What can you tell me about the Assemblies of God?

What can you tell me about the Assemblies of God?

Answer

It's a Pentecostal denomination--the largest Pentecostal church, in fact, in the United States and one of the fastest growing religious groups in the world. The denomination has some 16 million members worldwide.

As an organized Christian denomination, the Assemblies of God goes back to 1914. It was started by a group of Evangelicals who came out of the Pentecostal movement, which began around the turn of the century.

The Assemblies of God is fundamentalistic in its approach to the Bible, although it is distinguished from "mainstream" Fundamentalism by its Pentecostal beliefs. Many of the arguments used by "mainstream" Fundamentalists against Catholicism are employed also by members of the Assemblies of God.

The Assemblies of God also stresses eschatology a great deal. The members believe in the pretribulational rapture and a millennial kingdom on Earth.

In some ways, the Assemblies of God is really just a Pentecostalized version of the Baptist faith. For instance, it observes only two ordinances: the Lord's supper or holy communion, which is interpreted as a mere memorial of Christ's death, and baptism. Infants are not to be baptized, and water baptism is regarded as little more than a public declaration of one's commitment to Christ.

The Assemblies of God differs from most Baptist groups, though, on the doctrine of eternal security. Generally Arminian in theology, they believe it's possible for a Christian to fall into sin and be lost.

Since they're Pentecostal, members of the Assemblies of God stress the charismatic gifts mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 (gifts of prophecy, speaking in tongues, miraculous healing). Pentecostals believe these spiritual gifts should be in full operation in the life of the Church.

By way of church government, the Assemblies of God combines elements of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. Local congregations are independent. Each congregation hires and fires its own pastors and oversees its own affairs.

At the same time, the general interests of the denomination are addressed in their top legislative body, the General Council, or by the General Presbytery when the Council is not in session.

Many of the more colorful television evangelists have had ties with the Assemblies of God. Both Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart were Assemblies of God ministers before being defrocked.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

What are the "capital sins?"

What are the "capital sins?" Are these the worst sins you can commit?

Answer

The capital sins are pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth. They're called capital sins not because they're necessarily worse than other sins, but because these are the sins which are the bases of other sins. Sometimes these are also known as the seven deadly sins.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

Aren't there as many divisions within the Church as outside it?

Aren't there as many divisions within the Church as outside it?

Full Question

The Catholic Church claims to be united on doctrine, yet it seems to me there are as many divisions among Catholics as there are among Protestants. Isn't this the case?

Answer

Not really. Division isn't inherent in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism. To the extent there's doctrinal disunity among Catholics, this isn't the result of Catholics living by their own principles. It's caused by Catholics being insufficiently Catholic--by not following the teachings of the Church.

In a sense, dissenting Catholics are really Protestants (of a sort) because, while they may not dissent from Catholic teaching on the same issues as the Reformers did, they still reject the Church's teaching and replace it with their own ideas about what Christianity is.

Protestant disunity is due, at least in part, to Protestants following their principle of sola scriptura. Even when sin and pride are excluded from the equation, Protestants still interpreted the Bible differently on important issues--sometimes even on questions directly related to salvation (like the nature of baptism or whether Christians can lose their salvation). This points to a defective method of discerning what it is God has revealed, not merely to defective discerners.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How do I help my daughter see that her evangelical pastor isn't the prophet he claims to be?

How do I help my daughter see that her evangelical pastor isn't the prophet he claims to be?

Full Question

I'm worried about my daughter. She left the Catholic Church and goes to this "Bible believing church." Her pastor says he's a prophet. He's always saying,"God told me to do this" or "God told me to do that." Then he asks his congregation to foot the bill for his projects, many of which never get finished. I think he's doing a lot of harm and is going to make lots of people unhappy. How can I get my daughter to see through this baloney?

Answer

Just because someone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't mean he is. Sometimes people in extreme Pentecostal churches say God told them to do something when they really mean they feel like doing it or they think God wants them to do it.

