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

What is fundamental option theory?

What is fundamental option theory?

Full Question

What is fundamental option theory? I understand that the pope discussed this in his recent encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, but I don't know what it is or why it is important. Was it one of the opinions he condemned?

Answer

The Pope condemned the fundamental option theory, but he admitted that it had some valid elements.

According to fundamental option theory, each person makes a deep and basic choice for or against God. Individual acts we perform may or may not be in accordance with that fundamental choice. For example, when a person who has made a basic choice in favor of God sins, this choice to sin is not in accord with his fundamental orientation in favor of God.

The key claims of fundamental option theory are that individual acts do not change our basic orientation and that only when our fundamental option changes against God do we fall out of a state of grace. A person can commit particular sins without losing a state of grace.

Historic Catholic theology would say that those sins which do not change our fundamental option are venial sins and that those sins which do change it are mortal sins. Whenever a person commits a mortal sin, he has changed his fundamental option and chooses to be against God; he loses the state of grace.

But this is not the way fundamental option theorists present their system. They typically claim that one can commit acts such as adultery, homosexuality, and masturbation, which the Church has always regarded as mortal sins, without changing one's fundamental option. Some go so far as to imply that no single act of sin one commits changes one's fundamental option; only a prolonged pattern of sinful behavior can do so.

The effect of fundamental option theory, when it is presented this way, is to minimize people's awareness of mortal sin and the danger it poses to their souls. It was this teaching, which undermines what the Church always has taught concerning sin, that the pope condemned (Veritatis Splendor 65-70).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can papal infallibility be true ..?

How can papal infallibility be true if Pope Zozimus reversed himself on Pelagius' orthodoxy?

Full Question

Papal infallibility can't be true because Pope Zozimus pronounced Pelagius to be orthodox and later reversed himself. What do you have to say to that?

Answer

Zozimus (reigned 417-418) was approached by Caelestius, who brought a profession of faith from Pelagius for the Pope's examination. Zozimus examined Caelestius and the profession and found nothing heretical in them. He said the African bishops' condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius had been hasty and instructed Africans with charges against them to appear in Rome for further investigation.

This prompted outrage among the African bishops since they considered the Pelagian controversy to have been closed by Zozimus's predecessor, Innocent I. Zozimus responded by stressing the primacy of the Roman see and by explaining to them that he had not settled the matter definitively and that he did not intend to do so without consulting them. He said that his predecessor's decision remained in effect until he had finished investigating the matter.

The bishops provided Zozimus with additional evidence against Pelagius, and the Pope condemned Pelagianism. His initial assessment had been a tentative judgment, based on partial evidence. He did not issue a definitive judgment, much less a doctrinal definition, as indicated by the fact he asked for additional evidence to be sent to Rome. The case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Full Question

One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling of indulgences. Does the Catholic Church still sell them?

Answer

That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences--but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: "Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray."

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:

Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18, Jn 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)

In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina (cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello, 1980], 62-79). 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

If a person repents of a mortal sin...?

If a person repents of a mortal sin and receives absolution, does that mean he has to start all over on the path to salvation?

Full Question

In the February 1994 "Quick Questions" column you stated that when a person commits mortal sin he implicitly rejects God and the entire life of holiness he had led up to that point, including the reward he would have gotten for his good deeds. When he repents and comes back to God through the sacrament of confession, does this mean he will have to start from zero in gaining new rewards?

Answer

No. The common teaching of Catholic theologians is that there is a "revival of merit" when a person comes back to God. When a person comes back to God, he implicitly reaffirms the prior life of holiness he had led, so his rewards for that life are restored.

In Infinita Dei Misericordia (1924), Pope Pius XI taught that penitents have "the fullness of the merits and the gifts which they lost through sin . . . restored and given back." Thomas Aquinas taught the same thing (Summa Theologiae 3a:89:5).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did Jesus alter the commandment about observing the sabbath?

Did Jesus alter the commandment about observing the sabbath?

Full Question

In a recent This Rock article ("Changing the Sabbath," December 1993), you stated that Christ used his authority to alter the sabbath in Matthew 12:8, but a footnote in my Confraternity Version of the Bible says he did not alter the commandment, but urged it be interpreted in a more reasonable way. How could he alter one of the Ten Commandments, anyway?

Answer

Jesus exercised his sovereign power to abrogate the sabbath law in at least some way. This is why he states, "For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath" (Mt 12:8). Both "Son of Man" and "Lord" are references to Christ's sovereign power. The footnote in your Confraternity Version is wrong. Footnotes in Catholic Bibles are not infallible. (See "Dragnet" in the January 1994 issue of This Rock for a place where we caught one such footnote in an outright historical error).

The sabbath command is the only one of the Ten Commandments which can be altered in any way, because only it is a part of the ceremonial law. This is taught by the Roman Catechism issued after the Council of Trent:

The other commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.

This Commandment about the observance of the sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh.

The observance of the sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of Christ. . . . Hence St. Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, when reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites, says: "You observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest perhaps I have labored in vain amongst you" (Gal 4:10). And he writes to the same effect to the Colossians (Col 2:16). 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is there a "secret Gospel of Mark"?

Is there a "secret Gospel of Mark"?

Full Question

I heard there was a "secret Gospel of Mark" which contained additional material not found in the canonical Gospel of Mark. Is there any truth to this? What are we to make of this report?

Answer

Not much. In 1958 Morton Smith claimed to have found a portion of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria. It discussed a second edition of the Gospel of Mark, prepared after Peter's death. This second edition supposedly included stories not found in the canonical Mark. The longest of these stories was what appeared to be an alternative account of the resurrection of Lazarus. According to the letter Smith found, this document was kept at Alexandria (of which Mark had been bishop), but not generally disseminated. The Gnostic heretic Carpocrates obtained a copy of the gospel and then revised it, adding his own Gnostic teachings, and then used it to justify the licentious sexual ethics of his followers.

The letter is of dubious authenticity. Smith claimed to have found it handwritten in the back of a book in the library of the Mar Saba monastery in southern Israel. The book itself dated from the 17th century, and the handwriting of the letter was dated from the eighteenth century. Smith published photographs of the letter, but since their publication no other Western scholar has seen the letter.

Even if Smith's account of finding the letter is correct, it is doubtful that the 18th-century person who wrote it in the back of the book had a genuine letter of Clement of Alexandria. He might have composed the letter himself, expecting someone to find it in the future, or he may have had a copy of a letter previously forged in Clement's name.

Even if Clement wrote the letter, it does not prove that the version of Mark he mentions was genuine. Someone between the time of Mark and the time of Clement may have added the additional material and then put forward the Gospel in Mark's name (just as the heretic Carpocrates is supposed to have done). Few scholars who believe Clement wrote the letter believe Mark was the author of the Gospel the letter mentioned. The additional material contains clues that make it unlikely it would have been written by Mark.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can I defend the book of Judith against Fundamentalist charges?

How can I defend the book of Judith against Fundamentalist charges?

Full Question

How can I defend the book of Judith against Fundamentalist attacks which charge it with blatant historical inaccuracies, such as stating that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians instead of the Babylonians (Jdt 1:1)?

Answer

Some scholars have thought that Judith is a stylized account of real events and that this explains the supposed "historical inaccuracies" in the book--they are due to the form of stylization the author employs. You might compare the book of Judith to the book of Job, which Fundamentalists view as a stylized account of a real historical event. They believe the basic story in Job is real, since Job is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Ez 14:14, 20), but because chapter after chapter of the book is dialogue written in the form of Hebrew poetry, Fundamentalists concede it is a stylized account.

Other scholars have thought Judith is not a historical book but a "theological novel"--basically an extended parable--and that this could be recognized by any Jew reading the work. In this view, the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is declared to be the king of the Assyrians in the very first verse of the book is regarded as one of the cues that would tell the reader he is reading an allegory rather than history. Nebuchadnezzar was then the single most famous persecutor of the Jews, and every Jew knew he was king of the Babylonians.

Scholars who adopt this view point out that Judith's name means "Lady Jew" and that she is placed against the two greatest enemies of the Hebrew people, Nebuchadnezzar, the king most famous for fighting them, and the Assyrians, the second most famous enemy of Israel. To give a modern equivalent of this, suppose you picked up a book that pitted Miss America against Adolf Hitler, king of the Russians. Would you identify the work as a piece of literal history or as an allegory intended to teach a point?

The idea that Scripture contains parables, allegories, and figurative language is something even Fundamentalists will admit. So long as the original audience recognized that what it was reading was a literary device, there could be no objection to including the work in Scripture--it would not have deceived the intended readers into thinking it was making factual claims when it was not. The parables of Jesus are a perfect example of this.

The status of the book of Judith is thus similar to that of the Song of Solomon. We are not sure whether this latter work is a stylized account of real events (was the wife of Solomon mentioned in the book a real person?) or whether it is a straight parable about ideal love. If the Song of Solomon can go into the Bible, so can Judith.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How do we explain the necessity of Mary's immaculate conception?

How do we explain the necessity of Mary's immaculate conception?

Full Question

How should one explain to a Protestant why it was necessary for Mary to be conceived without original sin but that it does not naturally follow that her parents (Anne and Joachim) would have also had to be immaculate?

Answer

Original sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace. In the present condition of the human race, we cannot function properly if we have been conceived with original sin. Being conceived in this way damages the person such that they are born with a fallen nature. This damage is known as the stain (Latin, macula) of original sin.

To cause Mary to be born without original sin and its stain (i.e., immaculate), God infused sanctifying grace into her soul at the moment of her conception. Mary was given the special privilege of being conceived without original sin (with sanctifying grace) and without the damage or stain such a conception causes. This was done to equip her with the graces needed to make her a fit Mother for the Redeemer and for the Church.

Mary’s preservation from original sin was accomplished in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive work. Therefore, Jesus is also Mary’s Savior. Because of what he would do on the cross, this grace was given to her early. The gracious character of this blessing is also the reason that Anne and Joachim did not need to have it: It was a grace God could give to anyone at any time. He chose to give it to Mary to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

This grace was not given to Anne and Joachim because it was not fitting for them to have the same precise graces as Christ’s own mother, who bore him in her womb. No doubt they were very blessed in many ways, but not as blessed as their daughter.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff