Why do we need theology?

Why do we need theology? Can't we just rely on the gospel message?

Full Question

I'm tired of all this theological stuff. Why can't we have the simple gospel of Jesus? Too much head and not enough heart, that's the problem with Christianity today.

Answer

Your objection is well-intentioned--Christianity means more than knowing the catechism. At the same time, God gave us heads as well as hearts, presumably because he wants us to use them. The man who refuses to think well about religion is condemned to think poorly about it. Jesus said he was the truth as well as the way and the life (Jn 14:6). Truth involves knowledge and obliges us to study to the extent our station in life permits. This is why Peter could write, "Make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge" (2 Pt 1:5).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was Jesus the Son of God or just a holy man and a prophet?

Was Jesus the Son of God or just a holy man and a prophet?

Full Question

I don't have a problem with Christianity per se. I believe Jesus was a holy man and a prophet, even though I don't think he was unique or God's only Son.

Answer

You may not think you have a problem with Christianity, but you do, because Christians believe Jesus was (and is) God incarnate. It won’t do to call Jesus a mere prophet or holy man. Prophets and holy men claim to speak for God, but they don’t claim to be God, which is exactly what Jesus did. He identified himself with the all-powerful Lord (Jn 8:58, 10:30). Either he was who he claimed to be, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, he wasn’t a holy man or a prophet, but a wicked man or a fool.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did Pope Gregory the Great say that anyone who claimed the title "universal bishop" was the Antichrist?

Did Pope Gregory the Great say that anyone who claimed the title "universal bishop" was the Antichrist?

Full Question

How do you reconcile the pope's claim to be the "universal bishop" or ecumenical patriarch with Pope Gregory the Great's statement that anyone who claims such a title is the Antichrist?

Answer

How? By carefully observing how the term is used differently in different instances. In its approved sense, the title "universal bishop" suggests that the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction and authority extend to the whole Church, something with which Gregory was in hearty agreement.

But it can be used in an incorrect sense also, and it is this sense that Gregory condemned. In the condemned sense the title is taken to mean that in the Church there is only one true bishop, with all others who claim the title merely acting as the true bishop’s delegates or deputies.

Although Gregory believed the papacy to possess a universal jurisdiction and supremacy of authority, he didn’t think, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that this means only the Bishop of Rome is truly a bishop endowed by Christ with the power to teach, sanctify, and govern in Christ’s name.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Doesn't 1 Corinthians tell us that Jesus' glorified body has no blood?

Doesn't 1 Corinthians tell us that Jesus' glorified body has no blood?

Full Question

As a Bible-believing Christian I must tell you the Catholic Eucharist cannot be the blood of Christ because the glorified Jesus has no blood. The Bible teaches that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:50). When Jesus appeared to his disciples after his Resurrection, he said to them, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39). Notice how he didn't mention his blood? This demonstrates that he had none, so the Catholic Eucharist is a sham.

Answer

Your interpretation undermines your own beliefs as a "Bible-believing Christian" and refutes your own argument against the Eucharist. If 1 Corinthians 15:50 proves the risen Jesus has no blood and therefore the Eucharist can’t be his blood, the same text shows he has no flesh and therefore he couldn’t have been raised bodily.

Luke 24:39 shows that the glorified Jesus has flesh ("a spirit hath not flesh and bones"), so 1 Corinthians 15:50 can’t mean resurrected beings have no flesh or blood. What does Paul mean, then, when he declares, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He’s saying that natural, physical life as it is now constituted cannot inherit the kingdom of God. A supernatural transformation must occur first (1 Cor 15:53).

You’re correct when you say Christ doesn’t mention his blood in Luke 24:39, but what of it? Under the circumstances, there’s no reason to expect he would mention his blood, so his failure to do so proves nothing.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Wasn’t the Catholic Church wrong in condemning Galileo and therefore fallible in what it teaches?

Wasn’t the Catholic Church wrong in condemning Galileo and therefore fallible in what it teaches?

Answer

The Church freely admits that Galileo’s tribunal was wrong in certain respects, but that does not in any way "disprove" the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility. The Church never has claimed its ordinary tribunals to be infallible. They have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. Only a pope or an ecumenical council is infallible, and then only in special circumstances. While the Holy Office’s condemnation was ratified by Urban VIII, there are three conditions which must be present in order for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: He must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; he must solemnly define a doctrine relating to faith or morals; he must indicate the doctrine is to be held by all the faithful. In Galileo’s case the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first.

Answered by: Bill Eichman

Where in the Bible does it say that the host contains both the body and blood of Jesus?

Where in the Bible does it say that the host contains both the body and blood of Jesus?

Full Question

The Church teaches that the host consists not only of the body of Christ, but also of his blood. This is nowhere found in Scripture.

Answer

Not so. In 1 Corinthians 11:27, we read (RSV): "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" [emphasis added]. Whether we eat the host or drink from the cup, we profane both the body and the blood of Christ, so the host consists not only of the body of Christ, but also of his blood. Likewise, the cup consists of not only the blood, but also the body of Christ.

Answered by: Mario Derksen

What do you recommend when evangelizing a Taoist?

What do you recommend when evangelizing a Taoist?

Full Question

My wife is trying to convert a man who believes in Taoism back to Christianity (since he isn’t Catholic). Any help?

Answer

As you probably know, Taoism (pronounced "dow-ism") is an ancient Chinese religious philosophy commonly attributed to Lao Tzu, the "ancient philosopher." The teachings of Taoism are found in the Tao Teh Ching, an epic poem of 81 stanzas. If you were going to engage a Taoist, this would be the place to start. Get the Tao Teh Ching and read it carefully. What you will find are surprising parallels to Christianity. There are vast differences, sure, but the similarities will give you a place to start. Take a look at some of these parallels.

The Tao, the uncreated cause, is transcendent: "In the beginning was the Tao. All things issue from it; all things return to it" (v. 52). "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:1–3).

The Tao is immanent in all things: "It flows through all things, inside and outside, and returns to the origin of all things" (v. 25). "In him [God] we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

The Tao is engaged in creation, which it cares for: "The Tao gives birth to all beings, nourishes them, maintains them, cares for them, comforts them, protects them . . ." (v. 51). "I [Yahweh] have nourished and brought up children . . ." (Isa. 1:2); ". . . and upholding all things by the word of his power . . ." (Heb. 1:3.); ". . . casting all your care upon him; for he cares for you." (1 Pt 5:7); ". . . for the Lord has comforted his people" (Is 49:13).

The Tao warns against judging: "If you close your mind in judgments and traffic with desires, your heart will be troubled. If you keep your mind from judging and aren’t led by the senses, your heart will find peace" (v. 52). "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again" (Mt 7:1–2).

The Tao teaches universal love: "Love the world as your self; then you can care for all things" (v. 13).

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mt 22:39). "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you" (Mt 5:44).

The Tao teaches a way of gentleness to overcome force: "The gentlest thing in the world overcomes the hardest thing in the world" (v. 43). "Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves" (Lk 10:3).

The Tao teaches the paradox of dying to self: "If you want to be reborn, let yourself die" (v. 22). "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Mt 16:25).

The Tao teaches the paradox of giving up possessions: "If you want to be given everything, give everything up" (v. 22). "And every one that has forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life" (Mt 19:29).

The Tao teaches the transitory nature of riches: "Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench. Care about people’s approval and you will be their prisoner" (v. 9). "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break through and steal" (Mt 6:19).

Stressing these and other parallels may soften your friend’s heart and allow him to hear the gospel anew. But keep in mind that there are two huge differences between the religions. Despite the similar language, the Tao and Yahweh are vastly dissimilar. Taoism does not admit a Creator who is conscious and personal or who strives for us. Neither does Taoism admit original sin, though it recognizes destructive behavior. In Taoism there is no need for salvation, only enlightenment.

I suspect that your friend is attracted to the mystical and philosophical aspects of Taoism. It could be that his own Christian tradition is devoid of these. Perhaps you could whet his appetite with the writings of some of our Catholic mystics. I would recommend the work of Meister Eckhart whose work develops themes that are congruent with Taoism but also thoroughly Christian.

One more thing: Remember that conversion is not accomplished by us but by God. Pray for your friend and bring his case before the Lord who "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth" (1 Tm 2:4).

Answered by: Larry Nolte

Should we baptize everyone whether they like it or not?

Should we baptize everyone whether they like it or not?

Full Question

If it is true that baptism is God’s grace to us, wouldn’t it make sense to just go around baptizing every baby—and even adults who don’t want it? After all, if it’s grace and not works, then our response doesn’t matter, does it?

Answer

On the contrary, baptism is grace and not magic. Since grace perfects nature (as distinct from magically annihilating it), our response matters a great deal. Recall that Creator and Redeemer are one and the same God. Creation is so ordered by the Creator that parents are responsible to communicate life (biological, emotional, moral, and spiritual) to their children. To baptize either an unwilling adult or somebody else’s child against the wishes of the parents is an act of spiritual kidnapping that violates nature and is therefore invalid according to the Church. In Catholic understanding, to baptize anybody validly, the baptizer must intend to baptize according to the mind of the Church. This means he must baptize in water using the Trinitarian formula and he must have the permission of the candidate, or, if he is incompetent to give such permission, the permission of the candidate’s parent or guardian. God the Redeemer’s grace does not violate the nature made by God the Creator, especially the sacred nature of the bond between parent and child. Neither, when dealing with someone who is now independent of parental or guardian authority, does God the Redeemer’s grace force baptism against the will of any human person made by God the Creator.

Can only Christians administer baptism?

Can only Christians administer baptism?

Answer

No. Anybody—even an atheist—can administer baptism if he has the proper intention. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1256) "the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula." The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism. Once again, baptism is God’s grace to us, not our work for him.

Over the next 20 years, will things get better or worse in the Church?

Over the next 20 years, will things get better or worse in the Church?

Full Question

Over the next 20 years, will things get better or worse in the Church?

Answer

Much better. The troublemakers are getting old and are losing influence. They can't find enough fresh recruits. Only orthodox groups are growing. Result: The Church is headed for a springtime.

Answered by:  Karl Keating

What does it mean to say that the Catholic Church is visible and has marks?

What does it mean to say that the Catholic Church is visible and has marks?

Full Question

I was reading a piece on Catholic apologetics, and it said that the Catholic Church was a visible church with marks. Can you explain what is meant by this?

Answer

The typical Protestant conception of the Church is that it is invisible. Though individuals may group together for fellowship and Bible study, their churches are really like clubs in a city. The real church, say Protestants, is the broad and unseen group of the saved.

The Catholic Church, in contrast, teaches that the Church is a visible organization. Being a visible organization, it can be identified--it has marks. The marks are that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic--"one" in that it is a unified organization, "holy" in that it is an organization divinely established, "catholic" in that it is to embrace all of mankind, and "apostolic" in that a line of succession has been kept with the authority Christ passed to Peter and the apostles.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How did the original books of the New Testament disappear?

How did the original books of the New Testament disappear?

Full Question

I understand that the original books of the New Testament disappeared long ago. How did this happen?

Answer

There are two reasons. The material they were written on was most likely papyrus paper. This is fragile and with time and use will disintegrate. The other probable cause of the originals' disappearance is their destruction in the persecutions, during which sacred Christian books were confiscated and burned by the authorities.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What did Jesus mean in saying that the Father was greater than he?

What did Jesus mean in saying that the Father was greater than he?

Full Question

I recently read a quote from the Gospel of John that disturbed me. It was John 14:28, where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I." Doesn't this mean Jesus is saying he is less than God and not equal to him?

Answer

Don't be disturbed. If you read the whole of that chapter and understand the context, it will be clear what is being said. In John 14:7-10 Christ says,

"If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him." Philip said to him, "Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works."

This identification of Christ with God is emphatic in this chapter and throughout John. John 1:1 explains, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In John 11:30 Christ says, "The Father and I are one." In John 14:28 we are reaching a climax. Jesus is soon to be arrested and crucified. He is reassuring the apostles about himself. Yes, they are going to see him suffer in the flesh and die, but Jesus reminds them there is more to himself than just the human. He and the Father are one. His statement is a reassurance to them, and it should be to you as well. 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why do theologians just confuse me?

Why do theologians just confuse me?

Full Question

I read what one theologian says, then what another theologian says, then what another says. I don't understand any of them, and this just ends up confusing my faith. What's wrong?