Ask you daughter why, if her pastor gets such clear messages from the Holy Spirit, anyone needs the Bible. After all, if the Spirit ordinarily speaks so directly and clearly through her pastor, why should she waste time looking in the Bible for answers?

Also, be sure to keep track of these alleged prophecies and messages from the Holy Spirit. Over time you'll see a certain amount of vacillation: God supposedly saying one thing now, something completely different later on. You'll also see how some projects are begun as "what God wants to do with his people right now," only to peter out when the enthusiasm (and funds) drop off.

Your daughter needs to be reminded that these prophesied events haven't come to pass. Then have her read Deuteronomy 18:22 and come to her own conclusions about this alleged prophet.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

What can you tell me about this book on the Watchtower Society?

What can you tell me about this book on the Watchtower Society?

Full Question

In your three-tape set, "I Escaped from the Watchtower," the former Jehovah's Witness being interviewed recommended a book entitled The Finished Mystery. What is the book about, who wrote it, and why is it important?

Answer

Leonard Chretien, an ex-Witness who spent 22 years as an official in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah's Witnesses), recommended The Finished Mystery because it is an example of the bizarre metamorphosis of Watchtower theology over the last hundred years and is useful in showing Witnesses the problems and contradictions in their religion.

The Finished Mystery was the seventh and final volume in Studies in the Scriptures, a series of books written by the sect's founder, Charles Taze Russell. It is a hodgepodge of false prophecies, rambling discourses on the interpretation of Scripture, and the obligatory rantings against the Catholic Church. The Finished Mystery was printed posthumously in 1917 and was touted as an unanswerable critique of "Christendom."

As the years passed, and as elements of its theology changed, the Watchtower trumpeted a series of bogus prophecies concerning the date of Christ's return. To its embarassment, the Watchtower was unable to reconcile either its new theology or its more recent spate of failed prophecies with Russell's book. In an understandable act of damage control, the Jehovah's Witness leadership withdrew from circulation all volumes of Studies in the Scriptures.

Most Witnesses are unaware of the existence of Russell's books, and for obvious reasons the Watchtower is careful not to allow the rank and file access to them. But you can get a photographically reproduced copy of the book from Witness Inc., an Evangelical apologetics group that focuses on refuting the errors of the Watchtower (503-637-3828).

Two other groups that produce good apologetics materials for use with Jehovah's Witnesses are Free Minds, Inc. and Comments from the Friends.

As with all Evangelical apologetics organizations, however competent they may be in their particular field, there is always the problem of faulty Protestant theology being offered as the "solution" to the errors of the "cults." You need to read around this Protestant bias. The organizations' research is still helpful because of their expertise in documenting the errors and contradictions in Watchtower publications such as Awake! and the Watchtower, as well as in many out-of-print works.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Don't the different styles of the Bible prove that God didn't write it?

Don't the different styles of the Bible prove that God didn't write it?

Full Question

If the Holy Spirit inspired the whole Bible, why don't the books all possess the same style of writing? If God never changes, why would his writing styles change so radically? Doesn't this prove the Holy Spirit wasn't the "principle author" of each book in Scripture?

Answer

No, it proves that the Holy Spirit, although the principle author of each book in Scripture, worked through human authors, preserving and making use of each one's particular style of writing. Catholic theologians and Scripture scholars in the early Church used a particularly apt musical analogy. They explained that, when a piece of music is played on various instruments, it will obtain a different sound and aural texture from each one, yet each rendition will be the same melody coming from the hand of the same composer.

The Star Spangled Banner, when played on a harmonica, piano, clarinet, guitar, tuba, or a kazoo, will sound markedly distinct on each different instrument, yet it's the same song being played in each rendition.

