We’re just outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, near the US Olympic Center Whitewater training center and only about 15-20 minutes from the international airport. We’re a Catholic, Benedictine college founded in 1876 with a campus registered in the National Register of Historic Places.
We will hold a variety of sessions, ranging from long weekends to one and two-week training sessions during the summers for rising high school seniors and college-age students. We will hold most of them at Belmont Abbey College, which is very convenient to reach by air or car, but we are already being asked to hold our sessions in other locations across the country and will likely hold some shorter seminars and conferences nationwide.
No. The Envoy Institute of Belmont Abbey College aims to help all young adults. All you have to do is logon, subscribe, or attend one of our seminars or training sessions.
No. The Envoy Institute will draw from the Catholic intellectual tradition of faith and reason to provide you reasoned, cogent explanations for the positions taught by the Catholic Church to respond to the challenges every young adult faces in the modern world. You may be surprised how reasonable and understandable and helpful these explanations may be to you.
We are planning for our first one and two-week training sessions during the summer of 2008.
You can subscribe to receive pdf downloads. Less expensive than international postage and much faster.
Envoy Premier
Q. How can I trust the claims of the Catholic Church without knowing all her theology and without being able to justify some of the dark chapters in her history? How can I have an assurance that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church when there are so many facts and details I cannot know?
A. The question you ask has deep roots in a wider cultural problem that must be overcome. Many modern theologians, such as Karl Rahner, assert that no one can really master theology any more because the information to be digested is too great for one person, and that the Church can no longer make universal creeds or catechisms because of the complexity and diversity of both the world and academic disciplines. This assertion, however, is not true.
Since the time of the Protestant Reformation, many in the West have been afflicted by what the Holy Father calls "philosophies of suspicion." This means that the first question many people ask is not "What is this?" or "Is it true?" but, rather, "How can I know for sure?" Protestantism was born out of this attitude, a modernist and unbiblical approach to divinely revealed Truth. The whole thrust of Protestantism is to establish an unassailable personal authority to determine truth and to give the individual an absolute assurance of his salvation.
We've all heard the standard Evangelical Protestant questions: "Have you been saved?" and "If you died tonight, do you know if you would go to heaven?"
The problem is, these are the wrong questions to be asking. They are certainly not the questions Jesus and St. Paul and the other Apostles asked their hearers. The more crucial question is: "How do you know that what you believe is true?"
The normal, serene approach appropriate for human nature is to assume that knowledge, and knowledge of the truth, will lead to happiness and salvation. If one examines the Sacred Scriptures, those who have faith accept God's word in simplicity because they are used to accepting what is presented in a reasonable and authoritative way. They ask questions: "How can this be since I know not man?" "Can a man return to his mother's womb?" "Then who can be saved?" They ask such questions because they are reasonable and want explanations, not because they are driven by anxiety about their salvation. The biblical man knows that the truth will make him free and will lead him to salvation, so he seeks truth first trusting that happiness and salvation will follow: "Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life," said St. Peter just after our Lord pronounced the most unprovable and mysterious words he ever uttered, in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, words which Protestants cannot accept on their clear meaning. St. Peter professed the truth in the hope of salvation. He did not say first, "I am a sinner in need of a savior," but "Depart from me, I am a sinful man." First came the objective fact, the holiness of God and His truth, and only then the gift of salvation. Protestantism "poisons the well" by beginning with a doubt as to whether man can know any truth at all, and then resolving it with a "leap of faith" which cannot and must not be explained rationally. Catholicism assumes man's orientation toward the truth as part of his nature and presumes that the evidence, the testimony of the prophets and saints, their miracles and teachings, is sufficient to justify accepting the gift of faith which is offered to all by "the light which enlighteneth every man coming into the world." For those who need proof of the Christian faith by miracles, or insist on proof without miracles, St. Thomas Aquinas has this masterful, serene, and very Catholic advice:
"It is a well-known fact, related in pagan histories, that the whole world worshipped idols and persecuted the faith of Christ; yet now behold . . . the wise, the noble, the rich and the powerful have been converted at the words of a few simple poor men who preached Christ. Now was this a miracle or was it not? If it was, then you have what you asked for, a miracle. If you say that it was not a miracle, then I say you could not have a greater miracle than the conversion of the whole world without miracles, and we need to seek no further."
This miracle happens every day, all over the world. Ultimately, that is all any of us needs to know about the Catholic Church.
Envoy 1.1
Q. I noticed a statue of Mary stepping on a snake. I asked the owner of the store to explain what this meant. She said that in Genesis 3:15 the Lord said that Mary would someday crush the serpent's head, the serpent being the devil. I checked this in my Bible (a Catholic version that I bought at the same shop). But Genesis 3:15 doesn't say that. It says that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. I understand this to be Jesus Christ, not Mary. So, how can that statue of Mary with the serpent be justified?
A. In the Book of Genesis 3:15 God speaks to the serpent after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; He shall crush your head and you shall lie in wait for his heel." This is a correct translation of the original Hebrew text and the traditional text of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. But two ancient translations, the Latin Vulgate (revised by St. Jerome) and the ancient Coptic version (Coptic is the Egyptian language used prior to the Arab Muslim invasions), read, "She shall crush your head." But current editions of the Bible in modern languages, translations from the original languages, all follow the translation "He shall crush."
Now, in order to understand why Our Lady is depicted crushing the serpent, you need to know that the whole of Christian tradition in any language of East or West interprets that passage as a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah or Savior, Jesus Christ, the "seed of the woman." He is the Second or New Adam, and His Mother Mary, because she was completely free from sin, both original and actual, is the new Eve, the only woman who has a perfect enmity with the devil. This passage, sometimes referred to as the Protoevangelium (Greek = "first Gospel") is the first announcement of the Good News of Salvation after the Bad News of Sin and Death. Many popes, including the Pope John Paul II, have repeatedly interpreted this passage in a prophetic sense, referring to Christ and Mary. Take a look, for example, at Pope John Paul II's Marian encyclical Redemptoris Mater. The Catechism's teaching on this passage is found in paragraphs 70, 410, and 411.
Some Scripture scholars deny that this passage refers to Jesus or Mary. They see the literal sense of this verse only as a popular folk tale, written as a way to explain why humans are afraid of snakes! (That's a slippery interpretation if there ever was one.)
Naturally in the Latin tradition, because of the translation "she shall crush," the passage has had a more vivid Marian meaning. That's where the tradition of depicting Mary crushing the head of the serpent arose. But it's a very apt and theologically precise image, nonetheless, since it's a perfect image of her Immaculate Conception, her lifelong immunity from sin, won for her by Christ's saving passion and death on the cross (cf. Luke 1:47). This is one reason why the new liturgy of the Roman Rite, promulgated at Vatican II, retains the reading "she will crush your head." It is part of the antiphon (a short thematic verse) used for Mass on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. It's part of the Church's tradition, a witness to the Blessed Virgin Mary's special role in her Divine Son's plan of salvation.
Envoy 1.2
Q - I had a discussion with an Evangelical friend on the virginity of Our Blessed Mother. I pointed out that Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli taught the historic Christian doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. He didn't care and said that our salvation doesn't depend on belief about Mary's virginity. All we have to do, he said, is believe that Jesus is our personal Lord and Savior and we will be saved. He also said Catholicism isn't "true" Christianity. What should I tell him?
A. The Reformers indeed taught the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, but that usually doesn't impress modern-day Protestants like your friend. Protestants agree with the Catholic Church's teaching that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. But faith in Christ includes faith in and assent to what He taught His commandments and doctrines. Your friend's minimalist attitude toward what is necessary to salvation risks turning Christianity into a mechanical ideology: "Say the sinner's prayer' and you're in, nothing else matters. Just don't become a Catholic."
Point out that if there are no conditions for salvation other than faith in Christ as one's Savior, then not being a Catholic cannot be a condition for salvation. If he says you can't be a Catholic and be saved, then he's added a condition and is being inconsistent. This may help him see that there's more to salvation than mere faith in Christ. Jesus reminded us that faith alone isn't sufficient: "Why do you say to me, Lord, Lord,' but do not do the things I command?" (Luke 6:46-47; cf. Matt, 7:21-23). This includes believing in all that He and the Apostles taught. And that includes the truth of Mary's perpetual virginity. You see, all of revelation is connected. One cannot say, for example, I'm willing to accept this doctrine but I won't accept that one. That's completely contrary to Christ's will. Your friend's point of view is common among Protestants, who have a tendency to reduce "faith in Christ" to simply the belief that He is our Savior. But let's remember what "Savior" means. It means that Christ is saving us from something, He is saving us for something, His salvation comes to us in a certain way and under certain conditions (eg. believe, repent, be baptized, etc.). This also tells us who He is: God Himself. You see what a wealth of doctrinal implications are contained in the word "savior": sin, death, and hell, the commandments, grace, heaven, sacrifice, merit, sacraments, the Church, the Trinity, the Incarnation, His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming. For those who know and love Christ, there is nothing about Him, His life, His friends, His teachings that is not of interest or help to them.
Christ came to "bear witness to the truth" (John 18:37) and to reveal many supernatural mysteries about God and the kingdom of God which we could never have known by the power of unaided human reason. Believing the truths about Christ contained in Sacred Scripture are part of having faith in Him. We can't separate faith in the person of Christ from faith in His life and message, in the prophets who preceded Him, and the Apostles and their successors who followed after Him. These Apostles the early Church magisterium proclaimed the truth with the teaching authority Christ gave them: "He who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16; cf. Matt. 16:18, 18:18).
And remember what Christ command the magisterium of His Church to do: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). Christ wants Christians to assent to and profess all the doctrines contained in the Deposit of Faith, including the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. He reminds us that, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in Heaven" (Matt. 7:21).
Envoy 1.3
Q. I was recently given a "brown scapular" by a friend who has a great devotion to Mary. One of the ends has a picture of Mary with the Child Jesus, the other has the words printed: "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire." How can wearing a piece of brown wool guarantee salvation? I could just imagine how a Protestant would react if he saw it. He would think it's Catholic doctrine.
A. First, lets consider the background. The scapular worn by the faithful is an abbreviated version of part of the habit worn in most of the ancient religious orders, a strip of cloth which goes over the shoulders (scapular from the Latin scapulae for shoulders) and hangs down in front and in back below the knees over the tunic of the habit. Lay people associated themselves with the religious, sharing in their prayers and good works, and receiving from them spiritual direction in a so called "third order." They also wore a shortened version of the habit over or under their secular clothing. According to the tradition of some orders, there was direction from heaven about their rule and habit, usually accompanied by a divine promise for those who were faithful in the following of the holy way of life symbolized by the habit. The first example of this is the apparition of an "angel of the Lord" to St. Pachomius the Great of Egypt, who was the first to establish communal monastic life in the Church on the model of the community of Jerusalem, as described in the Book of Acts. The angel appeared with the written rule of life and dressed in the religious habit. He said, "O Pachomius, all flesh can be saved by wearing this habit." St. Pachomius lived in the fourth century after Christ.
In the twelfth century, St. Norbert, founder of the Canons Regular of Premontre, called "Norbertines," is traditionally said to have received the white habit of his order from the hands of the Blessed Mother, and the holy rule from the hands of St. Augustine, who promised that those who followed it would stand "without fear before Christ on the terrible day of judgment." In the thirteenth century Our Lady appeared to St. Simon Stock, the master general of the Carmelites, giving him the brown scapular, and promising salvation to all Carmelites faithful in their love and obedience to Christ and in their devotion to her.
Two points can be drawn from all this. First, given the frequency of these apparitions, they should not be rashly rejected as mere pious legend, but taken seriously, as indications of the favor God shows to those who follow or esteem the spirit of religious life. Second, the "guarantee" of salvation is a promise of the graces necessary for salvation to those who undertake to follow the way of life symbolized by the habit or rule. This way of life is none other than the radical living out of Christ's call in the Gospel that we seek His Kingdom above all else, as members of religious orders have vowed to do. The blessed sacramentals of the Church, like the scapulars, are means of grace which help us and remind us in our practice of the Christian life. We can reason in this way: if someone wears the brown scapular, Our Lady is surely going to make use of it to move him or her to live a faithful, Catholic life, and so be saved.
Envoy 1.4
Q Recently, I was in a Catholic bookstore
that sells devotional articles. There were two friends
with me, one a Catholic, and the other a Protestant.
A woman in front of us in line was buying a statue
of the Infant Jesus of Prague. Both my friends commented
after we left the store about how they found devotion
to the Child Jesus, especially in that form, kind
of hard to take seriously. My Protestant friend's
opinion didn't surprise me, but my Catholic friend's
agreement with him did. How can we explain devotion
to the Holy Child to those who say we should only
worship an adult, risen Christ?
A If Christ had willed only
to be worshipped as He is now in heaven, as a "risen
adult," as they say, then He would not have
appeared on earth as a Child, or at least, His
childhood would not have been included in the
message of salvation contained in the Holy Gospels.
As it is, however, Christ inspired the evangelists by His Holy Spirit to tell the story of His virginal conception and birth at Bethlehem. The Letter to the Hebrews presents the sentiments of Christ the God-Man "upon entering the world" at the moment of His incarnation, when He was the merest of children in the womb of His Blessed Mother. Our Lord was the Savior of the world at every moment of His earthly life, and because of the special gifts of knowledge and wisdom given to His Sacred Humanity, He merited our salvation continually, from His conception until He breathed forth His Spirit on the Cross. As the great Benedictine spiritual writer Abbot Marmion has said, "The mysteries of Christ are our mysteries." The events of His life are all sources of grace and enlightenment for the Christian soul. Thus it is that the Holy Spirit has inspired the Church to celebrate each year all of the mysteries of the life of Christ, because each one has its own special grace for our souls, and its own special glory given to the Father.
The greatest of saints and mystics have found deep spiritual wisdom in devotion to the Holy Infancy of Jesus. This devotion goes back to the earliest days of the Church. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, which originated partly in the third century, contains an account of the miraculous appearance of the Holy Child at the celebration of the Eucharist. St. Alexander of Alexandria, the predecessor of St. Athanasius, had a vision of the Child Jesus persecuted by the Arians. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Cajetan, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Anthony Mary Claret, and most recently, Blessed Faustina, all had a tender devotion to, and even experienced visions of, the Holy Child. This devotion is not only for the sentimental or the effeminate, it is for all the faithful, following the example of the great saints and mystics of the Church. In fact, it is really the devotion of God Himself, Who "has hidden these things from the wise and clever and revealed them to the merest children." Think of the amazing revelation of wisdom contained in the Heart of the Child Jesus! A very fine book has recently been published by Ignatius Press on this very topic, called Redeemer in the Womb, by Thomas Saward.
Devotion to the Infant Jesus can renew in our hearts a deep appreciation for the mystery of God made Man, and of His love for the little and the poor. Perhaps taking up devotion to the Child Jesus would be a fitting way to follow the Holy Father's call to meditation of the mystery of Jesus based on a sound theology, as a preparation for the Holy Year of A.D. 2000, the end of two millennia since the birth of the Holy Child.
Envoy 1.5
Q I have a Fundamentalist friend who insists our Lord was not divine until after His resurrection. I've tried to convince him that isn't sound doctrine, but he resists my reasoning. What can I tell him?
A In fairness to Fundamentalists,
I don't think your friend's opinion is very common
among them. In fact, I'm sure that most Fundamentalists
would condemn his doctrine as unbiblical. The Gospels
are so clear in showing that our Lord was God and
was aware of His divinity and its powers throughout
His earthly life before His resurrection.
Let's look at St. Luke's Gospel. As a child, He says
to Mary and Joseph, "Did you not know that
I must be about my Father's business?" (Luke
2:49). The Father's voice gives testimony, "Thou
art my beloved Son, with thee I am well pleased" (Luke
3:22). In Luke 5, our Lord claims the personal power
to forgive sin, a power proper to God alone, and
He proves His power by a miracle. In Luke 22, it
is clear that our Lord is condemned by the Sanhedrin
for claiming to be God's Son.
The Gospel according to St. John is even clearer
on this point, indicating a full awareness on Christ's
part of His divinity and His relation to the Father
in the unity of the Blessed Trinity.
The Epistle to the Hebrews in the tenth chapter indicates the awareness of Christ of His mission and divinity from the first moment of His incarnation in the womb of the Blessed Mother.
The distinction between the pre- and post-resurrection Christ is more commonly a modernist, rather than a Fundamentalist, conception. It is a theological opinion imposed on the Sacred Scriptures which is used to minimize or mitigate those aspects of the mystery of Christ which are hard for minds formed in the categories and techniques of modern philosophy to accept. Thus Christ's awareness of His divinity is put off until after the resurrection when He pertains to another order of existence and experience, since the modern mind does not accept that this world can offer any certain knowledge, even merely natural and human, of spiritual, immaterial, metaphysical things, much less of divine ones.
The "hard sayings" about hell and judgement are said to be statements of the pre-resurrection Christ, and the firm assertion of His divinity in the high-priestly prayer in John's Gospel before His passion is said to be a theological reflection made afterwards in the light of the resurrection. These theories are so commonplace now, that to some even officially "orthodox" scholars, it seems downright rash to question them.
Given, however, that the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously see
the divinity, human lineage and mission of the Savior
predicted and even known explicitly by some in the
Old Testament, it does not seem rash at all to hold
that the historical Jesus of Nazareth described in
the Gospels had the same knowledge in the New Testament.
Modern biblical scholarship can be of great benefit,
but one must distinguish between scientific conclusions,
and ideas motivated by the intellectual fashions
of a particular age.
Envoy 2.1
Q What does it mean in Acts 2:38 when St. Peter tells the Jews to be "baptized in the name of Jesus?" Would a person really be baptized if the words used were, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus"?
A In the Semitic language and culture
shared by Jews and Arabs alike, the name is the person
indicated. "Baptism in the name of Jesus," then,
does not necessarily indicate the form of the sacrament
of baptism, but rather that Christian baptism is
to be distinguished from the baptism of John the
Baptist or of Jewish converts. The form given by
Our Lord in Matthew 28:19 commanding baptism "in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit" is even implied in the context
you mention, since all three Divine Persons are referred
to in Acts 2:38-39.
Some doctors of the Church have held that the Holy
Name of Jesus was used for a time as the form of
baptism. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in his Summa
Theologiae that perhaps such a form may have been
used by the Apostles "by a special revelation
of Christ" as an exception to the sacrament
as instituted by Christ, in order to render the name
of Jesus honorable among the Jews and Gentiles for
whom it was a reproach and embarrassment, but he
adds that in any case, it is no longer to be permitted
or reckoned as effective.
St. Basil the Great, in his great treatise On the
Holy Spirit, teaches that by such a form, the Apostles
taught the equality of Jesus with the Father and
the Holy Spirit, since it was regarded as the equivalent
of the form which explicitly names each divine Person.
The point to be understood is that only a divine
Authority could permit such a usage, so that not
even the highest authority of the Church could authorize
such a thing after the time of the Apostles.
Converts today who come from sects which use only
the name of Christ as the form of baptism must accordingly
be rebaptized absolutely. The only variation in the
form of baptism recognized by the Church today is
the difference between the Latin and Byzantine use
of the active or passive voice. The Latin Rite minister
of baptism says, "John, I baptize you . . ." The
Byzantine Rite minister of baptism says, "The
servant of God, John, is baptized . . ."
Envoy 2.4
Q Why do Catholics not list the commandment not to make or adore graven images as one of the 10 commandments? A Protestant friend of mine says it is because Catholics venerate images, and so they leave this commandment out. I am confused, because it does seem to me that our use of images is forbidden by this commandment.
A The Catholic listing of the 10 commandments in fact includes the Protestant second commandment in the first, just as the Protestant listing combines our ninth and tenth commandments. If you examine the full text of the first commandment given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2083, you will see that the commandment regarding the worship of idols is there.
Logically, there is just one commandment enjoining us to worship God alone, and to reject the worship of false Gods. The making of the commandment about idols into a separate commandment was a Protestant innovation to oppose the use of sacred images, which had been vindicated by the Second Council of Nicea in A.D. 787.
Even so, Luther, in his catechism, did not use the now common Protestant division, but the ancient one used by the Fathers of the Church. In fact, if Protestants were to apply this commandment rigorously as meaning an absolute prohibition of images, then the practices of most of their churches would be as unacceptable to them as those of the Catholic Church. Many Protestant churches have crosses, stained-glass windows and nativity scenes, and in Lutheran churches in Europe, the crucifix is as common as in Catholic churches. The Second Council of Nicea taught, "The honor of the image passes to the original, and he who shows reverence to the image, shows reverence to the substance of Him depicted in it."
Even in the Old Testament, in the same book of Exodus that gives us the 10 commandments, we read that God ordered beaten gold images of two cherubim be made to adorn the sides of the ark of the covenant (cf. Exodus 25). In Numbers 21, God ordered Moses to make a bronze serpent and fix it as a sign, so that all who looked at it would be healed from the serpents' bites. Our Lord taught that this image was a representation of Himself on the Cross, a prophecy of the true Crucified One to foreshadow the spiritual healing brought by Christ, Who overcame the ancient serpent. Our Lord said, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life" (John 3:14-15). In Acts 5, we read that the sick were carried out into the street so that they might be healed by even the shadow of St. Peter, surely the most basic of "images"!
The problem with idols is not that they are images, but that they are images of gods who do not exist; there are no actual beings to whom the reverence offered them can be referred. They are false gods. They are only statues, nothing more. The Psalmist tells us in Psalm 115 (Psalm 113 in older Catholic bibles), "Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes but do not see." An image of Christ the Lord, though, is an image of the true God; He really does exist, so the reverence shown His image is really directed to Him. An image of the Blessed Mother is an image of one who really is in heaven and who really does pray for us, one of whom it was truly said, "All generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48).
So go ahead. Look at, venerate, kneel before sacred images. Kiss the crucifix in your room at home, or on your rosary beads. Touch your statue of Our Lady with devotion. You are honoring holy beings who really exist. If giving your wife or mother a kiss isn't idolatry, then kissing her picture after she has left this world isn't, either. The same goes for Our Lord and the saints. After all, we love and honor them don't we? Let's not allow a kind of religious prudery to keep us from showing our affection and honor to those whom God has honored far more than we ever could. The Second Council of Nicea states, "For the more frequently they are seen through the forms of images, so the much more quickly are those who contemplate them raised to the memory and desire of the originals, to kiss and render honorable veneration to them . . . let an oblation of incense and lights be made to them as was the pious custom of the ancients."
It's great to be Catholic, to be free to make use of all the possibilities of our human nature, physical and spiritual, in expressing our faith, hope and love. By taking on visible human flesh, Our Savior freed us from the bondage of the law and made us able to say in our own degree with the Beloved Disciple, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched . . . we proclaim" (1 John 1:1-3).
Envoy 2.6
Q My friend told me that when the early Christians talked about the "catholic" Church, they were referring to the universal Church made up of all Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church. Is this true?
A Thanks for the question, pondering it actually made me refine my thinking on this matter. My first instinct was to respond that they were referring to both, because there was no distinction. But actually the earliest uses of the term, embracing the beginning and the end of the second century, reveal that the truth is closer to the opposite of what your friend supposes.
The first recorded use of the word "catholic" or "universal," as applied to the Church, is in the writings of the great St. Ignatius (d. A.D. 118). Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, where the disciples of the Lord were first called "Christians": their leader, their great example of passionate love for Christ, one of the great martyrs. He may be the prime specimen of the animal known as "early Christian." Isn't it interesting that the bishop of the first followers of Christ to be called "Christians" is the first to call them "catholic"? In his letter to the Christians of Smyrna (8:1-2) he wrote: "Wherever the bishop is, there let the people be, for there is the catholic church." Clearly, then, anyone who was not in communion with the bishop — anyone who was a member of a separate group of Christians — was separate from the 'catholic Church'. So not just any Christian was included when this quintessential "early Christian" spoke of the "catholic church."
But there's more. I admit to being personally quite amazed to find that as early as that same second century, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, was using the term "Catholic" in a very specific and technical sense: it indicates the Church in which every (particular) Church agrees with "the Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" (Against Heresies 3:3.5; cf. 3:4). Now, that sounds awfully like the 'Roman Catholic Church'. And it sounds frightfully unlike "all Christians" including those who specifically repudiate what "the Church founded at Rome" believes and teaches.
Actually, these Apostolic Fathers — the earliest Christians we have a record of outside the New Testament — consider that anyone who doesn't qualify as "Catholic" doesn't make the cut as "Christian" either. In that sense, if we change a couple of words in your friend's formulation, we can get a true statement: "When the early Christians talked about the "Catholic" Church, they were referring to the universal Church made up of all Christians, [which looked rather shockingly like] the Roman Catholic Church." It was the discovery of this fact that made converts of people like John Henry Newman. When they read the early Fathers of the Church, they were nonplussed (stunned, dismayed, appalled, aghast? — but eventually, of course, liberated and overjoyed) to discover that, right from the beginning, Christianity had always been Catholic, and even looked Catholic. Roman Catholic, if you must.
Envoy 2.6
Q Is it true that Catholics profess that people who commit suicide go to hell, "no questions asked"?
A No, it's not. Certainly, given that suicide is a grievous offence against God, until fairly recently people tended to have difficulty figuring out how persons committing suicide could be saved. However, the Church never taught that they were beyond salvation. Thanks to twentieth-century psychology (hey, nothing can be all bad!) we have a better understanding of the minds of suicidal persons. Very frequently they are in the throes of depression or some other psychological disturbance which greatly diminishes their responsibility (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2282). In any case, the Catechism teaches (2283), we "should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to Him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.
Envoy 2.6
Q The Bible teacher at my (Baptist) school says that the curtain of the Temple being torn in two when Christ died (Luke 23:45) meant that priests were no longer needed. I have thought about ways to try and explain how priests are needed, but have had no luck. Please help me with an answer.
A The tearing of the temple curtain does indeed mean that the Old Covenant priesthood is no longer needed, for Jesus has taken that role once and for all. Hebrews 7:27 says, "[Jesus] has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself."
So, does that mean your pastor is out of a job? No way. Precisely because Christ remains forever our High Priest, He must reach each one of us today, everywhere. How is He the Priest for you and me, not just for the men and women who lived in first-century Palestine? Through the men whom he has called to "do this in memory of me," to forgive sins and preach the Good News "in His Name." They are priests only because they act "in persona Christi" — it is really Christ who is acting through them.
When Jesus said, "Do this . . . " (cf. Luke 22:14-20), He was gathered with the twelve Apostles. Only. The same was true when "He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23). He asked a small number (not all) among his followers to, as it were, "lend Him" their humanity, so that He could continue exercising powers that were His alone to discharge. In other words, we are talking about delegated power, or better, a delegated mission: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21).
Now, someone might say, "All right, but when the Apostles died, it ended there." Well, that wouldn't make a lot of sense, would it, if Jesus is our eternal High Priest? What's the point of continuing his priesthood for a few decades after his death, and then discontinuing it for the rest of history? Besides, and more importantly, it's not what the Apostles themselves understood.
We see from Acts 1:15-26 that they felt compelled to replace Judas. Further, they left bishops and elders (priests) in every city they evangelized (take a look at Titus 1:5), to continue their ministry. Those bishops ordained other priests and bishops who ordained others . . . on and on until today. Without them, there would be no Eucharist or forgiveness of sins, and we wouldn't be able to faithfully carry out Christ's command. So you see why the priesthood is necessary. True followers of Christ can't live without it!
Envoy 3.2
Q A letter to the editor in our diocesan newspaper quotes a statement by the late Fr. Raymond Brown: “There is really no proof that in New Testament times Peter would have been looked upon as the bishop of the Roman community.” The letter goes on to say that Fr. Brown also deems it “likely that the single-bishop structure did not come to Rome until around A.D. 140-150.” How does this hold up against St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and Christian tradition?
A The early evidence is somewhat inconclusive. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans, addresses the church at Rome as a whole as “presiding over the communion in charity,” but makes no mention of her bishop. St. Clement, when writing to the Corinthians, speaks of “we,” rather than “I.” The list of popes drawn up by St. Irenaeus conflicts with the one drawn up by Tertullian. Fr. Brown thought Rome had a “conservative” church from the start, slow to adopt the bishop-presbyters-deacons pyramid later described by Ignatius in A.D. 107. This is not to say he denied the Roman church’s primacy in the early Church; just the opposite, in fact. He suggested that a particular presbyter (as in St. Clement’s case) may have been a kind of first among equals within the Roman clergy - the full implications of his role becoming more explicit only gradually. Brown’s interpretation of the evidence is open to question, but even if he is correct, papal primacy and authority are in no way undermined. It took the Church four centuries to figure out exactly what she believed with regard to God and Jesus; it would be rather surprising if a developed doctrine of the papacy or episcopate had surfaced before the most fundamental questions were resolved.
Envoy 3.2
Q Matthew 23:8-10 tells us not to call anyone “Father” or “Teacher,” or “Master.” That confuses me because when we talk to a priest, we call him “Father,” and even the word “pope,” translated literally means “father.” I attend a Baptist school and didn’t dare ask any of my teachers for an answer, because they would tell me that I’m Catholic and wrong. Please give me an answer. I feel uneasy calling a priest, “Father.”
A Just extend your thought one step further: “The word ‘dad’ means ‘father.’” What a dilemma! So what do you call that man who married your mom and lives in your house? Come to think of it, what do you call the man or woman who stands up at the front of your classroom and gets upset if you didn’t bring in your homework? Isn’t it funny that some teachers have a problem with a priest being called “Father,” but don’t find Jesus’ words applicable at all to themselves? What I’ve said doesn’t explain what Jesus did mean, but it does make clear what he was not saying. St. Paul himself was obviously aware of this, unless we want to think he was blatantly disobeying Jesus’ command, when he wrote, “in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:15). The words of Scripture must be read in their context and according to the intentions of the writers. We need to look not just at Matthew 23:8-10, but 23:1-12. Is Jesus concerned here about the words we use? Or is He engaged in giving a lesson in humility? The essence of His message here is, “Don’t go around looking for recognition and empty praise.” What an easy gospel it would be if all we had to learn from this passage was to avoid a few words. Instead, our Lord is teaching us that “the greatest among you will be your servant” (Matthew 23:11).
Envoy 3.2
Q One of my Evangelical friends asked me “Since we’re all called to be saints, how is it that the pope can canonize people as saints?” Where did this practice originate? What are the guidelines for canonization?
A The term “saint” is really used in three different but interrelated ways among Catholics. First, in New Testament times, “saint” was a synonym for “Christian” (eg. Acts 9:13). The first Christians understood that their belonging to Christ conferred on them a certain sacredness. In this sense, every follower of Christ today too could be called a saint. Unfortunately, just as we speak sometimes of nominal Christians (or cultural Catholics), too many of us are mere nominal saints. Not too many of us truly reflect in our lives the holiness conferred on us by baptism. I imagine your friend has been able to observe this for himself; otherwise he would probably have joined us by now! The Church founded by Christ should be distinguishable by being one, holy, catholic and apostolic. What a shame that the one mark of the Church you and I can do most about - holiness - is often the least visible.
The second sense of the term is applicable to all of us. At the Second Vatican Council, the bishops insisted that each one of us is indeed called to genuine holiness. If we all lived up to this conviction, I guess it would be superfluous for the pope to canonize saints. Most of us don’t, though there are some exceptions. Unfortunately, most of those exceptions pass unnoticed: a mother of six whose physical presence rarely reaches beyond her doorstep; a high school or college student tenaciously faithful to Christ in a hostile and secular environment; a businessman who brings his faith into the workplace; maybe even a used-car salesman or a California lawyer. They’re all doing quietly what they understand God expects of them.
But we do need the public witness of men and women whose lives demonstrate the transforming power of the love of Christ. So God sees to it that the heroic Christian virtue of some lives becomes known. The Church, under the leadership of the pope, acknowledges this gratefully and admiringly. This is what canonization is.
The Church has recognized as “saints” from her very beginnings those who gave heroic witness to Christ: first the martyrs (witnesses, in Greek) and then those whose entire lives bore witness to their faith. Spontaneous veneration grew up among those who knew them, lived with them and benefited from their charity. Eventually, as the Church grew and spread, it became necessary for the pope to ratify such spontaneous devotion.
The procedure for canonization, is not an easy one. Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia puts it succinctly: “The process . . . involves . . . investigation into a person’s virtues, writings, reputation for holiness and miracles ascribed to the person’s intercession since death.” The pope doesn’t just make it up, but through a long process, confirms the Christian instinct of the people of God who recognize holiness in one of their deceased brothers or sisters. “By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e. by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors” (CCC 828).
Envoy 3.3
Q I see. . . Recently, I was discussing Christianity with a non-believer. She pointed out the fact that there is no evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection, and so the intelligent person should reject it. I answered that we accept the Resurrection on faith, not evidence. Still, I’m not satisfied with that answer (neither was she). Is there any evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection?
A Actually, there’s plenty of evidence for it. First, though, we have to be clear about what we mean when we say "evidence." We don’t have any videotape footage of the event, nor do we have photographs of Jesus bursting forth from the tomb. Our evidence is circumstantial and indirect. This shouldn’t trouble us at all, since most of what we know historically comes from circumstantial evidence. When was the last time you watched the actual footage of Charlemagne being crowned the Holy Roman emperor in A.D. 800? Or Martin Luther appearing before the Diet of Worms? Unless you’ve confused your medicine prescriptions, you probably haven’t seen either of those firsthand. Nevertheless, we know both of those events actually occurred, because we have credible witnesses who described both events. This is the key to the Resurrection evidence. We have numerous eyewitnesses who claimed to see Jesus return from the dead and communicate with them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul all describe in some detail these appearances. Our duty, then, is to determine whether or not their testimony (in addition to that of the other Apostles) is reliable.
Let’s look at the situation with the original eleven (minus Judas). Here we have a band of people who, at one time, followed Jesus of Nazareth around ancient Palestine. Indeed, they were his inner circle. However, when Jesus died, all seemed lost. The band scattered themselves at His arrest, only to regroup later and mope. The sadness wouldn’t last. Shortly after Jesus’ execution, this same group began to make the outrageous claim that He had returned from the grave, conquering death. Up to this point, most sides of the debate can agree. The real issue is what made the Apostles claim to have seen Jesus back from the dead. Indeed, what made them travel around the ancient world proclaiming this "event"?
Well, we have three basic alternatives:
Let’s examine them in turn.
First, some claim that because of the Apostles’ extreme emotional trauma, having just witnessed their leader being killed, they were ripe and open for a comforting hallucination. However, the hallucination theory doesn’t fly. Why? Because the appearance accounts don’t match up with the way hallucinations work. Jesus (the Apostles claimed) came back and held long conversations with them, He ate with them, they touched Him to make sure He was really there. According to Paul, at one point, Jesus actually appeared to 500 people (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6) — hardly possible for a hallucination.
So, maybe the Apostles were lying. Perhaps it was just a big scam designed to get them riches and notoriety. Well, proclaiming Christ resurrected got them notoriety, all right. But not the kind that fits with the lying theory. Did the Apostles act like men who were lying for their own gain? Remember, they were systematically hunted, captured, tortured and killed. St. John was the only one of the original Twelve who died of old age. All the others were martyred for the Faith. If indeed the resurrection stories were lies, why didn’t the Apostles admit to it when they were captured and tortured? Remember that the Jewish and Roman officials wanted desperately to squash this new Christian movement. If just one of the inner circle came forward and blew the lid off the scam, he would have had his life spared and been richly rewarded. And yet it never happened. One by one, the followers of Christ were killed, often in horrible ways (Mark being dragged to pieces in the streets of Rome, for example). They had absolutely nothing to gain by dying for a lie — that is, unless it was no lie at all.
In the end, only the third theory (that the Apostles were telling the truth, and the Resurrection actually occurred) is consistent with the evidence. There’s simply no other way to account for their behavior and their claims.
As you might imagine, there are many other evidences for the Resurrection. Indeed, entire books have been written examining the proof for it. Recently, Evangelical pastor, Lee Stroebels, has written a book called, The Case For Christ. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It’s simply the best, most readable, most effective defense of the deity, miracles and resurrection of Jesus I’ve ever read. And, it’s impossible to put down — a great book to give to a non-believing friend or family member.
Envoy 3.3
Q I’m always terrified when Jehovah’s Witnesses come to the door. They seem to know the Bible so well, and they’re so slick in the way they make their arguments. Still, I know that as a Catholic, I need to be bold in sharing the true Faith. Do you have any tips on how to evangelize the Witnesses when they come to your door?
A I do. Despite the initial appearances, Witnesses don’t know the Bible nearly as well as you think they do. In fact, their familiarity with it is limited to a number of proof-texts. That said, they are extremely adept at using those memorized verses to throw Christians into a confusion-fest. Additionally, they receive several hours a week of training in their door-to-door technique. So, if they seem "slick in the way they make their arguments," it’s because they’ve gotten a great deal of instruction and practice. The key to dealing with one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to have a plan before your encounter with them. When they come to my door, I purchase whatever publication they happen to be selling at the time. Then I make an appointment for them to return a week later. This gives me plenty of time to prepare for my discussion with them. When I do this, though, I’m always careful not to show too much of my hand. If they find out you can refute their arguments in your first encounter with them, they may not return for a second. While that gives you a shallow victory, it prevents you from really sharing the gospel in an extended fashion.
Now, assuming you’ve done this, I have some tips for their return visit:
Envoy 4.2
Q. A non-Catholic friend has asked me how Catholics justify infant baptism from Scripture. She has the same question with regard to what she calls “worship of (praying to) Mary.”
A. Neither Catholics, nor any other Christians, are compelled to justify either of these Christian practices from Scripture. We are required to justify them from revelation. Sacred Scripture does not say anything about the age of those to be baptized; but Scripture is not all of revelation (if your friend thinks otherwise, she might explain how she knows that). Relying on Scripture alone, we would be simply ignorant of what God’s will is in this. Fortunately, Scripture did not fall down out of the sky; it was given to us by the Apostles and their successors, within a context of Church life and practice. In this manner, they handed down to us (traditio is the Latin term for “handing down,” by the way) elements of God’s plan that are not explicitly contained in Sacred Scripture. Scripture and Tradition are the complementary channels that bring us God’s Word. None of the New Testament writers ever claimed to have written down everything Jesus said and did; in fact, St. John explicitly stated the contrary (cf. John 21:20).
From the very beginning, the Church believed that it was not only permissible, but necessary, to baptize infants for salvation. Why? Because she believed that everyone — including infants — was affected by original sin and could be saved only by Christ. For her, the words of Christ, “Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5) did not admit of any exception other than martyrdom. “There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized” (CCC 1252; cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16).
Not only Catholics, but also Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians practice infant baptism.
Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists also join us in varying degrees of devotion to Mary. However, we do not worship Mary. Some Evangelical Christians appear to be handicapped by a certain poverty of vocabulary, or failure to distinguish different forms of prayer. They use the word worship to describe a whole array of religious practices, without distinction. Catholics use the term worship as a synonym of adore. But Catholics adore only God. We venerate Mary. We pay her the homage of respect and love that she herself forecast when she said, “Behold all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). We pray to her in the old and original sense of the word: to petition, or ask, or beg something of someone. What do we ask her to do? Fill us with her graces, or grant us salvation? No, those things are only God’s to confer. We ask Mary to ask God for these graces for us, since she is certainly closer to Him than any of us are.
Does this mean we can’t ask for these gifts directly from God? Of course not. But, from early times, Christians perceived that to honor Mary was to honor her Son, and that prayer to her ended up bringing them closer to Him. The leaders of the Christian communities — those to whom the Apostles had entrusted all that Jesus had entrusted to them — not only did not discourage this practice, but praised it and gave example of it themselves. They saw it as a way of responding to Jesus' dying words, “Behold your mother” (John 19:27), understanding as they did that Jesus gave his mother not only to John, but to each one of His followers, represented in the figure of the beloved disciple.
Envoy 4.5
Q Ianpaisley.org, a virulently anti-Catholic website, makes the claim that a recently beatified Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac was responsible for the brutal murder and torture of Orthodox Christians and Protestants during WWII. The site includes graphic photos of people hanging by their necks and a picture of someone they say is Stepinac standing with the Gestapo. I’d like to be able to refute this; can you give me any suggestions?
A Well, you wouldn’t expect anything
else from Ian Paisley, Northern Ireland’s leading
anti-Catholic for decades. The unfortunate man is
so bigoted that I believe Northern Ireland Catholics
probably do novenas for his health and long life.
He gives bigotry a bad name, even among other bigots!
Alojzije Stepinac was named Archbish-op of Zagreb
in 1937, at thirty-nine years of age. In 1938 he
founded “Action for Help to Refugees.” He was also
the founder of Croatian Caritas, which helped Serbs
among others.
A 1944 British Naval Intelligence report on Croatia
indicates that “Roman Cath-olic clergy, following
the ex-ample of Monsignor Stepinac, the Zagreb Archbishop,
energetically protested against Ustasha persecutions
of Serbs and Jews, as well as against government
attempts of forced conversion to Roman Catholicism.”
In fact, Archbishop Stepinac opposed religious conversions
forced by the state; but when he could not prevent
them, he gave the clergy confidential instructions
to accept people into the Catholic Church in order
to save their lives without any conditions whatsoever,
because “when this time of insanity and barbarity
passes, those who converted due to conviction will
remain in our Church, while the others, when the
danger passes, will return to their own.”
In his sermons during the war years he consistently
and fiercely condemned racism, nationalism and injustice.
“We have always publicly insisted on the principles
of God’s eternal law, whether those involved are
Croats, Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Muslims,
Orthodox or anyone else” (“Sermon on the Feast of
Christ the King,” 1943). “All people whatever their
color are God’s children. All of them, without any
discrimination whatsoever . . . are equally entitled
to say ‘Our Father who art in heaven. . . .’ That
is why the Catholic Church has always condemned and
still condemns any injustice committed in the name
of class, racial or nationalistic theories. Gypsies
and Jews must not be exterminated in the name of
a theory, which claims that they belong to an inferior
race” (from a sermon delivered in Zagreb Cathedral
on October 24, 1942).
The Archbishop “paid with sufferings and trials of
all kinds for his brave adherence to the Gospel,”
Pope John Paul II said. He was — and has continued
to be — maliciously attacked and calumniated, ironically
by people who espouse, precisely, political theories
of a racial and nationalistic stripe.
During his trial by the new Communist government
in 1946, he himself wrote a note which states: “Some
documents have been falsified: photographs showing
me with my hand raised in a Fascist salute and participating
at the farewell ceremony of the Croatian legion before
its departure for the Black Sea — I was not present
at that ceremony, nor did I raise my hands in Fascist
salute.” An alleged letter of the former Royal Yugoslav
diplomat Dr. Prvislav Grisogono to Archbishop Alojzije
Stepinac in 1942, which describes horrendous crimes,
is believed to have been forged. These may be the
sources of the material you have seen.
His recent beatification was the result of an extremely
rigorous and thorough process, leading to a truly
informed judgment by the Church that we can have
confidence in. Just for good measure, however, here
is the judgment, in 1960, of a Moslem Croat writer,
Alan Horic: “Centuries of self-denial and hardship
have to pass before a nation can produce such an
unblemished figure, a shining example to the entire
world. Stepinac was the victim of his Croatian and
Catholic convictions. . . . And we Muslims saw in
him an example of religious consistency” (Hrvatski
glas, Winnipeg, February 29, 1960).
Envoy 4.6
Q. A Protestant I know has claimed that the Council of Hippo did not have the book of Baruch on its canon list and therefore could not have been, as Catholics claim, the council defining the canon until the Council of Trent. Can you confirm or deny this?
A Maybe some Catholics make this claim, but I don’t think there is any such official claim on the part of the Church. The Council of Hippo was only a regional council of North African bishops. There was no definition of the canon of Scripture by an ecumenical council before Trent.
Envoy 4.6
Q. I had a question and maybe you could direct me to some good literature to support my defense. In class two gentlemen said they had been reading books that supposedly give facts that Mary had children, Jesus had children, that Jesus never was crucified and moved to India. Yes, it sounds crazy, but these gentlemen I consider at least sensible. I could see that since it was in a book, they believed it. One book was titled The Bloodlineage of Jesus or The Bloodline of Jesus. Please help me refute these false accusations.
A. Trust your first response — it’s
as crazy as it sounds! I’ve seen people I used to
think were sensible reading tabloid newspapers with
headlines about three-legged aliens taking over a
town in Idaho and masquerading as ordinary citizens.
All one learns from such things is that some people
are not as sensible as they seem!
Actually, some of these tall tales have been recycled
for centuries. They first appeared in the teachings
of the ancient heretical movements known as Gnosticism
and, like those movements, they have repeatedly resurfaced
whenever people are trying to persuade Christians
to adopt Eastern religious ideas contrary to the
Gospel (such as reincarnation, or the claim that
the material world is only an illusion). The truth,
however, is that we have no historical evidence for
the veracity of any of these bizarre claims as we
do for the reliability of the canonical Gospels.
No serious scholar of ancient texts puts any stock
in them; they’re being pushed by folks with a New
Age or occult agenda. You should point all this out
to the two men in your class.
Envoy 4.6
Q. I do hope you can help me. I have been an evangelical Protestant for ten years. About a year ago, I started looking into both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism trying to find the true, historic, apostolic church. All the Orthodox sources I found state that Catholicism broke away from the historic apostolic church and all the Catholic sources I found state the opposite. I even sat down with an Orthodox priest and a Catholic priest (separately) to question them and was told the same. How can I know which is the true apostolic church? Can you suggest some resources that provide evidence that it is the Roman Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church that is the one true Church?
A. All those who have been baptized are in a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. The communion of the Catholic Church with the Orthodox churches is so profound “that it lacks little to attain . . . fullness” (Catechism, par. 838). So you could say that although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith, the Orthodox Churches “almost” have it, too!
I think the principal thing they are lacking is simply
acceptance of the successor of St. Peter (the Pope)
as the principle of unity Christ willed for His Church.
Some of the popes at the time of the break were probably
not as tactful as they might have been in exercising
their authority (and perhaps some of them were personally
not very exemplary, to say the least). Nevertheless,
the special role St. Peter has in the Gospels (he
is mentioned far more than all the other apostles
put together); Jesus’ promise that He would build
His Church on the “Rock,” as he renamed him; and
Jesus’ charge that St. Peter strengthen his brothers
in the faith once the apostle himself had been strengthened
by the prayer of Jesus for him, all indicate that
Christ’s plan for the Church included this visible
foundation that could hold us together and keep us
from breaking up into a myriad of “churches,” all
claiming to preach the true gospel.
The early Church Fathers understood — though not
with the fully developed doctrine of today — that
this was Jesus’ will. I think it comes down to this.
You are in my prayers so that Our Lord will enlighten
you.
Envoy 5.2
Q. Could you explain just exactly what the difference is between Catholic belief and the belief in sola scriptura?
A. While some Christians believe
that divine revelation is transmitted to us “by Sacred
Scripture alone” (sola scriptura), the Catholic Church
has always been aware that what Christ did and said
was handed down in the first decades after His death
by preaching and word of mouth, as well as by practices
such as the liturgy, and later committed to writing
in part — becoming what we call the New Testament.
Since the writing of New Testament Scripture didn’t
somehow abolish what Christians already knew and
were passing on about Christ, we ended up with twin
“streams” that bring us the word of God, albeit in
different ways and therefore requiring different
forms of interpretation.
The original stream we call Tradition (Latin for
“what is handed down”), and the second stream, together
with the Old Testament, we call Sacred Scripture
or the Bible. The same (Catholic) Church that ratified
the Christian Bible continued to treasure Tradition,
and teaches that “both Scripture and Tradition must
be accepted with equal sentiments of devotion and
reverence” (see the Catechism, 82).
Envoy 5.2
Q. A video by Ken Howard (a Baptist and creationist) says that the Shroud of Turin is just a money-maker for the Catholic Church, and that Jesus’ beard would have been pulled out, therefore leaving no imprint. Where is his basis in Scripture for this? If not in Scripture, was this a tradition? If so, where did it come from?
A. Isaiah 50:6 reads: “I gave my
back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled
out the beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.”
Since the time of the early Church fathers, this
Old Testament passage has been interpreted by many
Christians as a prophetic reference to Our Lord’s
passion. Several popular Protestant tracts make reference
to the verse in that light, so it’s likely that this
is the basis of Mr. Howard’s claim.
Let’s look at the verse closely. Even if you assume
that it speaks prophetically about Jesus’ suffering
in literal detail, there’s by no means any indication
here that His beard in its entirety was pulled out,
leaving no trace. In fact, the same Hebrew phrase
(meaning literally “to pluck hair”) was used by the
Old Testament writer Ezra to describe what he did
to himself as an act of penance when he heard a dismaying
report about his people’s apostasy (see Ezra 9:3).
Ezra would hardly have ripped out his entire beard
and scalp by the roots on that occasion, so it’s
clear that Isaiah, using the same words, didn’t necessarily
mean that, either. Nor is it likely that, in the
few hours they had to torture Him, Christ’s tormentors
would have systematically plucked every single hair
from His face so that no imprint of a beard would
have been left on His shroud.
Mr. Howard’s claim, if it’s based on this passage,
thus offers a clear example of a common problem in
biblical interpretation: reading into a scriptural
text much more than is actually there.
For the rest, I very much doubt that the Shroud is
a “money maker” for the Catholic Church. It’s rarely
on display and the costs of preserving it are high.
Not to mention that it’s hard to make money off something
you don’t charge for. It would be interesting to
know whether Mr. Howard charges for his videos or
asks for donations. Because in that case, paradoxically,
the Shroud probably makes more money for Mr. Howard
than for the Catholic Church.
Envoy 5.2
Q. I lived in Japan recently for two years. During that time, my eyes were opened to the close relationship between idols and the beings they portray. In Japanese religions, the idol contains the spirit of the being that is venerated. Am I correct or incorrect to notice a similarity in your answer in a previous issue of Envoy [see “I Have a Question,” Issue 4.1] that the honor given to an image passes to its prototype? In pagan religions, the honor given to an image is meant for its prototype also — for example, Buddha.
A. In Christianity, images do not
“contain the spirit of the being that is venerated,”
so you would be incorrect to see a similarity in
that regard. Images simply remind us of the being
represented. One form of image is the written or
even spoken word. “G-O-D” is not God, but an image
of God. We don’t adore those three letters; we adore
the One they refer to.
Two- and three-dimensional images were especially
important for people who didn’t read. In medieval
times, the stained glass windows in cathedrals and
churches were, practically speaking, the plain peoples’
Bible, since they were illiterate. Contrary to the
accusation that “the Catholic Church kept the Bible
from the people,” the Church has read it to them
every Sunday for the last 100,000 Sundays, explained
it to them when they’ve no longer understood the
languages in which it was first transmitted (first
Greek, and then Latin), and made extensive use of
the language of art.
With regard to your query about my quote from the
Catechism that “the honor rendered to an image passes
to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image
venerates the person portrayed in it” (CCC 2132):
As you rightly note, there’s a parallel here between
the Catholic and pagan attitudes toward religious
images, and not surprisingly; they both essentially
reflect a natural and very human attitude toward
images. We show our love (or for that matter, our
hatred) for a person by the way we treat his image.
That’s why a lover may kiss a picture of the beloved
who’s far away, or a mob may attack a political leader
by burning him in effigy. In all these cases, the
affection or abuse shown the image is obviously intended
for the person the image represents.
Envoy Premier
Q. At my parish in a recent homily, a middle-aged priest, who was born and had studied in Ireland, stated that Our Lord did not know what was going to happen as a result of His sufferings, and that He may have even suffered the despair of the damned. When I questioned him on this, he replied that he agreed with St. Paul that Christ "was like us in all things but sin," and so He was ignorant and confused from time to time, just as we are. I was shocked that a priest formed "the old way" would have opinions like these! He told me his theology had been "updated" since his seminary days, thanks to the renewal courses priests in his diocese are required to attend. What can I say in response to his teaching, and to his excuse?
A. The priest has been seriously misled, and you should help him out. The quickest way to respond to those serious errors about Our Lord's knowledge is to see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which the Holy Father calls a "sure and authentic" source of instruction. Paragraphs 473 and 478 speak about Our Lord's knowledge as God and as Man. Christ's human knowledge included "everything that pertains to God" in the "intimate and immediate knowledge" of His Father and His "penetration" into the "secret thoughts of human hearts." Most importantly for us He knew completely "the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans He had come to reveal." "Christ knew and loved us each and all during His life, His agony, and His Passion and gave Himself up for each one of us: `The Son of God. . . loved me and gave Himself up for me.' (Gal. 2:20)."
Besides the Catechism's clear affirmation of the fullness of Christ's knowledge, the magisterium has continually reaffirmed this teaching. St. Pius X, in his encyclical, Lamentabili, defended Christ's knowledge of His divine mission. Pope Pius XII, in his masterpiece encyclical Mystici Corporis (which inspired much of Vatican II's teaching about the nature of the Church in Lumen Gentium), taught that Our Lord had the beatific vision from the first moment of His Incarnation. Indeed, it's hard to see how Christ's life and death could save us if He did not know what He was doing. His merits depend on His knowledge, just as ours do. Your actions have no merit for you when you do not intend them. Saying "Our Lord did not know what He was doing," would necessarily mean that He saved us by accident and not intentionally!