Answer

It might be that you're reading things a bit over your head, but more likely the theologians you are encountering aren't doing a good job of explaining. If you are getting confused, change your reading. Theology should elucidate and strengthening your faith. Stay with reading that is authentically Catholic and gives you a solid and clear understanding of the faith. Start with solid works such as Frank Sheed's Theology for Beginners and Theology and Sanity.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does Jesus leave a loophole for divorce in Matthew 19:9?

Does Jesus leave a loophole for divorce in Matthew 19:9?

Full Question

I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn't Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 "except for unchastity"?

Answer

What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is "porneia," which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word "moicheia," which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.

The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just "living together," then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Who were the Church Fathers?

Who were the Church Fathers?

Full Question

Your magazine frequently refers to the "Fathers of the Church." Who were these men, and what did they do to earn the title?

Answer

The Fathers of the Church are so called because of their leadership in the early Church, especially in defending, expounding, and developing Catholic doctrines. For the first two centuries, most of these men were bishops, although in later years certain priests and deacons were also recognized as Fathers.

The list includes such notables as: Clement of Rome (d. A.D. 97), Ignatius (d. 110), Polycarp (d. 155), Justin Martyr (the Church’s first major lay apologist; d. 165), Irenaeus (d. 202), Cyprian (d. 258), Athanasius (d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Ambrose (d. 397), John Chrysostom (d. 407), Jerome (d. 420), Augustine (d. 430), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Pope Leo the Great (d. 461), and Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604).

The Church demands four major characteristics to be exhibited in the life and works of an early Church leader if he is to be considered a Father of the Church. These are antiquity, meaning that he lived before the eighth century (the death of St. John Damascene [cir. A.D. 750] is generally regarded as the close of the age of the Fathers); doctrinal orthodoxy; personal sanctity; and approval by the Church.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was Jesus baptized by immersion?

Was Jesus baptized by immersion?

Full Question

Mark 1:9-10 reveals that Jesus was baptized by immersion. How do you square this with Catholic tradition?

Answer

This passage doesn’t say Christ was baptized by immersion, only that after his baptism, Jesus "came up out of the water." This phrase could refer to immersion, but needn’t. Jesus could have stepped into the shallows and had John the Baptist pour water on his head. Even if Christ had been baptized by immersion, this wouldn’t present a problem for Catholics; we accept baptism by immersion as a valid mode of receiving the sacrament.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does Acts 2:47 contradict the idea that salvation cannot be presumed?

Does Acts 2:47 contradict the idea that salvation cannot be presumed?

Full Question

In Acts 2:47 Luke states, "Day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved." Luke seems confident these folks were going to heaven. How does this fit with the Catholic view that we can't be absolutely certain of heaven, even if we're believers?

Answer

Luke doesn’t write, "Day by day the Lord added to their number those who were certainly going to heaven." Salvation has a number of meanings in the Bible, only one of which refers to going to heaven.

Sometimes it means bodily healing, as when Jesus says to the blind beggar, "Have sight; your faith has saved you" (Lk 18:42). Christ himself was "saved" in this sense when he was raised from the dead, as all Christians will be at the resurrection.

In addition to salvation of the body, there’s the salvation of the spirit. Spiritual salvation comes in various forms. There’s having your sins forgiven and being embued with the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit. This is the sense in which the believers in Acts 2:47 were being saved--they were being saved from sin.

There’s also the salvation we "work out" through the power and impulse of God at work in us (Phil 2:12-14). This is the process of sanctification or growth in the life of holiness and righteousness. Then there’s the completion of this process which must be occur for us to enter heaven (Heb 12:14).

Only salvation of the last kind guarantees heaven. All the other forms of spiritual salvation can be lost or undone through serious (mortal) sin.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Do miracles defy the laws of probability?

Do miracles defy the laws of probability?

Full Question

In a recent article in your magazine, the author used probability as an argument in favor of a miraculous, non-natural explanation for the apostles' belief in the Resurrection. He overlooked the fact that, by definition, a miracle is more improbable than any natural explanation. This means if we're going to look for the most probable explanation of an apparently miraculous phenomenon, it won't be a miraculous one.

Answer

Your assumption that "by definition, a miracle is more improbable than any natural explanation" is false. While we may be able to compare the probability or improbability of natural events, we can’t make such comparisons with supernatural events because we have no way to calculate from natural events the likelihood of a supernatural event. Natural events can tell us only about the likelihood (or unlikelihood) of another natural event.

Of course, experience teaches us that miracles happen infrequently. Whether this is because God chooses rarely to intervene in the natural order or we lack the prerequisite faith, we can’t say. What we do know is that the frequency of miracles isn’t decided by what happens in the natural order, but by the sovereign will of God. We can no more argue for the improbability of miracles based on the predictability of the natural order than we can predict a change in the bus schedule by considering when the bus usually arrives.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Do justification and condemnation work the same way?

Do justification and condemnation work the same way?

Full Question

If God's creative word in justification makes Christians righteous (as Catholic theologians such as Newman and Schmaus claim), rather than merely declaring them to be righteous but not changing them in their essence (as Reformed theologians teach), does God's declaration that a man is unjust make him so?

Answer

No, because there’s an antithesis between justification and condemnation as well as a parallel. That antithesis is summed up in Romans 3:22: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Both justification and condemnation have declarative aspects to them, but this shared declarative quality doesn’t negate the more fundamental differences between them. Condemnation is earned as the "wages of sin," whereas justification is received as a gift from God through faith in Christ.

Although both justification and condemnation are declarative, the basis on which they are received is not the same (condemnation is earned; justification is freely received). We can’t conclude, based on the declarative nature of justification and condemnation, that if God makes one righteous by declaring him so this means he must make him unrighteous when he pronounces him so.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Full Question

Is there any truth to the claim that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek? A Fundamentalist I know, who insists Matthew wrote originally in Greek, argues that there's no evidence in favor of the idea that his Gospel was written first in Aramaic, because there's no extant Aramaic original.

Answer

This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).

This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They're all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can't conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.

Your Fundamentalist friend is wrong to assert there is no evidence to support the idea of an Aramaic original. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it's wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Without the Immaculate Conception, would Jesus have inherited his Mother's sinful nature?

Without the Immaculate Conception, would Jesus have inherited his Mother's sinful nature?

Full Question

How come, when you defend the Immaculate Conception in your seminars and articles, you never use the strongest argument? Mary had to have been immaculate (and thus sinless) because it was from her that Jesus took his flesh and his human nature. If Mary had not been immaculate, and had been subject to the physical and spiritual corruption of sin, Jesus would have inherited that corruption also.

Answer

The reason we don't use that argument is precisely that it's not a good one. Your line of reasoning is commonly called the "argument of necessity," meaning that God needed to make Mary immaculate for the reason you mentioned. The problem is that God didn't need to make Mary immaculate in order to carry out his plan for the Incarnation of Jesus. He could just as easily have allowed Mary to be conceived in original sin and still preserved Jesus from becoming contaminated by the corruption of her sinful nature (which, by the way, is what Protestantism maintains was the case).

The way to prove this is to use your argument against you. Since your premise rests on the thesis that if Mary were not immaculate she would have passed along the taint of sin to Jesus, it would follow that Mary's mother, Anne, would have had to have been immaculate in order not to pass on her sinful nature to Mary. And Anne's mother would have to have been sinless, and her mother would have had to have been sinless, and so on.

You can see why this argument won't work: It sets up an unworkable, not to mention unbiblical, regression of "immaculate conceptions" from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gn 1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ's once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Lk 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).

Don't use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant, the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did. For a more detailed discussion of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception see Bishop Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1988 ed.) and Patrick Madrid, "Ark of the New Covenant" (This Rock, December 1991).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What is the "Johannine Gloss"?

What is the "Johannine Gloss"?

Answer

The Johannine Gloss or Johannine Comma, as it is more commonly known, is an interpolated passage which appears in 1 John 5:7-8, shown here in brackets: "For there are three who bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains that the bracketed phrases appear in the [Vulgate] version of the Bible, the official version of the Sacred Scriptures for the Latin Rite of the Church. Among scholars these phrases are commonly called the "Johannine Comma." On the basis of manuscript evidence scholars seriously question their authenticity. The Comma is absent in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the exception of four rather recent manuscripts that date from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.

The Comma is lacking in such ancient Oriental versions as the Peshitta, Philoxenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. While the majority of the Latin manuscripts of 1 John do contain the Comma, the earlier and better manuscripts, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, lack it. The earliest manuscript in which it appears dates from the ninth century. 

The Fathers of the East do not quote or refer to the Johannine Comma in their Christological controversies. This omission indicates that the Comma was not part of the biblical text of their time, for they surely would have used it had it been in the text. Some fourth-century Latin writers, while referring to 1 John 5:8b and giving this a Trinitarian interpretation, failed to give any indication that they knew of the existence of the Comma as a scriptural passage.

Due to the overcritical spirit that was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Church considered it necessary in its decree of the Holy Office of January 13,1897 to caution its scholars against rashly rejecting or doubting the authenticity of this passage. However, in a decree of June 2, 1927, the Holy Office clarified its earlier statement in declaring that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. No scholar any longer accepts its authenticity. But even though the Comma is not a biblical passage, it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the [early] Christian was fully Trinitarian.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What is Pascal's Wager?

What is Pascal's Wager?

Full Question

A book I'm reading made a reference to "Pascal's Wager" but without any explanation. I gather it has something to do with proving the existence of God. What light can you shed on this?

Answer

"Pascal's Wager," so-called because it was devised by the brilliant Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), is an apologetics method in the form of a wager aimed at getting atheists and agnostics to consider the possibility that God exists and that there is a heaven and hell. The beauty of Pascal's Wager is that it is an appeal to the chief god worshipped by atheists: their reason. Fr. Joseph H. Cavanaugh, C.F.C., explains in his apologetics handbook, Evidence for Our Faith,

Pascal addresses his argument to the typical man of the world who regards making money and amusing himself, not as a means to the end, but the real purpose of existence. Even if he refuses to consider his ultimate destiny, Pascal maintains such a man cannot avoid wagering about it. In practice, he must stake everything on one of two propositions, either (A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not. Man cannot refuse to wager for by doing so he implies that there is no purpose in life.

Under one guise or another, human selfishness is always urging man to stake everything on B. Pascal tries to show that it is far more reasonable - even from the viewpoint of self-interest - to stake all on A. If you bet everything on B and A is the truth, you lose an eternal good. But if you stake all on A and B is the truth, you lose only a few temporal pleasures.

Pascal describes the thoughts of the typical man in these word:, "I know not whence I came or whither I go. I only know that on quitting this world, I shall fall forever either into nothingness or into the hands of an angry God [Heb 10:31] . . . And yet I conclude that I should pass all the days of my life without bothering to inquire into what must happen to me. Perhaps I might find some solution to my doubts, but I do not want to take the trouble. . . I intend to go forward without looking ahead and without fear toward this great event, facing death carelessly, still uncertain as to the eternity of my future state" (Pensees III, 194). . . . In other words, Pascal thinks it is not merely a moral tragedy but an intellectual blunder to wager on B, that is, to refuse to recognize a purpose in life. He feels sure the typical man would soon have faith if he renounces pleasure. At least he should search for the truth. "According to the doctrine of chance, you should search earnestly for the truth, for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost. 'But,' you say, 'if God had wished me to worship him, he would have left me Signs of his will.' Indeed, God has done so (Rom 1:18-21; 2:14- 16); but you ignore them. "

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Since we have God's written word, why so much emphasis on oral tradition?

Since we have God's written word, why so much emphasis on oral tradition?

Full Question

You place a lot of emphasis on oral tradition in the Catholic Church, but doesn't the fact that we have a written Bible show this was the way we were intended to receive the word of God?

Answer

The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down.

Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.

In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: "Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face."

The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition--a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why was the Bible written with such strange divisions?

Why was the Bible written with such strange divisions?

Full Question

When I read the Bible I don't see much sense in the breakup of verses. Some come at the end of sentences and paragraphs, some don't. Why was the Bible written that way?

Answer

You should be aware that the Bible originally was not written that way. The use of verse numbering was something introduced much later, shortly after the invention of printing. The early, handwritten copies of the Bible were written in Greek on papyrus scrolls without the use of punctuation or spacing. In time the codex or book formed with pages, as we know it today, was developed--later still, printing.