The same is true for the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit, like a composer, selected different men to be the inspired "instruments" through which the melody of Scripture would be "played." That's why the style and elegance of the Greek composition of Luke's Gospel contrasts with the terse style found in Mark's Gospel, and the Old Testament books differ widely in their choice of vocabulary and literary style.

In each case the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writer to write what he wanted written, all the while preserving, in an admittedly mysterious way, their free will and personal style of expression. To learn more, read the encyclicals Providentissimus Deus (Leo XIII, 1893), Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, 1920), Divino Aflante Spiritu (Pius XII, 1943), and Humani Generis (Pius XII, 1950), and don't omit Vatican II's Dei Verbum.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did St. Peter view his authority as equal to other Church leaders?

Did St. Peter view his authority as equal to other Church leaders?

Full Question

How can you say Peter had authority over other church leaders when he referred to himself as only their "fellow elder"(1 Pt 5:1). This proves Peter did not see himself as having any "primacy" in the Church. He was just a presbyter.

Answer

No, it doesn't. To assert that Peter had no primacy is to ignore the clear passages to the contrary, such as Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:33, John 21:15-17, and Galatians 1:18. The answer to your question is found within the very context you cite. Peter says, "Clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another, for God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time" (1 Pt 5:5).

By humbly calling himself a "fellow elder" Peter was not implying he was merely equal in authority to the presbyters of the Church; rather, he was practicing something he enjoined on others. This self-effacement is the virtue of humility which Jesus calls all Christians to cultivate: "Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave" (Mt 20:26-27).

Peter elsewhere reminds his readers that he is an "apostle of Jesus Christ" and as such had authority to preach and teach in the name of the Lord (cf. Lk 10:16). The very facts that Peter sent his epistles to instruct and guide the Church, and that the Church revered them as inspired, inerrant Scripture is sufficient testimony that Peter possessed an authority above that of a presbyter.

This sort of humility in dealing with the Church is evident throughout the apostolic writings. The lowest level of priestly minister was the deacon. The apostles ordained men to this office originally to distribute food to the needy and to wait on tables (Acts 6:1-6). Yet Paul, the great and eloquent writer of about half of the New Testament, describes himself as a mere deacon on several occasions (1 Cor 3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25).

If you're going to be consistent in claiming that Peter had no special authority above that of a presbyter, you'll be forced to conclude that Paul was only a deacon and therefore had no authority over bishops, priests, or other deacons. But nobody would make such a patently unbiblical assertion.

Paul, like Peter, presents himself in a humble, unassuming way--"I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor 15:10), "To me the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given" (Eph 3:8)--but such humility does not indicate that Paul did not have jurisdiction over others. After all, he said rather pointedly, "Although I have the full right in Christ to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love" (Phlm 8-9). Only people in authority can issue orders.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did St. Thomas Aquinas believe making abortion permissible 40 or 80 days after conception

Did St. Thomas Aquinas believe ensoulment occurred 40 or 80 days after conception, making abortion permissible until then?

Full Question

Did Aquinas say a baby has no soul until 40 days (for a boy) or 80 days (for a girl) after conception, so abortion is okay before those times?

Answer

This is only half true. Aquinas did say an unborn baby receives a soul 40 or 80 days after conception, depending on gender. But he also said abortion is a violation of natural law and is always wrong, no matter when a soul may be infused into the developing child's body.

The 40/80-day view is based on the writings of Aristotle, who said a child becomes human at "formation," the point at which it first "has a human form"--that is, when it looks human. He said this was 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls. Probably this distinction was based on the point at which genitals could be observed on miscarried children. Keep in mind that fetal embryology was then a restricted science; all observations could be made only by the naked eye, the microscope being in the distant future.

Aquinas accepted the idea of formation, which he said occurs when a child receives a soul. But since abortion violates natural law whether or not the child has a soul, Aquinas taught that abortion is always gravely wrong.

Today we have better scientific tools than did Aristotle or Aquinas. We know unborn males and females look human at the same time, and we know they are human long before they look human. Modern science verifies that the unborn have a human genetic code from conception, and this is when their humanity begins.

The ancients did not know about the genetic code, of course--we had to wait for Gregor Mendel, a 19th-century monk for that--and relied on outward appearances to identify species and gender. Appearance was the best test available to them, but it was hardly reliable.

Aquinas overlooked the fact that the biblical view of the soul cannot be squared with Aristotle's. In Psalm 51:5 David says he was a sinner from conception, but sinfulness is a spiritual quality, so David must have had a spirit, a soul, from conception.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Acts 7 describes death as sleep, so does that mean that the soul is unconscious after death?

Acts 7 describes death as sleep, so does that mean that the soul is unconscious after death?

Full Question

Why is it Scripture speaks of death as sleep (Acts 7:59-60)? A Seventh-day Adventist friend tells me this means we become unconscious at death and don't "wake up" until the resurrection of the dead.

Answer

Your Adventist friend is mistaken. The Bible speaks of death as sleep because the body looks as if it’s asleep when we die, not because the soul becomes unconscious.

In the first passage you listed, Acts 7:59-60, Stephen, before "falling asleep" in death, cries out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." That this doesn’t support "soul sleep" is clear from Jesus’ similar remark on the cross (Lk 23:46), which didn’t preclude his telling the Good Thief who died with him, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Lk 23:43).

If, as the Adventists believe, human beings don’t possess an immaterial spirit which continues after the death of the body, then Stephen’s outcry (as well as Christ’s) is meaningless--there would be no spirit of Stephen for the Lord to receive.

The Bible doesn’t teach the concept of "soul sleep." Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, demonstrates that after death both the righteous and the unrighteous are aware of their fates (Lk 16:19-31).

The apostle Paul also teaches conscious existence after death. He speaks of his desire to depart this life and to go on to be with Christ (Phil 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 12:3-4, Paul tells of his being caught up to paradise and of his uncertainty whether this occurred "in the body or out of the body"--certainly an odd way of speaking if he didn’t believe in an immaterial soul or if he believed in "soul sleep."

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why doesn't the pope settle the debate between creationists and evolutionists?

Why doesn't the pope settle the debate between creationists and evolutionists?

Full Question

Why doesn't the pope settle the debate between creationists and evolutionists? It would seem the easy way around a tough problem.

Answer

He doesn’t do so because a key issue in that debate is beyond his power to settle--the question of scientific fact. His authority to teach extends to matters of faith and morals, not to questions of science. Some people argue the facts support the theory of evolution; others say they don’t. This is more a scientific question than a theological one.

Incidentally, Catholics holding to a form of evolution compatible with Catholic teaching are also "creationists" (although in a different sense of the word) because they affirm the Creator and his necessity.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is there scriptural support for paying clergy a salary?

Is there scriptural support for paying clergy a salary?

Full Question

Mormon missionaries visited my home recently and, among other things, condemned as unbiblical the Catholic custom of paying priests and bishops. They were quite proud of the fact that the Mormon church has no paid clergy, claiming they follow the pattern set by the first Christians. I was uncomfortably silent because I had no idea where to look in the Bible for verses that support the Catholic position. Are there any?

Answer

Yes. Start your response with 1 Corinthians 9. In verses 7-12 Paul takes up this very topic, asking,

Whoever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating its produce? Or who shepherds a flock without using some of the milk from the flock? Am I saying this on human authority or does not the law also speak of these things?

It is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is God concerned about oxen, or is he not really speaking for our sake? It was written for our sake, for the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher in hope of receiving a share. If we have sown spiritual seed for you, is it a great thing that we reap a material harvest from you? If others share in this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?

He goes on to specify that even though he would be completely justified in being paid for his ministry (v. 18), he chose to forego that right in order to eliminate a potential source of criticism from his detractors. He explains in verses 13 and 14, "Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat what belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel." Also see Romans 15:26-27, 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10, and 2 Timothy 2:6. 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is a Catholic in the state of mortal sin still a member of the Catholic Church?

Full Question

Is a Catholic in the state of mortal sin still a member of the Catholic Church, or does he cease to be a Catholic?

Answer

He remains a Catholic, but he’s cut off from communion with the life of the Church. Through repentance and the sacrament of reconciliation he can be restored to communion both with God and his fellow Catholics.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is sex outside of marriage OK as long as it reflects a loving relationship?

Is sex outside of marriage OK as long as it reflects a loving relationship?

Full Question

I was told by a priest that sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is acceptable so long as it reflects a relationship of love. Lots of people seem to believe this, but is it true?

Answer

The only "relationship of love" that makes sexual intercourse acceptable is a marital one. The priest who told you otherwise wasn’t presenting Catholic teaching on the subject, but his own (erroneous) opinion.

In its Declaration on Certain Problems of Sexual Ethics, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed traditional Catholic teaching on the subject of sexual relations outside marriage:

Nowadays many claim the right to sexual intercourse before marriage, at least for those who have a firm intention of marrying and whose love for one another, already conjugal as it were, is deemed to demand this as its natural outcome. This opinion is contrary to Christian teaching, which asserts that sexual intercourse may take place only within marriage. 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation?

Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation?

Full Question

I read a book by a Scripture scholar who said the Bible is inerrant only in religious matters that pertain to our salvation. He quoted Vatican II as the source of this "limited inerrancy" doctrine.

Answer

The documents of Vatican II don’t limit biblical inerrancy to religious truths necessary for salvation or even to religious matters in general.

The Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), states, "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (11).

Proponents of "limited inerrancy" claim this last clause is restrictive: Inerrancy extends only to things pertaining to our salvation. Whether or not this is the case (such a reading isn’t required by the Latin), the "limited inerrancy" position is still weak.

First, even granting (though not conceding) that Dei Verbum restricts inerrancy to matters of salvation, this isn’t the same as limiting it to religious or moral truths. Historical or scientific assertions made "for the sake of our salvation" would be inerrant too.

Second, the theological commission at the Council stated that the term salutaris ("for the sake of our salvation") doesn’t mean that only the salvific truths of the Bible are inspired or that the Bible as a whole isn’t the Word of God. (See A. Grillmeier’s "The Divine Inspiration and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture" in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. III, p. 213.)

If the whole of Scripture is inspired, and if what the biblical writer asserts the Holy Spirit asserts, then, unless error is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit or unless the biblical authors assert only religious truths (which isn’t the case--some make historical assertions, such as the historical existence of Jesus), inerrancy can’t be limited to religious truths.

Third, the language of Dei Verbum 11 is taken directly from previous conciliar and papal teaching on the subject. The footnotes to this section refer to Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, documents which reject the idea that inerrancy is limited to religious matters. It seems unlikely the Council would be teaching a position contrary to these documents.

Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?

Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?

Full Question

Jehovah's Witnesses told me that Jesus' commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 could not be literal because Jesus would be advocating something against God's law by commanding us to eat blood (cf. Gen. 9:4, Acts 15:28-29). What can I say to this?

Answer

You can say four things. First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).

If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body" (7:18-19). In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one's unwashed hands).

Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).

Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

Is apostolic Tradition, apart from the Bible, inerrant or can it contain errors?

Is apostolic Tradition, apart from the Bible, inerrant or can it contain errors?

Answer

It is inerrant, and because it is inerrant, apostolic Tradition will never contradict the Bible, which is also inerrant. Human traditions may contain mistakes, but apostolic Tradition does not. Any teaching that the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church is inerrant, irrespective of whether it is written down.

The key to telling which Traditions are apostolic and which are merely human is the same as they key to telling which writings are apostolic and which are merely human. It is the magisterium that recognizes the "canon" of apostolic Tradition, just as it recognized the canon of apostolic Scripture.

Scripture and Tradition are important because anything the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church, whether written or not, is inerrant. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together . . . flowing out from the same divine well-spring, [they] come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (CCC 80, 82, citing Vatican II, Dei Verbum 9)

Most of apostolic Tradition contains the same material that is found in apostolic Scripture, only in a different form. This makes the two useful for interpreting each other because they contain the same material phrased different ways.

For example, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is found several places in Scripture, such as in John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But because Jesus uses the metaphor for baptism, "born of water and the Spirit," many Protestants have tried to deny that it is a reference to baptism at all and have claimed that baptismal regeneration is false.

This is disproven through the apostolic Tradition preserved in the writings of the Church Fathers, who not only teach baptismal regeneration but also unanimously interpret John 3:5 as referring to baptism (see "The Fathers Know Best" column in the October 1994 issue of This Rock).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

What's the difference between direct and indirect abortion?

What's the difference between direct and indirect abortion?
 

Full Question
I heard that in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) Pope John Paul II condemned "direct abortion." What is direct abortion? Is there such a thing as indirect abortion, and can it ever be justified?

Answer

Let's look at what the pope said: "[B]y the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being" (Evangelium Vitae 62). The Pope defines direct abortion as "abortion willed as an end or as a means." Abortion is willed as an end (that is, as a goal) if one's goal is to end the pregnancy. Abortion is willed as a means if ending the pregnancy is the instrument one uses to obtain some other goal. Abortion would be used as a means if, for example, the child was killed in order to harvest its body for medical consumption, such as organ transplants or tissue research.
An abortion would be indirect if it were used neither as an end nor as a means. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means.
Whenever a child is actively killed, even as a means of protecting the mother's life, that constitutes direct abortion.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Apart from abortion, are there other sins that incur automatic excommunication?

Apart from abortion, are there other sins that incur automatic excommunication?

Full Question

Having an abortion means automatic excommunication from the Church. Are there other sins that carry this penalty?

Answer

Yes. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) eight other sins carry the penalty of automatic excommunication: apostasy, heresy, schism (CIC 1364:1), violating the sacred species (CIC 1367), physically attacking the pope (CIC 1370:1), sacramentally absolving an accomplice in a sexual sin (CIC 1378:1), consecrating a bishop without authorization (CIC 1382), and directly violating the seal of confession (1388:1).

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Heresy is the obstinate doubt or denial, after baptism, of a defined Catholic doctrine. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal to be in communion with members of the Church who are in communion with him (CIC 751).

Violation of the sacred species is the throwing away the consecrated species of Christ's body or blood or the taking or retaining of them for a sacrilegious purpose (CIC 1367).

Physically attacking the pope is self-explanatory, as are absolving an accomplice in a sexual sin and consecrating a bishop without authorization from the Vatican.

A direct violation of the seal of confession is one in which both the penitent and the penitent's sin can easily be determined by the confessor's words or behavior. Again, the penalty of automatic excommunication does not apply if no one perceives the disclosure (CIC 1330).

Automatic excommunication for abortion (CIC 1398) applies not only to the woman who has the abortion, but to "all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and [this] includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

No one is automatically excommunicated for any offense if, without any fault of his own, he was unaware that he was violating a law (CIC 1323:2) or that a penalty was attached to the law (CIC 1324:1:9). The same applies if one was a minor, had the imperfect use of reason, was forced through grave or relatively grave fear, was forced through serious inconvenience, or in certain other circumstances (CIC 1324).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Can the Catholic Church list all the teachings ....?

Can the Catholic Church list all the teachings given to the apostles by divine revelation and contained in Sacred Tradition?

Answer

No it can't, because some of the teachings have been passed down in implicit rather than explicit form, and it is impossible to list all of the implications of a set of doctrines.

A good example of why this is so can be found in the Monothelite controversy. The Monothelites were seventh-century heretics who claimed that Jesus had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Jesus also has a human will which is distinct from but never in conflict with his divine will. This position was infallibly defined at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681).

Neither the Bible nor the writings of the earliest Church Fathers explicitly stated that Christ has a human will distinct from but in harmony with his divine will. That doctrine was not handed on from the apostles in explicit form, but it was handed on in implicit form.

The apostles taught, as the Bible and the Fathers indicate, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. This contains the implicit teaching of two wills, because if Christ is fully human, he must have a human will, and if he is fully divine, he must have a divine will. For Christ to lack one or the other would make him either not be fully human or not be fully divine. Because of Christ's supreme holiness and the unity of his Person, his human and divine wills are never in conflict.

All of this is recognized even by Protestants. They acknowledge that the doctrine of the two wills of Christ must be accepted as something coming to us from the apostles, even though it did not come in explicit form. It was a legitimate doctrinal development that emerged when a heresy struck and the Church was sought a deeper, more explicit understanding of what it already implicitly knew.

Because the Church cannot make an exhaustive list of implicit doctrines, it does not try, but allows new implications within the apostolic deposit to be realized over the course of time, as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth (Jn 16:13).

If the Church tried to make such a list, it would be attempting to run ahead of the Holy Spirit by forcing the process of doctrinal development to a sudden and premature end. Attempting to cause doctrinal development to advance at a more rapid pace would inevitably lead to problems. One problem in making such a list is that it would become fodder for heretics. If the Church had tried to make such a list before the outbreak of the Monothelite controversy, the list would not have included the proposition "Christ has a human will distinct from but entirely in harmony with his divine will."

No one would have thought to include that proposition because no dispute had arisen about the issue. Once the Monothelites appeared and the Church was pushed into realizing what Christ's full humanity implies, the Monothelites would have said to the orthodox party, "You can't say that Christ has two wills. The list of apostolic Teachings doesn't mention such a doctrine."

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How do we counter the charge that the addition of "filioque" was an illicit alteration of the Creed?

How do we counter the charge that the addition of "filioque" was an illicit alteration of the Creed?

Full Question

Some Eastern Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church is under anathema because it added the word filioque("and the Son") to the Nicene Creed after the declaration that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. This was illicit, they say, because the Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed. How should we reply?

Answer

It is true that the Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of new creeds. It stated,

It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized. (Definition of the Faith at Nicaea)

Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.

At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed, and the council ruled that the words "and the Son" had been validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated,

Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Are angels really symbols of cosmic principles?

Are angels really symbols of cosmic principles?

Full Question

I have heard some modern Catholic scholars suggest that angels are not personal beings but archetypes or symbols of cosmic principles. Is this correct?

Answer

They're fantasizing. Their notion is contrary to the official teaching of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: They are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness" (CCC 330).

A theologian is also not permitted to reduce the devil or demons to archetypes or to some other impersonal status.

The Catechism goes on to say, "The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: 'The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing'" (CCC 391, citing Lateran Council IV [1215]).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

What do Christadelphians believe?

What do Christadelphians believe?

Full Question

I am encountering a group known as the Christadelphians. How did they originate and what do they believe?

Answer

The Christadelphians ("brothers of Christ") were founded in 1848 by John Thomas, a physician and the son of a Congregationalist minister. Thomas for a time had associated himself with the Campbellites (the "Church of Christ" movement). In 1848 he wrote Elpis Israel--An Exposition of the Kingdom of God, a book which contained his religious ideas.

The sect attracted members in the U.S., Canada, and England and came to be known as the Christadelphians during the U.S. Civil War, when the members' pacifism forced them to select a name. They have experienced no significant growth since that time and today have approximately 20,000 members in England and 16,000 in the U.S. Members are also found in Canada, Australia, Germany, and New Zealand.

Christadelphians hold to unitarianism, the belief that there is only one person in the Godhead. They see Jesus as one of many "Elohim" or "created gods" who were at one time mortal men; in this Christadelphians are much like Mormons. The Holy Spirit is not considered a person but a force.

Christadelphians believe the soul "sleeps" between death and resurrection and that there is no eternal punishment; in this they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses. The wicked will not be raised on the last day. Christadelphians deny the existence of the devil and claim that Christ will soon return to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years.

Christadelphians have no central authority. Each local church or "ecclesia," as it is called, functions independently and generally meets in private homes or rented buildings. They do not employ salaried clergy, but elect "serving brethren" for three-year terms. They do not have missionaries and are opposed to military service, trade unions, holding elective office, and voting in civil elections; again, in these matters they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

How can I refute the claim that Scripture says not everybody will be raised from the dead?

How can I refute the claim that Scripture says not everybody will be raised from the dead?
 

Full Question
Christadelphians I deal with claim many people will never be awakened from death (cf. Is 26:14, 43:17; Jer 51:57). They say that Paul implies this in 1 Corinthians 15:18, where he says that if there were no resurrection then those who have died in Christ would have perished. How can this be refuted?

Answer

Point out that the passages they quote do not prove their case, but can be interpreted in other ways. Isaiah 26:14 describes Israel's defeated conquerors as "shades that cannot rise." This means they are unable to bring themselves back from the dead. Isaiah 43:17 and Jeremiah 51:57 refer to the dead's inability to get up physically; in the case of Isaiah 43:17 it is the inability to get up from falling down, and in the case of Jeremiah 51:57 it is the inability to get up from sleep. All three passages are qualified by their time frame, which is limited to this age and does not have the end of the world in view. It is within this age that the dead will never rise and will always sleep. The end of time is a different matter.
When we turn to those passages where the end of the world is in view, we see that the wicked will be raised on the last day. In John 5:28-29 Jesus tells us, "Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." We are told that all the dead will hear his voice and arise and that the wicked will experience "the resurrection of judgment."
In Revelation 20:12-15 we read,

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, death and hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. . . . [A]nd if any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Here we are told that all of the dead, great and small, will be judged by what they have done. The sea, death, and hades will give up the dead that are in them, which means none of the dead will be left unresurrected. Among the resurrected will be the wicked, who will be damned.
The Christadelphians' argument from 1 Corinthians 15:18 is flawed. Paul states that if Christ is not raised, then those who have died in him have perished. The simplest way to refute this is to turn it on its head: Christ was raised, therefore those who have fallen asleep in him have not perished--they are still awake and conscious with him in heaven.
Further points should be made:

First, for Jews the alternative models of the afterlife were total annihilation (this was the Sadducees' view) and resurrection (the view of the Pharisees). When Paul says, "If there is no resurrection then the dead in Christ have perished," he may be alluding to the Sadducee view that there is no survival beyond death. He is not thinking about a disembodied existence because, in Jewish thought, a disembodied existence is a just temporary state preceding the resurrection. If there were no resurrection, there could be no disembodied state either. (On the fact that there is a conscious, disembodied state, see Lk 16:19-31 and Rv 6:9).
Second, your Christadelphian friends have assumed that in 1 Corinthians 15:18 "perished" means "been annihilated" or "ceased to exist." This is not necessarily the case. For example, in Ephesians 2:1 Paul refers to a spiritual death (being "dead in one's sins") that can be experienced even while one is alive. His point in 1 Corinthians 15:18 might thus be that those who have died as Christians are not only physically dead, but spiritually dead also if there is no resurrection; they pinned their hopes on Christ in vain. This is the thought of the previous verse: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17).
Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

Full Question
The New Testament mentions three categories of Church leaders: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So how can the Catholic Church justify its office of "priest"? The New Testament writers seem to understand "bishop" and "presbyter" to be synonymous terms for the same office (Acts 20:17-38).

Answer

The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter." The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear-except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)--the word may rightly be translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or "presbyter."
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer": We translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon" and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.'"
In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff