Blogger Priest

Bishop Kenneth Untener on Women Priests

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Father Joe

The bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, died in 2004. It is not my intention to speak ill of the dead, but I still feel compelled to give a strong critique of his argument in favor of women priests. Giving the appearance of orthodoxy, he maintained the usage of “in persona Christi,” while evacuating it of authentic meaning. His claim of a shift in its understanding “since the 1940′s” is not substantiated since it was already well developed in the scholastic tradition. Our deepening appreciation of it has been a legitimate instance of the operation of the universal ordinary Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As such it takes upon itself a level of certitude, dare I say infallibility, especially in regards to its five citations in the Vatican II documents. Conciliar teachings do not have to be statistically verified. The bishop, trying to find any loophole for women priests ignored this point.

For those unfamiliar, let me summarize his views. He caricatured, and I believe falsely, the teaching as mere “impersonation,” no different from an actor pretending to be someone else in a contemporary drama. Opposed to St. Jerome’s supposedly “false translation” of the Greek (and here I will transliterate) “en prosopo Christou” (2 Corinthians 2:10) as “in persona Christi,” the bishop claimed it really meant “in the presence of Christ” or “before (the face of) Christ.” If the minister only impersonates Christ, and is not actually present in the priest, then his view would open the door to women priests.

Although these renditions of the word “prosopon” have some validity, one cannot so carelessly dismiss the Vulgate Latin Bible. It remains the official ecclesial translation. Further, the terminology “prosopon” was being stretched or advanced in meaning from its routine usage in Greek drama.

In contrast, various critics will avow that the “persona” manifested is the divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity but disavow his male-differentiated humanity. However, Christ’s identity can never be split. Thus, while Bishop Untener would actually evacuate any ontological reality of Christ’s presence at the altar, these other critics would divide and subtract from it.

Ecumenically, Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox churches concur with us, even if they might use different terminology. For Eastern Christians, the priest is considered “an icon of Christ.” It must be remembered that icons are considered more than simple images. They are venerated as somehow holding God’s presence in them. The priesthood takes this iconic identification still further. To say that a priest acts as Christ’s icon means that we can experience the undivided person of Christ in him. To make this identification even more complete, the constitutive element of a priest’s maleness may be supplemented by such accidentals as vestments and a beard.

Bishop Untener may be correct in that the Mass is a drama; but, the priest is more than an actor. Every Mass is Christ’s as the principal celebrant. Unless he is present in the person of the priest, this assertion becomes nonsense. The late bishop minimized the meaning of the “prosopon” or mask and others ignore the Greek source for this idea entirely. An actor in ancient Greek theater would hold up a “prosopon” or face to disguise his countenance. More than simply “impersonating” the character as in modern drama, the face he held allowed him to take unto himself a new, even if pseudo-real, identity. These transformations became so thorough, that many of the ancients considered acting to be a vocation.

In the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, AD, over the identity of Jesus, “prosopon” was understood as an external concrete apparition, the appearance of the “physis.” The “physis” was a set of characteristics or properties, in other words, that which made up the nature of a thing. However, even in this context, the word “prosopon” was strengthened by the term “hypostasis.” [This was because some feared what critics have done regarding the priesthood, dividing or subtracting from Christ.] This last word was closely connected with the term “persona” in the West. The word “person” signified the firm ground from out of which an existing thing took its stand and developed. [It is the person of Christ who stands and renders sacrifice in front of our altars. The priest does not pretend to be Christ. At the Sacrifice of the Mass, he is the undivided Christ.]

The bishop wrote, “In the early centuries we do not see this phrase used to describe the role of the ordained priest.” Why is this? The answer is simple. The Church comes to a further understanding of herself and of her doctrinal treasury through conflict. Christ’s identification with the minister in the liturgy was not at issue. For that matter, even when surrounded by pagan priestesses and heretical ones, the consensus of the Church was so sure that no defense of the male priesthood was thought necessary.

Through all the rhetoric, the bishop was essentially implying that the sexuality and/or body of the human being should not be a determining factor of worthiness for holy orders. Historically, there is a precedent that says otherwise. Indeed, as I have taught before, the Gnostics who copied many Christian rituals possessed a female priesthood. They also denied that Christ was really a human being. If he were not really a man, we are not redeemed. Do we really want to run this course? I think not. One minor bishop does not constitute or veto the whole Magisterium in union with the Pope.

Abusing St. Thomas’ appreciation of instrumental causality, the bishop wrote that “Christ makes use of the instrument of a priest in the sacraments in the same way that a physician makes use of a scalpel — as an instrument, although in this case, an animate instrument.” What he bypasses is that a man is not a scalpel and a priest is not any man. The nature of the instrument must be respected. Christ has so configured a man that through ordination he is capable of making the Lord present through his very person. This is the legitimate instrumentality of the priest at Mass.

The bishop’s article about the priesthood and women is reprinted in his book, THE PRACTICAL PROPHET. The post was a letter to a proponent of women’s ordination.

AMAZON: The Practical Prophet

Filed under: Bible, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Images, Jesus, Magisterium, Mass, Priestesses, Priests, Sexuality, Women Priests | 8 Comments »

Fortifying Ourselves in the Defense of the Faith

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Father Joe

Many anti-Catholics only speak in general terms and with isolated proof texts from Scripture. Why? I suspect that their lack of background is part of it. Personal inspiration is an element of his or her faith that makes every such believer into his own Pope. Anyone, who contradicts them, obviously in their own minds, is deceived and/or lost. Further, fundamentalism tends to discredit cultural and language elements, or else offers a narrow interpretation. Often believers are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Catholics, parroting their ministers and the leaders of their bible study groups. An element of seduction associated with fellowship is also at work. This emotional quality can make any rational discussion difficult or impossible. History is also avoided or skewed so as to avoid the legacy of Catholicism and its contribution to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Critics have sometimes challenged me for being too general in my arguments. Nevertheless, while on Internet message boards I always preferred a response to the deletion of a post. Of course, some comments are so vulgar and offensive that they must be deleted. These critics would then argue (no doubt from minimal experience) that such an approach was typical of Catholic priests who cannot answer and feel trapped regarding so-called biblical truths. What really troubled this priest was the total disregard for scholarship and objectivity in answers. I did not make them up; they were the conclusions of learned scholars of faith, filled with the Holy Spirit.

Many of the more vocal anti-Catholic fundamentalists claim a Catholic background. Often it is quite minimal or contrived. A number of them have bragged to me about receiving all the sacraments and even getting married in the Church. As in following a formula, the next thing they report is that doubts arose when they started to read the Scriptures. I always suspect that they had “some help” to come to their anti-Catholic conclusions. Such is frequently proven to be the case, although these facts are at first withheld.

There is a purported moment of personal awakening and they discover that the Bible teaches contrary to Catholic doctrine and practice. What are some of the alleged problems?

1. The claim of the Catholic Church that the Bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics only.

Well, we do believe that the Catholic Church today is one with the Christian community established by Jesus and that is chronicled in the New Testament. This much is true. However, we also believe that the Holy Scriptures may be efficacious for all: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. It is in a unique fashion, “our” book, but we as Catholics do not begrudge it to others; indeed, they may find true consolation and encouragement toward conversion in its pages. We are glad to have been party to its divine inspiration and composition. It is truly a gift to all humanity. An insistence that the Catholic Church (in union with our Orthodox brothers and sisters) had nothing to do with the development of the New Testament and the establishment of the canon (for both the Old and New Testaments) runs counter to the historical record. Insistence to the contrary remains unsubstantiated. Rather, the fundamentalist simply contends that the Catholic Church has sought to suppress the Bible. This sidesteps the early history of the Bible and the conflicts over errant translations.

2. They insist that there are only 66 books in the biblical canon as opposed to the 73 in Catholic bibles.

The fundamentalist stipulates that Catholics “added” books and yet what happened was that after fifteen hundred years, Martin Luther SUBTRACTED books from it. He says they show no degree of inspiration and that they teach false doctrine– in other words, things offensive to the Protestant reformers and their modern-day offspring in the world today. He says that Christians did not accept these “Catholic” books in biblical times (he must mean apostolic) and yet there is ample evidence that they did. Indeed, the Greek canon containing the disputed books was implemented whenever Jesus quoted the Old Testament in the Gospels.

The biased critic tells us that Palestinian Jews during the time of Christ had already determined the Old Testament canon. This is historically misleading because it dismisses the legacy of the many Jews of the Diaspora. The Pharisees of Palestine set up four arbitrary criteria for the biblical canon:

(1) They had to be in harmony with the Torah or Law as interpreted at that time;

(2) They had to be written prior to Ezra;

(3) They had to be in Hebrew; and

(4) They had to originate in Palestine.

This immediately eliminated Judith (Aramaic); Wisdom, 2 Maccabees (Greek), Tobit, parts of Daniel and Esther (Aramaic and outside Palestine), Baruch (outside Palestine), and Sirach and 1 Maccabees (written after Ezra). All Jews did NOT generally accept this canon until a century AFTER Christ. There is evidence that the rabbinical redactor was also motivated by a concern to make the Hebrew Scriptures distinctively different from the canon used by Christians. From the earliest days, the Christian Church accepted the Jewish canon from the Greek-Roman tradition, the ALEXANDRINE CANON. As I have said before, Jesus himself quoted from this bible and the canon was not seriously challenged until the Protestant reformation. It should be noted that Martin Luther also rejected New Testament books. It is interesting that while Protestants accept Luther’s abbreviated Hebrew canon, they replaced the books he stripped from the New Testament. What did he remove? He eliminated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (Apocalypse).

[GOOD SOURCE: Notes to the Fireside New American Bible (2011), p. xiv-xv.]

3. The anti-Catholic fundamentalist routinely claims that it is easy to prove the non-existence of the Catholic Church in the earliest days and yet they offer no real proof whatsoever.

Why? It is because it cannot be done. Rather, he attacks elements of the Church that have organically developed over time. This is like saying the boy did not exist because he did not yet resemble the man.

NO POPE? – Except regarding “fatherhood” (papa/pater), the word was not used, but this does not dismiss the role of Peter and his successors. Their authority remains, no matter what they are called.

NO PRIESTS? – There is ample evidence of men who participated in the one priesthood of Christ.

NO SACRIFICE OF THE MASS? – Here is the utter dismissal of the command of Christ at the Last Supper to perpetuate it “in remembrance” of him. The cultic and sacrificial language of the setting is unavoidable.

NO NUNS? – Of course, there were holy women who from their purses aided Jesus and the apostles and later others like St. Paul.

NO MONKS? – St. Paul himself advises a celibate life and imposes severity upon himself. The evangelical counsels are in effect.

NO CONFESSIONAL? – Jesus and then his apostles would make possible the forgiveness of sins. Even today, no special room is absolutely required.

NO PRAYERS TO MARY? – And yet, there are Scriptural examples of orations to consecrated figures or spiritual messengers from God.

NO PURGATORY? – Although Jesus offered ample evidence in his statements that some would need to be purified by fire and pay the last penny.

The anti-Catholic critic throws out one issue after another, making a concerted response on any one topic difficult to impossible. He needs no evidence, the charge itself is a proof in his own reckoning and unfortunately, enough to influence weak minds.

Catholics agree that those who had a saving faith sought baptism. However, he speaks about the various local congregations as if there were no unity with one another. Just as today, in reference to the many parishes and dioceses, the Catholic Church is one. Jesus established a Church, not many churches.

He contends that bishops were only the local pastors; and yet, the history of the matter would show that as the churches grew, so did their jurisdiction. These “episcopoi” were literally the successors to the apostles and shared in the high priesthood of Christ. There were many helpers, even though many human elements of the true Church would have to develop over time. Catholicism, for instance, admits that the papal electors (cardinals) represent a later adaptation to insure the smooth transition of authority and the effective running of the Church. There is no need for an absolute return to primitive Christianity. Indeed, because of the size of the Church, it would not work.

Protestant communities which wipe out the gains from most of Church history are forced to reinvent the wheel in this regard.

The assertion that Peter never went to Rome is a denial of archeological evidence, extra-biblical testimony, and the living tradition of the Church. Since it does not appear in the Bible, such fundamentalist critics assume that it could not have happened. The anti-Catholic critic mentions the rebuke and difference of opinion from Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, but says nothing about the fact that Peter gives the decisive decision regarding the initiation of the Gentile men at the council in Jerusalem. He confuses impeccability with infallibility. Papal infallibility does not mean that popes are sinless or that every opinion they have is necessarily right. It is peculiar that anti-Catholic critics will often grant the Pope more authority in their arguments than he actually possesses. Of course, the critics save the final say for themselves.

Let me repeat, at the first council of the Church in Jerusalem, after the debate about ritual circumcision, it is Peter who resolves the matter. The mere fact that Paul and Barnabas had come to Jerusalem illustrated their confidence in the apostolic authority there. As in any council, there was debate and dialogue; however, in the end it was Peter who stood up and supported Paul in his refusal to impose the Mosaic Law upon the Gentiles– they would not have to become Jews before becoming Christians. Citing the work of God’s Spirit in Cornelius and his household, whom they knew and accepted, Peter summarizes the core proclamation of salvation: “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they” (Acts 15:7-11). We are told that the whole assembly was reduced to silence. The issue was resolved. Paul and Barnabas then enthusiastically recounted how God had used them as instruments to reach the Gentiles.

Many distinctions need to be made about Peter. He is certainly much altered after the Christ has suffered, died, and risen. The Holy Spirit on Pentecost grants him a special charism of authority and infallibility.

This did not mean that either Peter or his successors would be impeccable and unable to sin. The miraculous truth in the long history of the Church is that even weak and sinful men have seemed changed by the office of Peter. Without such an authority, we would suffer from the same endless fragmentation and deviation from Gospel truth that other religious communities experience. We believe we have Christ’s Rock to preserve and protect the deposit of faith. Given to Peter, this gift of infallibility is for the entire Church. We see its execution observed when the Holy Father makes a formal proclamation of dogma as the universal shepherd (the Vicar of Christ) on a matter of faith or morals. Neither the Pope, nor the bishops, nor an ecumenical council can manufacture new beliefs– they define something which has always been taught and believed, but reformulate it in a more concise and solemn way. A papal declaration along these terms is an exercise of his Universal Extraordinary Magisterium.

The unanimous teaching of all the world’s bishops in union with the Pope is called the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This latter expression of infallibility is much more common. The laity and the religious of the Church also enter into this mystery. The Sensus Fidelium (sense of the faithful) among Catholics who have informed their consciences according to Church teaching and who live out the faith also touch upon this mystery of faith. (Admittedly this latter aspect is usually only mentioned by dissenters these days; however, they cite people who have largely rejected the deposit of faith and the Christian life– the ones to whom it does not really apply.)

Anti-Catholic fundamentalists often contradict themselves. For instance, they might argue, contrary to accepted biblical interpretation, that Peter went to the actual Babylon but not to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). However, if he at first disputes that “Babylon” was the designation for Rome coined by early Christians; he next acknowledges it in regards to the Popes and prophesies about the antichrist in the book of Revelation. Of course, now he is confusing the pagan Rome of the old empire with the Christian Rome of the Church.

Obviously, as a good anti-Catholic apologist, he denies the practice of asking angels, saints, or Mary to pray with and for us. Even those who were formerly Catholic seem ignorant of the fact that Catholicism teaches that all prayer has as its proper object, almighty God. Indeed, upon a host of issues, the former Catholics seem to develop a convenient amnesia about the truths and practices they once embraced. Instead, they attack “straw man” arguments, caricatures of a largely false or distorted Catholic faith, which were probably spoon-fed into them by the Church’s enemies.

These critics usually accept the divinity of Christ, something that others (as in cults) often reject. We can at least agree upon this point. He also acknowledges the Trinity. Although, he will fight the Catholic about the term itself since it is not in the Bible.

I remember one fundamentalist arguing with me by shouting a double negative, “We don’t need no mediator except Christ in going to Father!” What he actually means, and Catholics agree, is that Jesus is our Mediator before God and brings our offering and prayer to the Father. The discussion turned to the subject of worship and he said rightly that the Bible prohibits the “worship” of graven images. Unfortunately, he wrongly accused the Catholic Church of doing so. The economy of images is altered by the incarnation, and thus pictures and statues for Catholics are venerated as depicting holy personages or themes, but they are NOT WORSHIPPED. Only God is truly given divine worship.

Context here means everything. Otherwise, one would have to say that the Word of God contradicts itself. The invisible God of the Hebrews absolutely forbid the making of images for purposes of divine adoration. However, he did not prohibit images as such. Indeed, in the case of the ark, they were mandated. Of course, given the inclination of the early Jews to fall easily into idol worship, it is no wonder that the prohibition was often extended and made more severe.

Making a secular comparison, many of us adorn our homes with statuary, paintings, and photographs. We have them for beauty and for sentimental reasons. Is a picture of one’s child or a grandmother vain idolatry? I think not. Neither are depictions of saints and other holy personages.

The anti-Catholic critic condemns the Church for its many volumes on the liturgy and upon doctrine; and yet he makes no qualm about the many words his kind employs to attack us. Why would they deny Catholics the right to share their insights and spiritual reflection upon the Gospel? Any view that does not agree with his own, he considers consider a twisting of Scripture. The anti-Catholic fundamentalist becomes his own final (and flawed) authority.

Such enemies of the Church condemn Catholic remembrance and prayer for the dead, dismissing the second book of Maccabees. And yet, such a practice finds other Scriptural support and is an ancient Christian practice derived from an even older Jewish one.

Almost always their demagogic diatribes must include certain castigation against the role of works in Catholic theology. No mention is made that many modern-day Lutherans and Catholics have come to a consensus regarding justification by faith. They create false parodies of Catholic faith to tear them down. They are surprised to hear that Catholics also teach and preach Ephesians 2:8-9:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God– not because of works, lest any man should boast.”

Salvation is a gratuity from God. The work that saves is the self-offering of Christ. Apart from Christ, we cannot save ourselves. If divine grace is alive in us then our Lord can continue to work in our lives. Everything done by Christ has value or worth.

Toward the end of nasty debates and/or vicious diatribes, many anti-Catholic critics will try to disguise their animus of hatred by saying that they love Catholics or that they do not condemn the Catholic Church. Do not believe them. When they have finished, damning the Church is precisely what they have done.

At points the anti-Catholic critic spouts silliness. He suggests that the Catholic Church disregard all its doctrines for the so-called true Gospel. And yet, her doctrines represent the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Catholics would agree with fundamentalists that men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. God is the principal author of Sacred Scripture. Differences in this regard would be that Catholics do not see such inspiration as a passive dictation but as the use of the whole person with his culture, understanding and language as part of the equation. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? I do not believe so.

Catholics would agree that Jesus is our one Mediator who makes possible our entry into heaven. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? Again, such a teaching is an essential element of the Christian faith. Jesus makes all the difference. The fundamentalist anti-Catholic critic might wrongly claim however that the “Catholic Jesus” is not the same Jesus with whom they have a personal relationship and encounter in the Gospels.

Catholics contend that Jesus rose from the dead. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? But Catholics also believe that the risen Jesus is present in the Church and the sacraments. While he might acknowledge a presence in God’s Word, the fundamentalist critic focuses upon the Second Coming as if Christ’s presence is either locked into the past or waiting in the future. Catholics not only have faith in Jesus, but know his substantial or real presence behind the accidentals of bread and wine.

Catholics contend that Jesus is God and man. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? Some of the anti-Catholic cults fall prey to the old Christological controversies which plagued the Church in the early centuries. I have heard ministers argue that the Jesus on earth is different than God’s Son or the Christ in heaven. Others subscribe to a faulty Adoptionism as if Jesus was somehow conscripted into being the Messiah and Lord. Others speak about Jesus like the Gnostics of old, certainly divine but pretending to be a mortal man. The Catholic Church possesses the full truth: Jesus is a divine person with a complete human and divine nature. Jesus was the pre-existent Logos or Word who entered human history as one of us.

The anti-Catholic critic paints with broad strokes and condemns what he does not understand. Many Catholics in the past were poorly instructed and their ignorance became fair game for religious bigots and fanatics. It is truly sad. Hopefully this book will help fortify Catholics against such assaults in the future.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Can Catholics Kill Protestants? And Other Fables

Posted on April 3, 2011 by Father Joe

There are some charges beyond ridiculous. One of these is that the Canon Law of the Catholic Church advocates the killing of Protestants. Again, the anti-Catholic loves sensationalism and scare tactics. It is not unlike the BIG LIE tactics of the WWII Nazi propaganda machine. The Church is not only blamed for the Dark Ages and the Inquisition but probably for everything from bad breath to smelly feet. Instead of pictured as a loving mother, the anti-Catholic calls the Church of Rome a “monster,” “the beast” or “the harlot.” He cannot tolerate her authority or the possibility that there is a claim to truth beyond his control. Such a belligerent stance often puts the anti-Catholic bigot in the embarrassing position of castigating even those policies and persons with whom he would have an affinity, if he truly loves the Lord. Thus, he takes public positions against pro-life endeavors which he probably favors all because they originate with the Catholic Church. He also suggests that the likes of Mother Teresa are burning in hell because they did not espouse fundamentalist propositions; indeed, Mother Teresa closely associated the Eucharist with her charity endeavors. He becomes the very thing he says he hates about the Catholic Church, intolerant and dishonest.

EXCOMMUNICATION – Turning his attention to this subject, the anti-Catholic denies the Church any authority to discipline her membership. However, he ignores the fact that many Protestant communities shun and expel those who do not follow the party line. In ancient days banishment was preferred to taking the life of an unbeliever. Communion in the Catholic Church implies uniformity in worship and belief. If such a unity is imperiled by heresy and/or irregular worship, the Church has the obligation to protect the integrity of the faith. One critic compared this policy to the work of Hitler or the Red Scare. However, there is no comparison. The substance of what is being protected is the truth, not egregious deceits as in totalitarianism. Further, one may still dissent, but one may not do so upon a serious matter and pretend to be a good Catholic Christian. The two matters which bring automatic excommunication are harming the person of the Pope and deliberately procuring an abortion. Would the anti-Catholic argue contrarily for violence or for excusing the murder of babies? I hope not.

PROSCRIPTION FROM OFFICES – This only pertains to ecclesiastical offices these days as most governments in the West are secular. Should a person continue as a pastor of souls if he is leading them into error or causing scandal by his conduct? I think not. In ancient days, this concern was tied up with the tension with kings over authority and interference in Church matters. While this point is now more historical than current, the Pope has insisted that Catholic priests and male and female religious not hold political positions in civil governments. Would the anti-Catholic who feels this infringes upon private rights really want a Catholic clergyman as his Senator or President? I doubt it. He makes a lot of noise for nothing!

CONFISCATION OF GOODS – This notion is quite archaic and no longer applies except in cases where goods belonging to the Church have been illicitly procured. Would the anti-Catholic want a disgruntled pastor to sell his church from under him or leave it to children with no interest in religion? No. It was the same issue with the Catholic faith. The temporal goods of the Church belong to the People of God. I would readily compare the few hundred dollars a month most of our priests get to the high salaries of many evangelical and fundamentalist ministers any day! Who is it who is really getting rich on religion? On top of this most priests have to maintain their own car, pay insurance, and pay the same taxes as all the rest of us. Religious clergy even take a vow of poverty. Mother Teresa’s sisters only possess two habits each and a bucket to wash them in. Millions upon millions go to charity and the Vatican often suffers a short-fall in funds. Where is this rich Vatican government that anti-Catholics shout about? Should the Church sell off her holdings of art to private collectors and deprive the world of what she safeguards for all humanity? The argument of the anti-Catholic bigot on this score is a tumbling house of cards.

EXECUTION – Anti-Catholics play this tune for all they can get out of it. Again, nations, Protestant, Catholic, Moslem, and Secular have often used religion to their own ends. The complicity of certain ones in the membership (or in leadership) is not grounds for damning the entire Church fellowship. In ancient times, the people themselves would often drag out and lynch heretics. The Church encouraged the rule of law to bring order and justice to the situation. Oftentimes confiscation of property and banishment was the punishment. However, over time the death penalty did encroach upon the scene. Further, until recent times, the Papacy actually retained a substantial territory, the Papal States. Consumed by the Italian unification movement, all that remains is the small Vatican City. The civil legislation of the old Papal States must be reckoned on the same level as other nations. Countries in the past and in the present have sometimes allowed the death penalty for threats to society. Records indicate that such executions in papal lands dealt with capital crimes like murder. Today, the Church has discerned a development in doctrine that would rescind this right of the state to take life since it adds to the current culture of death. Incarceration and rehabilitation are preferred avenues for criminals. However, this is again in reference to what we would all discern to be crimes against society. The irony here is that while many fundamentalists side with Catholics against abortion, they are frequently strong advocates of capital punishment in our own nation. This brings us back to the ludicrous assertion that Catholics are given liberty to kill Protestants. It just is not so. Alongside fundamentalists who want free access to the people inside the old Soviet Union, the Catholic Church has joined her voice in defending the sanctity of conscience and religious liberty as a constitutive right of the human person.

Development along these lines does not impinge upon the charism of infallibility regarding faith and morals given the Church. While the Church is holy because of the abiding presence of Christ, her members are always sinners in need of their redeemer, Christ. Regarding matters of science and practical matters of government, the Church has had to feel her way through time just like other organizations. The Church may be infallible, but she is not always impeccable. Anti-Catholics often fail to make this distinction.

One anti-Catholic had to go all the way to Gratian’s Decretals of the 12th century (one of the earliest attempts to codify the laws of Christendom) in order to discredit the Catholic Church. His own denomination did not yet exist; indeed, the Protestant Reformation had yet to happen. Nevertheless, he belittles the Church for oppressing his compatriots during that time.

Utterly desperate to show that Catholics can kill Protestants with impunity, one anti-Catholic bigot cites the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. The king’s sister, Margaret of Valois, married an important Protestant leader, Henry of Navarre. Her mother and her family secretly arranged for his assassination. When it failed, they convinced the king that there would be a Huguenot reprisal. They decided to strike first but the government could not retain the violence. Religious war broke out and upon his conversion to Catholicism, Henry of Navarre became king, himself. Unfortunately, another religious war would follow. The anti-Catholic bigot gives few of the facts and condemns the whole Catholic Church for what was a French civil war.

The typical bigoted anti-Catholic’s views which I have largely reviewed here always end with a terrible bluntness. He says that unless one leaves the Catholic Church, one must be damned to hell. He tells the Catholic to run, but only gives him a religion which judges itself by its hate of Catholicism. That is no choice. The Catholic should stay home and explore his own spiritual roots. Our history may have some blemishes, but it also contains many jewels. It is the Church of the saints and the family of God established by Jesus.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Church, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Politics, Pro-Life, Social Justice, Works | Leave a comment »

Good Works an Element of Salvation

Posted on April 2, 2011 by Father Joe

ANTI-CATHOLIC ASSERTION

Good works have NO part to play in our salvation.

[Blood of Christ saves] … and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).

[Faith alone saves] And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forbearance of God — to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus. What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:24-28).

CATHOLIC TRUTH

Good works have a part to play in our salvation.

But what is it that fundamentalists think they understand? Fundamentalists tend to say that good works are the fruits which come from being saved. They would insist that they are not a means to salvation. If a person is one of the elect, it will be manifested by his good works as one filled with Christ’s spirit. Thus, in their estimation, it is not the works, but the blood of Christ which earns salvation.

Sometimes Catholics quote James 2:20 in their defense that “faith without works is useless”; however, what this means is that the type of faith which is saving is one which manifests the work of God. Note that James 2:19 has the demons believing and trembling. Theirs is not a saving faith. Many say they believe in Jesus and yet they refuse to follow him. Theirs is not a saving faith. A person of true faith experiences the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and good works will find expression in his life. Such works are a confirmation of true faith. Going even further, faith is professed by an act of will that uses words and works. The model of Abraham is recalled in James 2:21-23 in which he believed in God to the extent of being willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac. God came first and he trusted that God could still keep his promises, no matter what.

This last Scripture text (Romans) might be a bit misleading. The works mentioned here are not those which constitute an element of our faith in Christ. The argument here is not entirely different from the circumcision debate at the council in Jerusalem. The tension is not between faith and good deeds but Christian faith and the Jewish law. This contrast becomes clear if we read further: “Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles, for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law” (Romans 3:29-31). The interpretation given by fundamentalists to James makes me cringe. James says quite bluntly, “Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:20). Mentioning Abraham, it was not that his works were just a fruit of his faith; rather, they were a vital ingredient of it. “You see that faith was active ALONG WITH his works, and faith was COMPLETED by the works” (James 2:22). The reformer, Martin Luther admitted that the Letter of James could not be reconciled with his view that we were saved by faith alone. Consequently, he omitted this letter from his bible. Others readmitted this wonderful Catholic testimony back into the Protestant bible. The anti-Catholic’s stereotype of the Church’s view of justification is inexact and misleading. Regarding the need for a faith which ushers in saving grace, there would be concord. Further, it is obvious that a true faith will show itself with good fruits. Again, there is no argument here, except in the critic’s own mind. The citation from James here is not entirely as the fundamentalist describes. It appears that James is indeed offering a correction to an exaggeration of the Pauline view. The Catholic Church herself admits that good works cut off from faith and sanctifying grace would avail us nothing. The one extreme would contend that good deeds earn salvation; the other, that faith in the Lord (dedicating themselves to trust in God through Jesus) would suffice. Paul actually steers a middle course by speaking about the importance of faith lived out in love (Galatians 5). Dynamic faith is not only a profession in words but an interior disposition actuated by the grace of God and substantiated by the life of charity. The Catholic stress on the incarnation is crucial here. If Christ is alive inside of us, then the good deeds we perform are ultimately the works of Christ. Because they are the extension of the Lord’s saving activity, they have merit. Justification is intimately bound up with our entry into God’s community of faith, the Church. Baptism is the entry into this life and the sacraments are the essential means of our growth. Faith and works (in love) are two sides of the same coin; there may be some tension between these elements, but no strict division.

THE UNIVERSAL CATECHISM ON FAITH & WORKS:

[CCC #1814] Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God” (DV 5). For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work[s] through charity” (Romans 1:17; Galatians 5:6).

[CCC #1815] The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it (Trent). But “faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26): when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

[CCC #1816] The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: “All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks” (LG 42). Service and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: “So every one who acknowledges me before men, Ia lso will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33).

[Blood of Christ saves if we walk in God’s ways (good works with faith) in the community of the Church] But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7)

[Faith (in Jesus), charity (in caring for injuries and feeding the hungry) and the certain hope of salvation (in baptism) comes to us as a Christian family] And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. He brought them up into his house and provided a meal and with his household rejoiced at having come to faith in God (Acts 16:31-34).

[Remarking about Abraham] See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead (James 2:24-26).

[Faith, Hope, and Love] For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love (Galatians 5:6).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Justification, Redemption, Salvation | Leave a comment »

Veneration (Worship?) of Images

Posted on April 1, 2011 by Father Joe

ANTI-CATHOLIC ASSERTION

Catholics venerate or worship images. The Pope himself bows before statues of Mary. Similarly, they worship Christ in the Eucharist. They also possess statues, candles, and other such religious objects in their homes and churches. All these things violate the commandments and are offensive to God.

[The fashioning and veneration of images is forbidden as idolatry] “You shall not carve idols [any graven image] for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, …” (Exodus 20:4-5).

CATHOLIC TRUTH

No, Catholics do not “worship” images. Veneration is different from the kind of exclusive worship and adoration owed to God alone. Rather, we honor and treat with respect those things which remind us of God and those in whom the Lord has done wondrous things. The honor we show the Blessed Virgin Mary is particularly pronounced; however, it is not the same kind of worship which we render to God. Unlike the ancient idol worshippers, the honor is paid not to the physical representation, but to the one who is signified. Definitions are very important. Holy objects often serve the same function as mementos and photographs in our homes; they remind us of our friends and family. Similarly, religious statues, pictures, and all the rest bring to mind our spiritual family of faith and our identity as part of it.

Candles are symbolic of Jesus himself. The smoke rises as prayer is taken into heaven. They give off light and Jesus is the Light of the World, dispelling the darkness of sin and death. They give off heat, and Jesus gave the warmth of healing and forgiveness to others. Like the candle which exhausts itself for our benefit, Jesus surrenders his life that we might be redeemed. Turning to the Eucharist, Jesus himself told us that it was his flesh and blood, the living sacrament of his presence. We can worship this divine mystery because it is Jesus and Jesus is God.

Fundamentalist anti-Catholics are not consistent on this score about graven images. Come Christmas, they usually have statuary-nativity scenes like everyone else. Also, if they were to be consistent in their strict observance of this commandment, it would also include the toy dolls they buy their children. Some cults actually do this! The Catholic view of images is based on the permissible symbolic use of them in the Old Testament and the fact that Christ himself through the incarnation reveals the transcendent God. God allowed images which symbolically pointed to our ultimate salvation in the Lord. The historical fact of the God-Man, Christ, ushers in a new “economy” of images [CCC #2131].

[To be healed from the poisonous bites of serpents] So Moses prayed for the people, and the Lord said to Moses, “Make a seraph and mount it on a pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it, he will recover.” Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he recovered (Numbers 21:7-9). {See also Wisdom 16:6-8}

[Jesus’ humanity is a healing image of God] “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting” (John 3:14).

[Regarding the ark of the covenant] “Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory” (Exodus 25:18-20). {See also 1 Kings 6:23-28}.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Commandments, Evangelization, Faith, God, Images, Jesus, Mary, Sacramentals, Sacraments, Saints | 2 Comments »

Purgatory, Religious Life (Nuns) & the Pope

Posted on March 31, 2011 by Father Joe

ANTI-CATHOLIC ASSERTION

Catholics propose many things not supported in the Scriptures, like Purgatory, Nuns and the Pope. It is a serious sin to add to the Bible. Moving to the matter of the Pope, he is a man who takes upon himself the honor which belongs to God alone. People do not need the Pope to know the will of God. The testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit guides each believer to all truth. All anyone needs is a bible and the Holy Spirit. The papacy has no special commission to teach; it is the pathetic attempt of the blind leading the blind. Disaster awaits them all. Catholics should abandon this man-made system which prevents them from personally knowing Jesus and being saved. Turning to Purgatory, it is purportedly a place where sins are purified after death. However, the Bible says that Jesus does this. Our fate is sealed with death– heaven or hell– nothing more.

[Not to add to the Bible] Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver (Proverbs 30:6).

[Regarding the absence of the Catholic Purgatory] Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear as second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him (Hebrews 9:27-28).

CATHOLIC TRUTH

The citation of Proverbs contends that we must not add anything to God’s revelation; taken in the strict sense of the fundamentalist, it would logically mean that everything written (including Scripture?) after the fifth century B.C. (the date of this book’s composition) is inauthentic. Not being very rational, even with their own principles, they will deny and run away from such a position. The Catholic Church adds nothing that alters the substantial message of salvation; indeed, she validates much that the anti-Catholic would steal from God’s hands. While religious life is mentioned, fundamentalist anti-Catholics are never clear about what is wrong with consecrated life. Having spoken about the Pope elsewhere, I will not add much here. The Scriptural and historical evidence is abundantly clear that the Papacy was an institution finding its roots in the significant mission given St. Peter by Jesus, himself. Even the Orthodox churches, who are not in union with the Holy See, view the Pope as the first among equals. As for Purgatory, I fail to see how the Bible texts quoted say anything to challenge this doctrine of faith. The soul in Purgatory is destined for heaven. Jesus has indeed rescued him from the death of sin. However, since we believe that justification is not so much imputation as it is transformation, the soul must be perfected and purified before entry into heaven. The fire of God’s love itself burns away the residue of selfishness to which we cling. Temporal punishment for sin is paid and the little sins which plagued us, as well as evil habits or vices, are eradicated and we are healed. Often Purgatory has been compared to a prison, but it might better be likened to a hospital. Indeed, if Purgatory is the hospital of the afterlife, then hell is the cemetery for dead souls, who have forfeited the divine life, clung to mortal sin, and hate both God and man. The Catholic citation of 2 Maccabees brings another issue to the forefront, the deletion of a book of the Bible by Protestant reformers. Of course, it still shows the orthodox mindset of the Jews regarding prayer for the dead and what Jesus would have held as one who acknowledged by words and then by his own person, the resurrection.

[Expiation for the dead] Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs. But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to life the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin (2 Maccabees 12:38-46).

[Clear implication that there is forgiveness of sins in the next life] “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come” (Matthew 12:32).

[Must be made perfect before entering heaven] The treasure and wealth of nations will be brought there, but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 21:26-27).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Evangelization, Faith, Justification, Magisterium, Pope, Purgatory, Religious, Salvation | Leave a comment »

Mary is Called the Mother of God

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Father Joe

ANTI-CATHOLIC ASSERTION

Mary is only the mother of the mortal or human Jesus, not God. Jesus, as God, pre-exists, even before creation (note John 1:1). God has no beginning– no mother.

He allowed himself “for a little while” to be “made lower than the angels,” that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).

If Mary was actually God’s mother— giving birth to God himself— she would be God:

You are my witnesses, says the Lord, my servants whom I have chosen to know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none (Isaiah 43:10).

Your throne stands firm from of old; you are from everlasting, Lord (Psalm 93:2).

But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah, too small to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; whose origin is from of old, from ancient times (Micah 5:1).

Who [Christ Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance … (Philippians 2:6-7).

CATHOLIC TRUTH

The anti-Catholic who made this argument against the title Mother of God did not do his homework. He failed to properly define the title; he failed to appreciate the Catholic position regarding Christ as divine; and he fell into an ancient heresy against the identity of Christ. It is a perfect example of the old cliché, “Those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it.” A response is problematical, because it is hard to take such a stab against Catholic faith regarding Mary seriously. Catholic school children could see the holes here. The heresy espoused here is known as Nestorianism after Bishop Nestorius who rejected the term Theotokos or God-bearer (Mother of God) for Mary. He argued that she was only the bearer or mother of Christ’s human nature. To his credit, Nestorius was concerned that the title was too similar to that which had belonged to goddesses, like Isis, Demeter and Hera as “mother of the gods.” Ultimately, what was at stake was more than an honor for Mary. The real issue was who is Jesus? Yes, he was God and yes, he was a man. However, the position of Nestorius tended to divide Jesus into two sons. The unity of Christ was endangered. Never did the title Mother of God imply that she was divine or a goddess. Mary was and always will be purely a human creature. This is the Catholic position. The title Mother of God does not have ontological properties regarding her identity. Christ is the pre-existent Logos, the Word, and author of life. This is the Catholic understanding, often lost in the drivel of ignorant and bigoted anti-Catholics. According to Roman usage, the title Mother of God represents a particular form of speech known as communicatio idiomata– the communication or exchange of idioms. Another example would be the expression that in Jesus, “God died on the cross.” Obviously, as a perfect Spirit, God as God cannot die. However, because of the inseparable identity of Christ as the God-Man, his death by virtue of his human nature can be ascribed to him according to his ultimate identity– the Son of God. Similarly, while the Lord only takes his human nature from Mary, she, like all mothers, is the mother of the whole identity of her child. The only difference is that her child happens to be God. The anti-Catholic posits a metaphysical meaning to the title Mother of God which the Catholic Church had never given it. This title protects the unity between the divine and human natures of Christ, one divine person.

Elizabeth’s greeting:

“And how have I deserved that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). {See also John 2:1; 19:25; Matthew 13:55}

Unity in Christ:

For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily … (Colossians 2:9).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Evangelization, Faith, God, Incarnation, Jesus, Mary, Saints | 1 Comment »

Mary Remained a Perpetual Virgin

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Father Joe

ANTI-CATHOLIC ASSERTION

The critic argues that Mary and Joseph had children, the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

“‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Then where did he get all this?’” (Matthew 13:55-56).

“‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joses, Jude, and Simon? And are not also his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him” (Mark 6:3).

CATHOLIC TRUTH

Mathew’s quoted text itself intimates that the people speaking do not know what they are talking about. They cannot fathom where Jesus has received his special authority and wisdom; indeed, by designating him as “the carpenter’s son,” they are even in the dark about his virgin birth as the incarnate Son of God. If they can be wrong about St. Joseph being the biological father of Jesus, then a cursory reading of these Scriptures may lead us into a similar error regarding Mary and the other family members. Note that they are listed as kin to Christ, cousins perhaps? Nothing more can be certainly determined from the Oriental custom of calling all such, “brothers and sisters.” Not once is Mary called “their” mother. Actually, the phrasing is quite careful to separate Mary, as the mother of Jesus, from these other brethren. Another point of interest is that Jesus on the Cross entrusts Mary to his apostle John, rather than to these kin. If they were actually half brothers and sisters, such would have been understood as a great insult to the family. It just was not done. Another point of correction is the presence of Mary as the beloved matriarch of the early Church. She was protected and cherished by the believing community. This same family of faith, who knew Mary so intimately, would transmit as part of our living sacred tradition the truth that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Also, such virginity was befitting the dignity of Jesus Christ as the unique God-Man and Savior. Looking at the Scriptural citations, there are certain practical problems to the use of these bible passages in the anti-Catholic’s arsenal. Look at the names of the brethren here; Mark 15:40 informs us that James the younger and Joses (Joseph) were the sons of another Mary who was related to the Virgin Mary. As for the others, they may have been cousins, or if a second century work entitled The Protevangelium of James is to be trusted, the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. The image of a widower would collaborate the tradition that Joseph was much older than Mary. Such a view was also supported by other ancient authorities: Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius. St. Jerome, knowledgeable in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, argued that they were cousins. He asserted that Mary (a sister to the Virgin Mary?), the wife of Clopas (also known as Alphaeus), was the actual mother of the brothers and sisters of Christ.

Two of the brethren of Christ are listed as children of another Mary:

And some women were also there, looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome. They used to accompany him and minister to him when he was in Galilee — besides many other women who had come with him to Jerusalem (Mark 15:40-41).

Semitic usage of brother and sister applied also to nephews, nieces, cousins, and others:

He recovered all the possessions, besides bringing back his kinsman [BROTHER] Lot and his possessions, along with the women and the other captives (Genesis 14:16).

Laban said to him: “Should you serve me for nothing just because you are a relative [BROTHER] of mine?” (Genesis 29:15).

Then Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Aaron’s uncle Uzziel, with the order, “Come, remove your kinsmen [BROTHERS] from the sanctuary and carry them to a place outside the camp” (Leviticus 10:4).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Evangelization, Faith, Incarnation, Mary, Saints, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Mary & Tradition: Offensive to God?

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Father Joe

Recently, I was shockingly dismayed by the citation of Jeremiah 7:18-20 against the Catholic practice of honoring the Virgin Mary. The passage reads:

The children gather wood, their fathers light the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes for the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, while libations are poured out to strange gods in order to hurt me. Is it I whom they hurt, says the Lord; it is not rather themselves, to their own confusion? See now, says the Lord God, my anger and my wrath will pour out upon this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruits of the earth; it will burn without being quenched.

Because of a similarity in the title, “Queen of Heaven,” this quotation was used against the Mother of Jesus. Talk about silly! The anti-Catholic bigot often mixes his apples and oranges in trying to discredit Catholic teachings and practices. The citation has nothing whatsoever to do with Mary. There is no violation of the worship which is due to God alone. The text in question has to do with Ishtar, the Assyro-Babylonian goddess of fertility. This pagan worship was initiated under Manasseh and was restored after the death of Josiah. Pagan worship, then as now, is considered an abomination by Jews and Christians alike, including the first Christians, Catholics. Such a citation has no other objective than to play on the ignorance of others. Indeed, it violates the commandment regarding the bearing of false witness against another.

Why do we call Mary the Queen of the Saints? The answer is simple. Jesus came to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom. His ministry, his parables, indeed, his very own person, is the breaking of the kingdom into our world. Jesus is hailed as Messiah upon his entry into Jerusalem and marked as King upon his Cross at Calvary. If Jesus is our king, then what is Mary? Obviously, she is the Queen-Mother. The rejection of this title for her is a repudiation of the royal lordship of Christ himself! This knocks down another straw man argument, that the Mary of Catholic faith and piety is not the Mary of the Bible. The anti-Catholic apologist goes so far as to insert the Virgin Mary into any Scripture text or historical chronicle regarding a pagan goddess, as in the quoted passage. This distortion of God’s Holy Word has only one objective, and that is to deceive. Irrational prejudice and the lack of any authentic argumentation propel such a polemic.

Anti-Catholics also suffer from an intensely privatized faith. They cannot stand the fact that alongside our worship of God and trust in our one Mediator, Jesus Christ, that we also address ourselves to our beloved family members who have gone ahead of us into the next life. Mary and the saints are still members of the Church, and having made it to the promised shore, we remember them and they pray for our ultimate salvation. However, tell this to an anti-Catholic bigot, and he will explode— you’re only suppose to pray to Jesus! He forgets that Jesus founded a Church, not simply a multitude of unrelated and separate personal relationships. Such people claim that there is no evidence for talking with others beyond this world. And yet, in the Transfiguration itself, Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus and he apparently enters into dialogue with them. Peter wants to set up three booths, so that this moment can be preserved and that they too might commune with the great prophet and deliverer. But, the image disappears. The transformation of Christ hints at his resurrection, the time when the righteous will be given a share in his life and when the Spirit of God will give birth to the Church. Our unity with the saints is in Christ. Attention paid to members in the Mystical Body of Christ is not detraction from the Lord.

One critic listed 1 Timothy 2:5 as a repudiation of the Catholic practice of calling upon Mary and the saints. It reads as follows:

For there is one God. There is also ONE MEDIATOR between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all.

This says absolutely nothing about the Catholic prayer practice. We also believe that Christ is the one Mediator between ourselves and God. He makes possible our prayer being received by the Father. His is the acceptable sacrifice. He is the ransom that buys us back from the devil and opens up the gates of heaven. All this is Catholic doctrine; however, you would not know it from reading those who oppose us. This citation, almost creedal in composition, comes within a contention that “supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings,” particularly those in a liturgical context, are to be offered for all, even for the pagan. Throughout the centuries, the Church has continued to remember in prayer the non-believer and to invite him into her ranks. The presence of Jesus can be found in the Church, making her a singular vehicle for salvation.

An anti-Catholic critic also quoted Mark 7:9 and Mark 7:13 against the role of tradition as understood in the Church. However, since the Catholic Church precedes and was party to the composition of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, the continuing role of living tradition makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church assembled the books of the Bible and established by her God-given authority the Scriptural canon. Except for a few subtractions, the Protestant churches retained this canon. We even have a letter from a bishop of Rome (the Pope) written before the last of the New Testament had been composed! The citations from Mark say nothing against the living tradition of the Catholic Christian community following Christ:

And he said to them, “Well do you NULLIFY the commandment of God, that you may KEEP your own tradition!”

“You make void the commandment of God by your tradition, which you have handed down; and many such like things you do.”

These words do not convey our Lord’s full view regarding tradition. First of all, he was speaking about his own Hebrew tradition, particularly the heavy yoke of many laws placed upon the shoulders of everyday people. This sort of tradition protected the status-quo: the Pharisee could fulfill the various rubrics, with a few well-chosen exemptions, but the poor hard-working people would find it difficult to impossible. The Lord came to proclaim liberation; obviously such bondage would run against the grain of this message. However, the Lord also followed certain other traditions, and obviously the commandments, as a good Jew. The same could be said for his family who followed the ritual in regards to sacrifice and his Presentation at the temple. Prior to the verses mentioned here, we read: “For, letting go the commandment of God, you hold fast the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups; and many other things you do like these.” The Lord’s concern here is very specific, and does not speak to the living tradition of making manifest the Gospel in our daily lives. The verses following have Jesus challenging the Jewish dietary regulations. He is concerned that people put so much emphasis on external observance that they fail to nurture any genuine faith and love of God in their hearts— a love which spills over in our treatment of one another. All this is lost on the one who hates the Church and her practices; hatred by definition makes the truth of the Gospel obscure.

The new universal catechism represents no retreat from the orthodox positions of the Catholic Church; indeed it is an amplification and succinct summary of the ancient faith given us by God. While it was hoped that this wonderful work would break new ground among the Church’s enemies, they distort and manipulate it just as they do the Bible. This is most sad. One critic dismissed the whole catechism by quoting Acts 4:12:

[Speaking of Jesus] “There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”

He contended that the matter could not be made any clearer. Again, remember, he was dismissing the importance of the Church and the Virgin Mary. A sure sign that his categorization is “all wet” is the fact that the universal catechism cites the verse from Acts three times: CCC #432, #452, #1507. It sure does not seem that the Church is avoiding it to me.

[CCC 432] The name “Jesus” signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

What in this statement does the fundamentalist find disagreeable? That Jesus is God? That his alone is the saving name? What?

How about this other reference in the universal catechism?

[CCC 452] The name Jesus means “God saves.” The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt. 1:21): “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Oops! Perhaps here is the trouble? The catechism mentions the Virgin Mary as his Mother! Sometimes anti-Catholic bigots talk as if they are embarrassed that Jesus had a mother. Any good mother can tell us, that motherhood does not end with birthing a child. A true mother’s heart always beats in harmony with that of her child— the joys and sorrows of his life are also her own. Such is the measure of maternal love. Jesus is and always will be, the Son of Mary, and she will always be, the Mother of our Savior.

To this day, the efficacy of the sacraments and the ministry of the Church, hinges upon the powerful and saving name of Jesus. Those who hate and oppose the teachings and work of the Church will discover themselves in opposition to Jesus, himself.

[CCC 1507] The risen Lord renews this mission [“In my name … they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mk. 16:17-18)] and confirms it through the signs that the Church performs by invoking his name. These signs demonstrate in a special way that Jesus is truly “God who saves.”

Jesus continues his work among us. This is most important. Some treat the mystery of Christ as if he is dead and gone. The name of Jesus still commands authority and power. All the mysteries of the Church, the role of Mary and the saints— everything— is founded on the Lord. We celebrate the Immaculate Conception, as an honor given Mary so that the Savior might enter the world through a sinless vessel.

We remember Mary as a special intercessor, just as at Cana, because we know that she is of one heart and mind with her Son. We love her just as Jesus loved her. She is acclaimed as the Mother of God, a title which protects the truth of her Son’s divinity. She is the Mother of the whole reality of her child. Would critics separate Jesus into two sons or deny his divinity? I hope not. She suffered at the Cross. What, not in the Bible? Come, let us be reasonable. What loving mother could see her innocent child betrayed, scourged, and crucified— and not be moved? To the very depths of her being she was devastated; she is indeed the Sorrowful Mother. We turn to her, not because she is more compassionate than God, but because she is a wonderful window to the Divine Mercy which is Christ. What, our family does not make possible our salvation? Well, maybe not a family of mere flesh and blood; but we are members of a spiritual family, looking to God as our Father, Jesus as our elder brother, and Mary as the new mother of many sons and daughters. This family relationship, the Church, grafts us to Christ himself and grants us the sure and certain hope of our salvation.

We would ask that those imprisoned in a religion of bigotry and deceits to come out into the light and to join the faith community established by Jesus himself, the Catholic Church:

“Therefore, come forth from them and be separate,” says the Lord, “and touch nothing unclean; then I will receive you and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:17-18)

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Bible, Catholic, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, God, Incarnation, Jesus, Mary, Saints, Salvation, Tradition | 1 Comment »

Did Jesus Renounce His Mother?

Posted on March 27, 2011 by Father Joe

Anti-Catholics often misunderstand or narrowly interpret passages so as to ridicule Catholic teachings. They are quite fond of doing this in regard to the Virgin Mary. A favorite such passage is Matthew 12:46-50:

While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brethren were standing outside, seeking to speak to him. And someone said to him, “Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing outside, seeking thee.” But he answered and said to him who told him, “Who is my mother and who are my brethren?” And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

The anti-Catholic proponent will make many claims which run against the traditional understanding of this incident and which find little if any support from the text itself. He will suggest that these “brethren” are children of Mary, even though she is never called their mother and extended families of that time would usually include many cousins given the honor of being called a brother. Indeed, the linguistic limitations of these people would require such a designation. The critic will also contend that Mary and the family are aggravating Jesus by their attempted interruption. Instead, it seems that Jesus uses their appearance as a special opportunity to speak about a spiritual kinship which is superior to that of blood. Further, the religious bigot will suggest that Jesus is discounting the intercessory role and honor due to Mary. They will say that Jesus stretches forth his hand toward his disciples and not toward Mary, as if this supports their claim. What they fail to appreciate is the very real possibility that Mary and the brethren are counted among his many followers and/or disciples. Note that the crowd recognizes Mary and the brethren. They are familiar faces. Why have they come? They accompany Mary, who like any good mother is concerned about her Son. From Bethlehem to Calvary, she will not abandon him. Things are heating up. Not everyone is happy with Jesus. He has chastised his listeners as “an evil and adulterous generation” and the Pharisees for “blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.” They will almost certainly seek to retaliate. She does not come to silence him, but to be in solidarity with him.

Those who hate the Mother of Jesus will deny that Jesus is praising her. They refuse to understand that Mary was the first disciple of her Son. As the handmaid of the Lord, she affirmed the message of an angel and received the Savior into her womb. She is the precursor of all the disciples in hearing and doing God’s will. Oddly enough, there is another passage which proves this point and yet it is also used by certain fundamentalists to belittle Mary, Luke 11: 27-28:

Now it came to pass as he was saying these things, that a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that nursed thee.” But he said, “Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Jesus does not mean to be demeaning of Mary’s maternity. Indeed, he is again elevating her status as the one in whom the Word has come to true fruition. It is in this regard that she is a model to others. If we receive the Good News, then we too can give birth to Jesus in each and every generation. Others will see him and know that he is really alive and meaningful through our discipleship. Also, note that as the fruit of Mary’s womb, the ultimate honor that the woman is giving is directed toward Jesus. The humility of Christ will not allow himself any idle and empty admiration. During his mortal life, he will be lifted up, not by flattery, but by our sins— and then upon a cross. He redirects their focus to his true meaning and reality, the living Word of God. He calls the crowd to receptivity and obedience.

Such questions as the relevance and role of Mary are often deliberately distorted in anti-Catholic bible study. Stock answers are prepared to beguile gullible Catholics and ignorant Protestants. Despite the widespread re-emphasis upon the Scriptures under Catholic auspices today, they will assert that such endeavors are neither serious nor encouraged. This is one of their many deceits. Lacking any definite teaching authority, they reduce the meaning of bible passages to that of personal interpretation, contend that it should be obvious to all, and then bitterly fight with their fellow fundamentalists who, with the same sincerity, disagree with them on certain texts and doctrines— so much for crystal clarity.

When rumors were flying that the Holy Father might declare Mary the co-redemptrix, anti-Catholic opponents became particularly virulent. (By the way, it was revealed that the rumors had no foundation.) However, the truth of such a teaching, even without a formal definition, is improperly defined by critics. The foes of truth contend that this title would make her an additional author of salvation. This is not the Catholic position. Rather, Mary’s role is subservient to that of her Son. Because of her unique position as the one first touched by the redemptive power of Christ’s Cross, her sinless maternity resonates with the saving work of her Son. She offered herself to God as the vessel of our salvation. She surrenders her Son at Calvary. His pain is her pain. She was intimately united to her Son in faith, hope, and love. One could even contend that she died a kind of vicarious martyrdom at the crucifixion. The knife long prophesied, pierced her heart. Her participation in the saving work of her Son was quite unique. Further, she continues to perform a role as our Spiritual Mother, given to us through our emissary John at the Cross. The Mother of the redeemer became the Mother of the redeemed. While on a different level, we are also called to participate in extending the message and work of Christ.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Church, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Family, Incarnation, Jesus, Mary, Redemption, Saints, Salvation | Leave a comment »