As printers worked on producing editions of the Bible they found it convenient to locate and mark sections of text by putting numbers beside the sections of type. This proved not only an enormous convenience for the printers, but for others who read the Bible. The numbering was not placed with anything other in mind than to help locate sections of text. You might say that it was like having latitude and longitude lines on a map.

(By the way, the division of the books of the Bible into chapters was done by Stephen Langton, a cardinal and archbishop of Canterbury, about 1226.)

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What's a good way to steer a conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses who come to my door?

What's a good way to steer a conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses who come to my door?

Answer

Focus on John 6. This seems to do it every time--or, more properly, it seems to do something every time, and the something can be one of two things.

If you're fortunate, your discussion of that chapter--it's the one in which Jesus promises the Eucharist and states emphatically that what appears to be bread and wine really will be his body and blood--will throw the Jehovah's Witnesses for a loop. Focus on Jesus' repetition; over and over he said we're to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and over and over he failed to tell his listeners he was speaking only metaphorically--for the simple reason that he wasn't. He was speaking literally, and his listeners knew it.

First the Jews walked away, shaking their heads in disbelief. Then even some of Jesus' disciples left him, unable to accept the doctrine of the Real Presence. One particular person fell away here: Judas (see verse 64). It was here, in his disbelief in the Real Presence, that Judas first betrayed Christ. Yes, later he would be a thief and a traitor, but this is where his tragedy began.

If you go through John 6 slowly, emphasizing what's really going on, the Jehovah's Witnesses will find themselves in a pickle. You'll show them how all the people mentioned in that chapter took Jesus literally--so why shouldn't we?

If you bring the missionaries this far, end your exchange with an exhortation. Use the lingo they (and you) have heard elsewhere; they'll identify with it. Tell them they need to read the Bible. Say they should ask "Jehovah God" to give them the light to understand what John 6 means. Tell them they have to "get right with God," and let them know that means going wherever the truth leads them. Tell them they have to trust God and follow him wherever he may lead them, even if that is somewhere they think they'd rather not go.

All the above explains what happens if you're fortunate in your discussion with the Witnesses. Of course, things may go wrong--not drastically, not dangerously, but annoyingly. You may find that your consideration of John 6 produces no impression at all on the missionaries. If so, wait for their return and try again.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Who was King James, and what authority did he have to produce a Bible?

Who was King James, and what authority did he have to produce a Bible?

Full Question

So many Protestants I know use the King James Bible. Who was King James, and what authority did he have to produce a Bible?

Answer

James I reigned as king of England from 1603 to 1625. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, and he had been king of Scotland before succeeding to the English throne at the death of Queen Elizabeth I. He was prompted to produce an English Bible because of the poor and tendentious copies being circulated in England. He feared these could be used by seditious religious and political factions.

His authority was one usurped from the Catholic Church, beginning with his predecessor King Henry VIII. Henry had broken with the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the Church in England, which soon enough became the Church of England. You could say James had no more authority in biblical matters than any head of state, basically none. What authority would a "George Bush Bible" have? The true authority and safeguard over Scripture was and has to be the Catholic Church, to which Christ gave his authority. No secular authority has any rightful authority over the Bible.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did St. Paul really write the epistles?

Did St. Paul really write the epistles?

Full Question

I was told that the epistles of St. Paul were not written by him but by amanuenses. If this was actually the case, why are they called Paul's epistles?

Answer

Yes, Paul made use of amanuenses. We see this in Galatians 6:11, where Paul says, "See with what large letters I am writing to you in my own hand!" You should be clear about what an amanuensis actually is. It is a person who acts as a secretary taking dictation. With that in mind, the letters remain Paul's, not the secretary's. Paul says he is using large letters. Some scholars think this indicates Paul had poor eyesight and that he was using an amanuensis to help write the bulk of the letter, leaving the closing for himself.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses called "cults"

Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses called "cults" while other groups are not?

Full Question

Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?

Answer

The word "cult" has fallen on hard times. Used authentically, it refers to a grouping of people for some religious purpose; it can also refer to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and prayer activities carried out within a particular group. Vatican II, for example, refers to the "cult of the saints," meaning the honor and devotion Christians show to Christians who are now reigning with Christ in heaven. Used this way, "cult" carries no pejorative connotations.

In the last few decades an unfortunate phenomenon has sprung up, primarily among Evangelical Protestants who have appropriated the word and used it to categorize religious groups with whom they disagree. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have become "cultists," and their religions are branded as "cults." In popular jargon "cult" implies more than just a religion with odd tenets. It carries the implication that the group has a hidden agenda, uses deception and mind control techniques to keep its members in line, and may be satanic in origin. Calling someone a "cultist" has become a handy stick with which to beat members of minority religions. Some Fundamentalists call the Catholic Church a cult.

Of course, some religions are cults, but it's a matter of prudence whether to trumpet that fact. If you want to evangelize adherents to such religions, you must avoid approaches that will alienate them. Be firm but charitable. Don't throw around the terms "cult" and "cultist." With a little restraint you'll more likely get your message across. If you start by telling a non-Catholic that he's a member of a cult (even if he is), it's unlikely that he'll listen to anything you have to say.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

When did the custom of canonizing saints start?

When did the custom of canonizing saints start, and is it true that canonizations are infallible?

Full Question

When did the custom of canonizing saints start, and is it true that canonizations are infallible?

Answer

Here are excerpts from two articles on the canonization of saints; they are taken from The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967):

The solemn act by which the pope, with definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of saints a person who has previously been beatified. By this act he declares that the person placed on the altar now reigns in eternal glory and decrees that the universal Church show him the honor due to a saint. The formulas indicate that the pope imposes a precept on the faithful, e.g. "We decide and define that they are saints and inscribe them in the catalogue of saints, stating that their memory should be kept with pious devotion by the universal Church."

The faithful of the primitive Church believed that martyrs were perfect Christians and saints since they had shown the supreme proof of love by giving their lives for Christ; by their sufferings, they had attained eternal life and were indefectibly united to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. These reasons induced the Christians, still oppressed by persecution, to invoke the intercession of the martyrs. They begged them to intercede before God to obtain for the faithful on earth the grace to imitate the martyrs in the unquestioning and complete profession of faith (1 Tm 2:1-5, Phil 3:17) .

Toward the end of the great Roman persecutions, this phenomenon of veneration, which had been reserved to martyrs, was extended to those who, even without dying for the faith, had nonetheless defended it and suffered for it, confessors of the faith (confessores fidei). Within a short time, this same veneration was extended to those who had been outstanding for their exemplary Christian life, especially in austerity and penitence, as well as to those who excelled in Catholic doctrine (doctors), in apostolic zeal (bishops and missionaries), or in charity and the evangelical spirit. . . .

In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi represented in practice the only criterion by which a person's holiness was ascertained. A new element was gradually introduced, namely, the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, i.e., of the competent bishop. However, the fame of sanctity, as a result of which the faithful piously visited the person's tomb, invoked his intercession, and proclaimed the thaumaturgic [miraculous] effects of it, remained the starting point of those inquiries that culminated with a definite pronouncement on the part of the bishop. A biography of the deceased person and a history of his alleged miracles were presented to the bishop. Following a judgment of approval, the body was exhumed and transferred to an altar. Finally, a day was assigned for the celebration of the liturgical feast within the diocese or province.

The transition from episcopal to papal canonization came about somewhat casually. The custom was gradually introduced of having recourse to the pope in order to receive a formal approval of canonization. This practice was prompted obviously because a canonization decreed by the pope would necessarily have greater prestige, owing to his supreme authority. The first papal canonization of which there are positive documents was that of St. Udalricus in 973. . . . Through the gradual multiplications of the Roman pontiffs, papal canonization received a more definite structure and juridical value. Procedural norms were formulated, and such canonical processes became the main source of investigation into the saint's life and miracles. Under Gregory IX, this practice became the only legitimate form of inquiry (1234). . . .

The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err" (Quodl. 9:8:16).

The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching.

May the Church ever "uncanonize" a saint? Once completed, the act of canonization is irrevocable. In some cases a person has been popularly "canonized" without official solemnization by the Church . . . yet any act short of solemn canonization by the Roman pontiff is not an infallible declaration of sanctity. Should circumstances demand, the Church may limit the public cult of such a person popularly "canonized." (vol. 3, 55-56, 59, 61) 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff