek Empire.
At that time, the
Greeks were the enemy, not the Romans.
However, by 90 A.D. it was Rome that
was the enemy, therefore the Jews
would have no part of these books however they did not reject
the doctrine taught in these books.
Prayer for the Faithful Departed and prayers
for the dead by the living, is rooted
in ancient Jewish Tradition and is
still the practice today. At the
time of Jesus, Jews prayed for the
Faithful Departed and asked for their intercession,
therefore Jesus would have condemned
this if it were not a true practice.
Lori said:
Do not good works
accompany true faith?
and Eric replied:
I'm not sure what you mean by "why
would works be required for faith." but
one important thing to remember is
that in the Catholic understanding,
faith always comes before works (and
grace before faith), and the wicked
man who is justified (made righteous)
is justified by faith alone, apart
from any good deeds. (We believe
this justification happens in Baptism
and, for one who is
already baptized, in Confession.)
Adding to Eric's answer:
The Bible teaches us that we are
justified by faith apart from
works of the law, (Romans 3) but it also says we are justified
not by works alone (James 2).
The Catholic view of justification
and the Protestant view differ in
the following way:
In the Protestant model, Justification
is simply a legal declaration.
God declares us righteous and imputes the righteousness of Christ
upon us. As Luther put it, we
are nothing but a pile of dung,
covered by snow.
The Catholic understanding is
that God declares us righteous,
but He does what He says. As Isaiah
wrote:
11 My Word will not return
void but will accomplish that
which I set forth to accomplish.
(Isaiah 55:11)
Thus we are made righteous. We
are a pile of dung which God turn's
into snow but it goes further
than that. Justification is not
just a legal declaration which
frees us, it is a legal adoption.
Therefore we become sons of God.
Catholic Salvation theology revolves
around entering into the inheritance
of Christ. This means growing,
and maturing until we are ready
to inherit the Kingdom. Thus justification
is not a one shot deal. Yes,
we are objectively justified,
but justification is dynamic,
it grows in conjunction with our
sanctification.
The Protestant understanding was
heavily influenced by Calvin who
was a lawyer!
Need I say more?
Yes, God is judge, but God is Father,
and while there is much truth in
the Protestant understanding, it
does not encompass the fuller understanding
of the Mystery which is found in
the Church.
Salvation, plain and simple, is a complete
work of Christ from beginning to
end in which we somehow cooperate
by constantly responding to Grace.
The first response to Grace is in
fact, Faith. Faith without works
is dead, thus we show our faith through
works but we also increase
our faith by works. Faith, in a sense,
is like a muscle: the more you use
it, the stronger it gets.
If we are like the lazy servant that
buries his talent (in our case, faith)
in ground then it will die.
Under His Mercy,
John DiMascio
Lori replied:
Thank you all for your prompt responses!
It seems you all are pretty knowledgeable.
The way I worded one of my questions
was rather vague, and I'd like to
re-ask it:
Most Protestant groups only find
biblical support for two sacraments
(Baptism and Eucharist).
Where
can I find support for the other
five sacraments?
And one more new one:
The Church teaches that the Bible
is only right when viewed with "Catholic-colored
glasses" that is, in the
context of tradition.
Where does
this assertion come from?
I appreciate all of the thought that
was put into your replies, and I
feel energized in a way
I haven't in quite some time.
The sacrament of Marriage is of course mentioned
several times by Jesus,
where He elevates it beyond what
Moses taught. St. Paul discusses
it at length in Ephesians 5, and,
in fact, he calls it a "profound
mystery" (verse 32), which
is significant because "mystery" is
the Greek word for "sacrament".
Whether you consider there to be
zero, two or seven sacraments depends
on what you mean by "sacrament" and
how you understand it. Given the
Biblical evidence, I've never quite
figured out how Protestants rejected
the other five sacraments, particularly
Marriage, which one would think would
be an obvious sacrament. In many
cases, (e.g. Ordination, Marriage,
and sometimes Confirmation), these
churches still celebrate them — they
just don't classify them as sacraments,
for whatever reason. From the Catholic view:
I. The Sacraments of Christ. .
.
1116 Sacraments are "powers that comes forth" from the Body of Christ, (cf. Luke 5:17; Luke 6:19; Luke 8:46) which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the New and Everlasting Covenant.
The Holy Spirit prepares for the reception of Christ.
.
1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.
You said: The Church teaches that the Bible
is only right when viewed with "Catholic-colored
glasses" that is, in the
context of tradition.
Where does
this assertion come from?
Well, first I'd like to assert that
everyone's glasses are colored, whether
they are aware of it or not. The
question is whose color are you wearing.
Protestants follow their own traditions
but usually do not acknowledge it.
Tradition always influences how you
interpret the Scriptures. I learned
this when I came to know the Lord
and went through a phase of "Bible-alone" belief,
and derived my own doctrines from
my own reading of Scripture, rejecting
any outside influence.
I found that
many "Bible-believing Christians" sincerely
held to beliefs that they considered
to be from the Bible alone, but it
seemed clear to me that they weren't.
Rather, they were influenced by their
own traditions. This was also clear
because of the several different
strains of "Bible-only" belief
that are in existence, and how people
exposed to one community tend to
adopt the interpretations of the
other people in their community.
Anyway, I digress. On to your question.
One important verse is 1 Timothy 3:15, which calls the "Church
of the living God" the "pillar
and foundation of the truth".
That makes the Church the primary
ground for determining the truth.
(The foundation of this Church is "the
Apostles and Prophets" (Ephesians 2:20).) St. Jude urges us to:
"Earnestly contend for the
faith once for all entrusted to
the saints" (Jude 3)
and St. Paul exhorted Timothy,
"What you have heard from
me, keep as the pattern of sound
teaching, with faith and love
in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
deposit that was entrusted to
you — guard it with the
help of the Holy Spirit who lives
in us."
<Deposit of Faith — the
idea that the truth was deposited
into the Church by Christ for
safe-keeping throughout the centuries.>
St. Irenaeus, grand-disciple of
St. Paul, elaborated on this in his
work: Against Heresies,
180-199 A.D., 3, 4, 1:
"When, therefore, we have
such proofs, it is not necessary
to seek among others the truth
which is easily obtained from
the Church. For the Apostles,
like a rich man in a bank, deposited
with her most copiously everything
which pertains to the truth; and
everyone whosoever wishes draws
from her the drink of life. For
she is the entrance to life, while
all the rest are thieves and robbers
[cf, John 10:1-10]. That is why
it is surely necessary to avoid
[heretics], while cherishing with
the utmost diligence the things
pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth.
What then?
If there should
be a dispute over some kind of
question, ought we not have recourse
to the most ancient Churches in
which the Apostles were familiar,
and draw from them what is clear
and certain in regard to that question?
What if the Apostles had not in
fact left writings to us?
Would
it not be necessary to follow
the order of tradition, which
was handed down to those to whom
they entrusted the churches?"
So there is the idea of all the truth
being entrusted to the Church through
the Apostles as a "deposit of
faith", and handed down to us
as, what we call, Apostolic Tradition.
This is in agreement with the words
of Jesus, who promised this to us:
13 But when He, the Spirit
of Truth, comes, he will guide
you into all truth;
26 But the Counselor, the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send
in my name, will teach you all
things and will remind you of
everything I have said to you.
This emphasizes the fact that the
Catholic Church sees itself as a
jealous but careful custodian of
what Christ taught the Apostles,
dedicated to preserving, defending,
and expounding that truth "once
for all entrusted to the saints" — not
as an organ that receives new revelation
or invents new doctrines as the occasion
warrants. What we teach, we believe
comes, in one form or another, from
the Apostles.
"It is possible, then, for
everyone in every [local] church
who may wish to know the truth,
to contemplate the tradition of
the Apostles which has been made
known throughout the whole world.
We are in a position to enumerate
those who were instituted bishops
by the Apostles, and their successors
to our own times: men. . . to
whom they were committing the
self-same churches. . . They wished
all those and their successors
to be perfect and without reproach,
to whom they handed their authority."
The fact that we need someone to
help us rightly interpret Scriptures
is underscored by the words of St.
Peter concerning the letters of Paul:
16 His letters contain some
things which are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people
distort, as they do the other
Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Here we have proof that Scripture
is not obvious but can be distorted,
and can be distorted to a person's
spiritual destruction. Here, too,
his earlier words are apropos:
20 But know this first of all,
that no prophecy of Scripture
is a matter of one's own interpretation.
This issue is also raised by the
Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:31, who
tells Philip that he cannot understand
the Scriptures unless someone explains
them to him.
Here are a few more Scripture verses
to consider on this subject:
15 Hold fast to the traditions
which you received, whether by
word of mouth or by letter.
20 "The Redeemer will come
to Zion, to those in Jacob who
repent of their sins, declares
the Lord."
21 "As for me, this is
my covenant with them,' says the
Lord. My Spirit, which is on you, and
my words that I have put in your
mouth will not depart from your
mouth, or from the mouths of your
children, or from the mouths of
their descendants from this time
on and forever,' says the Lord."
I would be negligent if I failed
to mention that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is excellent to read to learn what we believe. You can also check it out on-line here or here.
Another good site with tracts (many
of the above tracts are actually
hosted here) is Catholic Answers, www.catholic.com.
Most of the books I mentioned are
available from them as well.
I'd encourage you to study the
writings of the early Church fathers (particularly
in the first four centuries).
(Suggestion 1|Suggestion 2|Suggestion 3) They give testimony to what the
early Christians believed, and
if you study them, you will find
that what the early Christians
believed is uniquely Catholic.
You can find these writings in
books or online at:
the First
Apology of St. Justin Martyr (mid-second
century; longer, but you can skim
it. (Chapters 61 and 65-67 are
particularly interesting; the
latter is the first detailed description
we have of Christian worship.)
While it is best to read the Fathers
totally and in context, this goes
through various doctrines and illustrates
from the Early Church Fathers how
they were believed in the first centuries
of the Church, and provides some
introduction and historical context.
If you have a specific doctrine you
want to learn about, it is easy to
look it up in this fine book.
Those are a lot of recommendations
but hopefully you'll get something
out of them. May God bless you as
you seek the fullness of the truth!
Your brother in Christ,
Eric
Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey