Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Does laicization remove a priest's powers?

Does laicization remove a priest's powers?

Full Question

I've heard that when a man leaves the priesthood, he undergoes a process called "laicization," which takes away his priestly powers, making him a regular layman. Is this correct?

Answer

It is only partly correct. Laicization is a process which takes from a priest or other cleric the licit use of his powers, rights, and authority. Laicization occurs automatically when a priest, deacon, or monk marries or joins the military without permission. Major clerics (priests and deacons) are directly laicized through their superiors by the penalty of degradation. The Holy See also has the privilege of laicizing major clerics.

Laicized clerics are forbidden to wear clerical dress or to perform ceremonies or to administer the sacraments ordinary to their former offices. Priests who are laicized are required to continue practicing celibacy, although dispensations from this discipline are frequently given. Otherwise, laicization renders a cleric for ecclesiastical purposes the equivalent of a layman.

The supernatural mark of holy orders and the powers connected with the sacrament (especially for the priest) remain even after laicization, although they cannot be used licitly. A laicized priest has the power to confect the Eucharist. Although to the world he may live as a layman, in a sense "once a priest, always a priest."

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can I show that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about birthday celebrations?

How can I show that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about birthday celebrations?

Full Question

My wife is studying with Jehovah's Witnesses, and they have convinced her that celebrating birthdays is a pagan custom and not something Christians should do. She refuses to allow our children to celebrate their birthdays. What should I do?

Answer

Birthday celebrations are mentioned only a few times in Scripture, and nowhere are they condemned. Witnesses wrongly assume that celebrating birthdays is evil because the only two explicit biblical mentions of birthday celebrations are those in honor of a pagan, Pharaoh (Gn 40:20-22), and a wicked man, Herod Antipas (Mk 6:21; cf. Mt 14:1-12). To compound the issue, King Herod's birthday festivities were the occasion of sexual immorality involving the daughter of his brother's wife, Herodias, and led to the murder of John the Baptist. Witnesses wrongly reason that, because these biblical occurrences depict the celebration of the birth of wicked men, celebrating anyone's birthday is in itself sinful. You can demonstrate that this does not logically follow by showing that the Bible says that the birthday of John the Baptist would be the cause of "joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth for he will be great in the sight of the Lord" (Lk 1:14-15). While this passage does not explicitly mention an annual celebration of John the Baptist's birth, it certainly allows for such an interpretation and at the very least demonstrates that it is good to celebrate the birth of a holy person.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Should I read the novel "Joshua" by Fr. Joseph Girzone?

Should I read the novel "Joshua" by Fr. Joseph Girzone?

Full Question

Our parish is abuzz over the book Joshua by Fr. Joseph Girzone. Is this a good book to read?

Answer

We won't make a judgment on taste, but if it's orthodoxy you're after, you may want to stay away from Joshua. The book tells of a man by that name who begins to preach in an anonymous American town. The implication is that Joshua is Jesus reincarnate on earth.

This Joshua gathers a following of people attracted to his goodness and gentle spirituality. In a book written by a priest, you'd think Joshua (Jesus) would send these followers straight up the steps of the nearest Catholic Church, but he doesn't. He visits a Catholic church (and is treated rather unkindly by the priest), as well as a synagogue (where he impresses the congregation with his knowledge of Hebrew) and a variety of Protestant assemblies, blessing them all and giving special favor to none.

Joshua preaches a suspiciously simple gospel, one that emphasizes social justice and inner spirituality over ceremony and dogma. He speaks disparagingly of "religions" which "bind" people in fear with laws and doctrines instead of teaching the simple message of God's love. Sound familiar? Finally, in a most extraordinary incident, he is called to Rome to answer for his actions to the all-seeing, all-knowing authority: the pope, who, we are supposed to believe, consider this small-time American holy man a threat to his dominion.

This is nonsense, of course, but it makes sense when you realize that Fr. Girzone is a well-known dissenter from the "institutional" Church, and in Joshua (and its sequels) has found a vessel to spread his heterodox views.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What organizations exist to protect the civil and ecclesial rights of Catholics?

What organizations exist to protect the civil and ecclesial rights of Catholics?

Full Question

Secularists have the American Civil Liberties Union, and Protestants have the Rutherford Foundation, but are there any Catholic legal defense organizations to protect the legal and civil rights of Catholics? Are there any organizations to make sure they get their ecclesial rights within the Church?

Answer

Yes to both questions. For cases where Catholics are being denied their rights in the secular world, contact the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 450 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10123, phone (212) 371-3191. This organization exists to help defend the rights of Catholics in American courts.

For cases where Catholics are being denied their ecclesial rights within the Church, contact the St. Joseph Foundation, 11107 Wurzbach Ste. 601B, San Antonio, Texas 78230-2570, phone (210) 697-0717.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What is the JEDP theory, and does it disprove Genesis?

What is the JEDP theory, and does it disprove Genesis?

Full Question

We sometimes hear people say that we cannot trust the accuracy of the book of Genesis because of the "JEDP" theory. What is that, and why is it supposed to disprove Genesis?

Answer

The JEDP theory claims that the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, were compiled from four sources or traditions, which are respectively known as the Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist sources (hence the abbreviation JEDP). This theory is also known under other names, such as the Wellhausen hypothesis (named after Julius Wellhausen, who pioneered the theory).

This theory states that a final editor or compositor (or a number of them) drew upon these different traditions in assembling the Pentateuch and that one can identify the source by noting certain clues in the text. For example, the Jahwist source is supposed to favor the divine name Yahweh "(I AM"), while the Elohist source is supposed to favor the term Elohim or El ("God").

Three of the sources, J, E, and P, are thought to have gone into the writing of Genesis. The reason many think this undermines the historicity of Genesis is that all of these sources are considered inaccurate, written centuries after the time of Moses.

In fact, the conclusion that they are inaccurate does not follow from the idea that they are from a late date. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit even late sources are infallible, just like early sources. The conclusion that Moses did not edit or oversee the editing of the Genesis is also not required. Even if J, E, D, and P were real sources, Moses could have been the one who wove them together. There are other problems with the JEDP theory. For example, many passages in Genesis contain references to God using both divine names ("the Lord God" or "Yahweh Elohim").

For an excellent discussion and critique of the JEDP theory, see Before Abraham Was by Isaac Kikawada and Arthur Quinn.

At Catholic Answers, we prefer the GELND theory, which claims that the Pentateuch is a compilation of five sources: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What can you tell me about the "Poem of the Man-God"?

What can you tell me about the "Poem of the Man-God"?

Full Question

What can you tell me about the book Poem of the Man-God? Has it been condemned by the Church?

Answer

Poem of the Man-God, a multi-volume work of prose written by Maria Valtorta, purports to be a factual account of the life of Christ as revealed by Jesus himself. Interest in the work grew after one of the alleged seers from Medjugorje claimed that the Virgin Mary okayed the reading of the book. The history of the book leads one to question the credibility of this claim. In 1960 The Poem of the Man-God, then a four-volume set, was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. The official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, summarized the findings of the Holy Office in an article titled "A Life of Jesus Badly Fictionalized." When the publishers tried to get around this condemnation the next year by publishing a new ten-volume set, the work again was condemned in the Vatican paper which called it "a mountain of childishness, of fantasies, and of historical and exegetical falsehoods, diluted in a subtly sensual atmosphere."

In correspondence with Catholic Answers, Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, pointed out that, although the Index was abolished in 1965, it still retains its moral force, and faithful Catholics should heed the reservations and cautions expressed in it.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why didn't Jesus' preaching and miracles convince more Jews to follow him?

Why didn't Jesus' preaching and miracles convince more Jews to follow him?

Full Question

Why didn't Jesus' preaching and miracles convince more Jews to follow him? It seems that he should have been more successful in influencing them.

Answer

It is a mistake to believe that Jesus wasn't successful in influencing people to believe in him. The Pharisees and chief priests who had him arrested and killed testify otherwise. When Jesus entered triumphantly into Jerusalem, the Pharisees exclaimed, "Look, the whole world has gone after him" (Jn 12:19). When the chief priests and scribes were plotting a way to arrest and kill Jesus, they said, "Not during the festival [Passover], for fear that there may be a riot among the people" (Mk 14:2). The plotting and arrest were done at night for fear that the people would revolt. He was seized in Jerusalem where he had come for only a few short visits; most of his preaching and miracles were done in Galilee. The original Jewish converts lost their Jewish identity once they intermingled with Gentile Christians. This, along with the fact that modern Jews are descendants of those who rejected Jesus, gives us the mistaken notion that few were influenced by him 2,000 years ago.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Were Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and papal primacy really universal in the early Church?

Were Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and papal primacy really universal in the early Church?

Full Question

Why does the Catholic Church claim (from Vatican I) that its doctrines can be verified by the "universal and unanimous consent of the Fathers" when it's so easy to prove that the Fathers were not unanimous in their teachings? Catholic doctrines such as purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were not "universally" held in the early Church.

Answer

While the assembled bishops at Vatican I did invoke the authority of the Fathers on the issue of papal primacy (cf. Sess. 4, ch. 4), they did not say that only those doctrines that enjoyed universal and unanimous consent of the Fathers were to be believed. In fact, Vatican I says nothing even remotely like that. It appeals to the testimony of the Fathers only briefly, after having first given a detailed elucidation from Scripture of the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility.

It's a matter of historical record that the Church Fathers disagreed on various issues. Some, such as Origen and Tertullian (who are not officially titled "Fathers," although they are ranked among the major theological writers of the early Church), even lapsed into heresy. The point is not that every Father agreed with every other Father on every issue--that would constitute an absolute mathematical unanimity, something which the Catholic Church does not claim. Rather, there was a moral unanimity of teaching among the Fathers. This means that doctrines such as the ones listed in your question were universally held and taught by the Catholic Church. Some Fathers wrote on these issues, to greater and lesser extents. Some never mentioned certain doctrines at all (at least not in their writings which have survived), and others can be seen to have held erroneous opinions about other doctrines.

The Catholic Church never has claimed that every Church Father at all times believed and taught every single Catholic doctrine in the sense that the Church teaches it. It is the Church as a single organic entity, the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27) that always and everywhere has faithfully guarded and proclaimed the apostolic deposit of faith--not necessarily its individual members. This is true today. The Catholic Church universally teaches, as it always has, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. But there are droves of "Catholics" who, as a result of spiritual apathy or being poorly catechized, do not believe this doctrine as taught by the Church. This in no way contradicts the truth that the Church "universally" holds this doctrine.

Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were universally taught in the early Church, as can be demonstrated by a study of patristic writings. (For starters, consider the many quotations from the Fathers on these issues in "The Fathers Know Best" department of This Rock). The Fathers appealed not only to Scripture as their doctrinal authority, but also to the Fathers who came before them, to show the constant tradition of Catholic teaching on a given subject.

Around 150 Irenaeus appealed to the traditional teachings of the Fathers (Against Heresies 2:2-4) to show that Catholic teaching could be established from both Scripture and Tradition. Tertullian appealed to the moral unanimity of the Fathers who preceded him to show the universality of Catholic doctrine:

[Is it plausible to imagine that the Holy Spirit] neglected his office, permitting the churches [dioceses] for a time to understand differently, and to believe differently, what he himself was preaching by the apostles; is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues [beliefs]. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. (Praescripciones 28)

Basil of Caesarea appealed to the testimony of the Fathers:

Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but [only] what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicaea is in use. (Letter 140:2)

Vincent of Lerins summarized the issue:

Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion. (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434]) 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions, even when their lives are in jeopardy?

Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions, even when their lives are in jeopardy?

Answer

Mainly because their founder, Charles Taze Russell, scrambled to come up with a unique set of doctrines that would stand out from the pack. He didn't seem to care which biblical teachings he embraced and which he rejected, so long as the resulting doctrinal pastiche would be exotic. Rejecting blood transfusions on "biblical" grounds is one of the WTS' truly odd tenets. Witnesses cite two verses as bases for their position:

You shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people (Lv 7:26-27).
For 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; whoever eats it shall be cut off (Lv 17:14).

Besides being inconsistent by retaining this particular Old Covenant prohibition while ignoring others, such as circumcision (cf. Gn 17:2-14) and kosher dietary laws (cf. Dt 14:3-21), Witnesses misunderstand what these passages are talking about. In both Leviticus 7 and 17 the prohibition is against the eating of blood, not reception of blood through transfusions (a medical procedure which was developed only within the last century). Witnesses ignore the fact that in a single passage in Leviticus the Lord prohibits the eating of both blood and fat: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (3:17). Yet the Watchtower does not condemn the eating of fat, and no Jehovah's Witness would feel any moral compunction against eating a bag of fried pork rinds or enjoying a nice, fatty cut of prime rib. This is a good example of the Watchtower's selective "theology."

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does Isaiah 64:6 state that good works are useless?

Does Isaiah 64:6 state that good works are useless?

Full Question

A Fundamentalist I know has been bashing my Catholic faith by quoting Isaiah 64:6, where the Bible says, "our acts of righteousness are as filthy rags." He says this proves humans have no good works before God. What should I say in return?

Answer

He misunderstands the verse he is quoting. It does not say that all acts of righteousness are as filthy rags to God, but that those being rendered to him in Isaiah's day were.

In context the passage says:

Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Your sacred cities have become a desert; even Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a desolation. Our holy and glorious Temple, where our fathers praised you, has been burned with fire, and all that we treasured lies in ruins. (Is 64:4-6, 10-11, NIV)

This pertains to a particular historical situation, not to a general condition. The passage appeals to a time when Israelites once had a right relationship with God, when God helped them against their enemies because they waited on him, gladly did right, and remembered his ways.

When they sin against him and did not repent and return to their former state, he abandoned them to the will of their enemies, so that even Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. (Isaiah speaks of this prophetically, before it happened.)

It was during that period of continued sin, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., that they had "become like one who is unclean"--they hadn't always been like that. In this state, even the nation's acts of righteousness appeared like filthy rags to God, so he wouldn't help them: "When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is 1:15-17).

Protestants are often confused about the role Catholics believe good works play in salvation, so you should clear this up for the Fundamentalist you know. You should explain to him that we do not perform good works in order to enter a state of justification. The Council of Trent stated that "nothing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification" (Decree on Justification 8).

In fact, it is impossible for an unjustified person to do supernaturally good works, since these are based on the virtue of charity (supernatural love), which an unjustified person does not have. Good works therefore flow from our reception of justification; they do not cause us to enter a state of justification. Good works increase the righteousness we are given at justification and please God, who promises to give us supernatural rewards on the last day, including the gift of eternal life (Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10).


Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Monday, May 30, 2016

Was I wrong to take the host back to my pew?

Was I wrong to take the host back to my pew?

Full Question

I sit in the first row at Mass because I am hearing-impaired. When visiting a church recently, the usher gestured for me to go up for Communion before I felt prepared. I accepted the host in my hand and returned to the pew, where I continued my prayer before receiving. Now I am told that this is not permitted. Surely it would be irreverent to receive before one had prayed sufficiently?

Answer

It might be even more irreverent to ignore the instruction of the Church. The document Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, S.C.D.W., May 29, 1969, notes that "the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place" (4).

Editor’s note: It is perfectly all right to remain in one’s pew, despite the usher’s wishes, and to go up for Communion later.

Answered by: Mike Harrison

What if the vocations director says he doesn't believe in confession?

What if the vocations director says he doesn't believe in confession?

Full Question

I am 17 years old and about to enter the seminary. I just talked to my vocation director, and he told me that he does not believe in the sacrament of penance. I'm shocked! How could an orthodox Catholic priest, even a vocation director, say that? He said we could confess with our thoughts. Now, I don't have a problem refuting his claims, but I just want to say I am so horrified at that. Should I switch dioceses? Can this priest still call himself a Catholic?

Answer

First, I hope you will be sure you have not simply misunderstood this priest. The Church teaches, as I’m sure you know, that venial sins may be remitted through an act of contrition. We are encouraged to express repentance, too, for mortal sins as soon as we can, even if we can’t receive the sacrament of penance immediately. So before making any decision that will affect your life profoundly, you should raise your questions clearly and charitably with the priest. If he does hold a view contrary to Church teaching, you have a responsibility to advise your bishop of it. If this priest is robbing the diocese of potential vocations by giving scandal, the bishop will want to correct the situation.

About changing dioceses: I would do this only as a last resort. Your ordinary may be unaware that his vocation director is giving false teaching (if he is). He and the other priests of the diocese may be completely loyal to the magisterium.

If your understanding of the priest’s views are accurate, I can well believe your shock. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2088 and 2089, deals with sins against the faith, violations of the First Commandment. A denial of the efficacy of the sacraments is to heresy, which is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith" (CIC 751).

Answered by: Terrye Newkirk

Did John Paul II excommunicate a lot of people?

Did John Paul II excommunicate a lot of people?

Full Question

How many people has John Paul II excommunicated? A friend of mine is trying to portray him as a fanatic who is excommunicating people left and right.
Answer

John Paul II has never excommunicated anyone during his reign as pope. There have been people during his reign who have incurred what is called a latae sententiae or automatic excommunication, such as the radical modernist Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, who committed heresy, and the radical traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who excommunicated himself by consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. Both of these offenses incur latae sententiae excommunication under canon law.

There has never been a case where John Paul II excommunicated anyone directly, but he has issued or approved notices that certain individuals, including the ones mentioned above, have themselves incurred latae sententiae excommunication by their actions.

Answered by:  Jimmy Akin

Are we really eating Jesus in the Eucharist, or is it only symbolic?

Are we really eating Jesus in the Eucharist, or is it only symbolic?

Full Question

Do we really "eat Jesus"? Don't the words of consecration call only for a symbolic interpretation of eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood instead of a literal one?

Answer

Not according to the understanding of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, and not according to the practice of Christianity for 1,500 years.

The New Testament Greek in Mark 14:22, Matthew 26:26, and Luke 22:19 reads this way—transliterated, of course, into English characters: " Touto estin to soma mou. " (The very earliest account of the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is slightly different. Paul has it as: " Touto mou estin to soma. " In either case, the translation (as opposed to transliteration) is "This is my body."

Philologists tell us that the verb estin can mean "is really" or "is figuratively." But Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper clearly reflects his belief that the Presence is real, not figurative. Paul’s discourse may antedate the earliest Gospels by as much as eight years. It is hardly likely, in view of that, that Matthew or Mark meant estin to be taken figuratively.

Furthermore, the Greek word for body used in John 6:52-58 is sarx, which means quite specifically and only "physical flesh." The Aramaic scholars I have spoken to tell me that sarx is as close as you can get in Greek to the Aramaic bisra, which Jesus himself used.

Even more evidence from the very earliest Church comes from Ignatius of Antioch. I had to go back to my Greek version of him—somewhat more tattered than it was in 1953 when I first got it. Ignatius wrote about A.D. 110, 10 years or so after the death of John. He’s speaking here about "certain people" who were beginning to hold to "heterodox opinions" that he deemed "contrary to the mind of God"—strong language for the personal disciple of the last apostle. As nearly as I can come to it, Ignatius says: "These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).

Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine antithetical to what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple.

Answered by: Fr. Hal Stockert

Which are the days of abstinence in Lent?

Which are the days of abstinence in Lent?

Full Question

Can you tell me what Catholic traditions are concerning Lent? My father goes without meat on Friday, my mother on Wednesday and Friday. Which one is right?

Answer

They both are. The Church nowadays requires abstinence from meat only on Fridays of Lent, so your father is obeying the current discipline. In the early centuries, Christians fasted and abstained on Wednesdays and Fridays—not only in Lent, but all year long. So your mother is honoring this ancient tradition.

The spirit of Lent is to do something more, something extra, to grow closer to Christ. The Church sets some guidelines as a minimum, but we are free to do more. Traditionally, the penances of Lent are fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Each person, together with his confessor, decides on what practices will best prepare him for Easter.


Answered by: Terrye Newkirk

How do we refute the "soul sleep" argument?

How do we refute the "soul sleep" argument?

Full Question

Some groups, such as Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists, claim that we are not conscious between the time of our death and our resurrection but that our souls either cease to exist or are asleep. They cite verses that picture death as a sleep (e.g. Dan 12:2, 1 Cor 15:51). How can we refute this?

Answer

These verses use what is known as phenomenological language, the language of appearances. Phenomenological language occurs when we describe something as it looks, irrespective of how it is. The classic example of phenomenological language is talk of the sun rising and setting. The sun appears to rise and set , but this motion is actually due to the rotation of the earth rather than to motion of the sun around the earth.

Verses that speak of the dead sleeping use phenomenological language. For example, Daniel 12:2 states, "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." This image is of people getting up much as a sleeper rises in the morning. The sleep being discussed is phenomenological sleep, not literal sleep (Daniel is not talking about living people who sleep on the ground). Because dead people look like they are sleeping, especially when lying on their deathbeds (and notice that people often die on beds, enhancing the sleep analogy), the Bible often uses "sleep" as a euphemism for "death." In fact, this euphemism is common today.

There are two versions of the "soul sleep" theory.

The Jehovah's Witness claims that the soul ceases to exist at death and then is re-created by God at the resurrection. If their theory were true and there were no soul which survives death, it is difficult to see why the re-created "you" is not just a copy of you. It may have all your memories, but it is hard to see why it is not just a copy. If God had created this copy while you still existed, the fact it is a copy rather than the real you would be obvious.

If it is a copy, that causes problems of justice. Because you ceased to exist, you--the real you--were never punished for your sins or rewarded for your good deeds; you simply ceased to exist. Similarly, the copy of you which was created on the Last Day is then punished or rewarded for things it never did.

Once one has distinguished between the Jehovah's Witnesses' view and the view that claims that our souls simply sleep between death and resurrection, one can go on to refute these ideas by using the Bible. The following verses apply to both versions of the doctrine.

In Revelation 6:9-10, John writes, "When he [Christ] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, 'O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?'"

Here John sees the disembodied souls of early Christian martyrs. The fact they are disembodied is known because they have been slain. Thus disembodied souls exist. The fact they are conscious is known because they cry out to God for vengeance. Unconscious people can't do that. Thus conscious, disembodied souls exist.

In Revelation 20:4 John sees these souls again: "Then I saw . . . the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Here again we have disembodied souls (they had been beheaded). John sees them coming to life to reign with Christ--hence they are in a pre-resurrection state. Some scholars argue that this is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one. Even if that were so, it would only strengthen the case for conscious, disembodied souls because, after having been beheaded, they would be reigning with Christ in heaven in a disembodied state.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can I refute this Watchtower Society argument about the rich man and Lazarus?

How can I refute this Watchtower Society argument about the rich man and Lazarus?

Full Question

I've used the story Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) to show consciousness between death and resurrection, but Jehovah's Witnesses argue that it is just a parable and thus does not tell us anything about the real world. How can I respond to this?

Answer

Point out that Jesus' parables tell us much about the real world. He takes common elements of human experience--sons and fathers, judges and kings, the rich and the poor, buying and selling, planting and harvesting, fishing and wine-making--and uses these elements to teach theological points.

In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man Jesus uses human experiences of life and human experiences of death to teach that one's life affects one's fate, that one's fate is sealed at death, and that those who will not listen to God's word will not take heed of his own Resurrection either.

Point out that if his other parables reflect human experience when they talk about comfort and suffering in this life then this parable reflects human experience when it talks about comfort and suffering in the afterlife between death and resurrection.

To press the issue more sharply, point out that the second half of the parable (where the two are dead) reflects human experience as much as the first half (where the two are alive) reflects human experience. If there were rich men and beggars in Jerusalem in Jesus' day, then, when they died, they went to hell or Abraham's bosom in Jesus' day.

They went to hell if unrighteous (the Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the historic Christian interpretation, cites the rich man as an example of one who has died in mortal sin [CCC 1859]) or to Abraham's bosom if righteous (today the state of the righteous dead is even more glorious since the gates of heaven have been opened and the righteous, after purification if needed, now go to be with God (CCC 1026).

Note that some argue this isn't a parable at all but a historical account. Nothing in the text says it is a parable, and it is different from other parables in that Jesus names one of the characters--Lazarus. If it is a parable, it is the only parable where that happens.

A few last points. When the rich man suggests Lazarus be sent back from the dead, Abraham does not say that he won't go back, but that if he does go back those who will not hear the Law and the prophets will not take heed of Lazarus's rising either. In John's Gospel we read that Jesus has a friend named Lazarus who dies and comes back from the dead (Jn 11), and when he does so those who do not listen to God's word do not heed his raising either (Jn 11:45-53); they even plan to kill Lazarus because of the evidence his raising provides for Jesus' messianic claims (Jn 12:9-11)!

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did John Paul II write that everyone would be saved?

Did John Paul II write that everyone would be saved?

Full Question

Is it true that in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the pope said that everybody will be saved and no one will go to hell?

Answer

Absolutely not. In fact, the pope states that one problem in the modern Church is that priests do not preach enough about hell. The pope states, "To a certain degree man does get lost; so too do preachers, catechists, teachers; and as a result, they no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell. And perhaps even those who listen to them have stopped being afraid of hell. In fact, people of our time have become insensitive to the Last Things" (183).

Concerning the reality of hell, John Paul II says,

The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Mikhail Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Baltha-sar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apokatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction and every creature would be saved, a theory which abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. (185-186)



Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does a person returning to the Church need to go through RCIA?

Does a person returning to the Church need to go through RCIA?

Full Question

If a Catholic is returning to the active practice of the faith after having been a member of a different religion, say, Fundamentalism, is he obliged to go through RCIA first or just go to confession?

Answer

It depends on the person's state at the time he left the Catholic Church. If he had been catechized and had received all the sacraments of initiation--baptism, confirmation, Eucharist--then he will normally be able to return by going to confession, mentioning the fact he had joined another church, and being absolved.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics?

Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics?

Full Question

An anti-Catholic claims that the Church at the Fourth Lateran Council said heretics should be exterminated, but now the Church denies that they should be. What should we make of this?

Answer

Not much. First, the issue Lateran IV (1215) addressed was not the "extermination" of heretics in the sense of killing them. Anti-Catholics have been confused by the use of the Latin extermino in the Council's decree and have assumed the word means the same as the English verb "exterminate." It does not.

For example, the (non-Catholic) Cassell's Latin Dictionary points out that extermino is derived from ex (from or out of) and terminus (boundary). In English it has come to mean pushing beyond the boundary of life, but it doesn't have that meaning in Latin. Cassell's defines extermino as "to drive beyond the boundaries; hence lit[eral meaning], to drive out, expel, banish . . . transf[erred meaning] to put aside, remove." Cassell's does not list "kill," "exterminate," or any equivalent as a definition.

Thus the relevant passage of Lateran IV reads, "Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion ["extermination"] of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and be strengthened by the same holy privilege as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy land" (Constitution 3).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

23-DEC-'24, Monday of the Fourth Week of Advent

Monday of the Fourth Week of Advent Lectionary: 199 Reading 1 Malachi 3:1-4, 23-24 Thus says the Lord GOD: Lo, I am sending my messenger to ...