MORE Q&A ON FACEBOOK

Following is response to an earlier post which you can read here. The conversation on Facebook can be found here.

WAYNE SAYS: The last part I have issue with being a non Catholic. I believe that while Jesus did leave us a church the head was probably James and not Peter. not that Peter was not used by God. but the church of Jesus Christ is much more than a building.

WAYNE SAYS: about Sunday: I always have worshiped on Sundays and always will. That said I know the Bible doesn't mention Sunday but the first day of the week. which in Israel started at sunset not at sunrise. from what I read most scholars think Jesus rose at midnight on Saturday night which would have been the first day. the women who brought him spices did so just before dawn according to Jewish custom but Jesus already had risen.

WAYNE SAYS: Also, in Catholic teaching “pray to” does not mean to worship, but “to ask”. We ask the saints for their assistance because in John’s vision we see the saints praying for us: “the prayers of the saints”.=====I have an issue with too because I don't believe praying or interceding with the dead is very Biblical since through Christ we have direct access to God whom we can call Abba Father. its the same access the saints have.

TIM SAYS:

@ Wayne. We don't believe the dead are "dead", but in heaven, truly alive. And in Revelation, John sees the saints in heaven with bowls of incense which he calls the "prayers of the saints". And just as you can pray for me and I can pray for you, the saints in heaven can pray for us as well. In fact, their prayers, if we are to believe James 5:16, are exponentially more efficacious: "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (KJV). Being in heaven, the saints are fully "righteous". 

You are welcome to believe that James was the head of the Church, which in fact he was, in Jerusalem. But the "key" is understanding what Jesus meant when he gave to Peter the "keys". We see almost the same exact phrase in Isaiah 22:22, where the key to the house of David is given to the new prime minister. Christ is the son of David, and by divine right, it is now His house, and his key to give. He gives it to Peter, not to James. In addition, before he does this, Christ gives Peter his name - changing it from Simon to Peter. A name change in ancient Israel designated a role change. It is obvious here, that Peter is to be the "prime minister", otherwise we have to say that Jesus was just using some flowery language. In fact, he was quoting Isaiah 22:22.

As for Sunday, you are correct, the Jewish day did begin at sunset. However, perhaps to distinguish themselves from the Jews, the first Christians gathered together on the first day and in the morning. The most prominent extra-biblical record of this is found in a letter from the Roman governor, Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan:

“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Notice too what they did at their assembly. We call it the Eucharist.

JEFFREY SAYS: I am not Catholic but my wife is,, I thought that MAN could not judge a Man for their sins or works, only God, so if he is a saint, by whose standards.. Please inform me of this my wife of 20yrs could not

TIM SAYS:

Hi Jeffrey. I thought I answered this before, but I don't see it, so I'll give it another go. Let's talk about "judging" for a minute. The minute we say "he's a good man", we've exercised judgement, or even "a nice guy". This is not the judgement we are forbidden by Christ to make when he says "judge not". What Christ is referring to is "the heart", which only God can know. But on to canonization. The power for the Pope to declare a man a saint is found in Matthew 16:18-19, where upon Christ's giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter he then gives him the power to bind and loose: "what you declare bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what you declare loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven." There is no doubt that Peter is given a unique power - even power over heaven. 

The "keys" imply dynastic succession. They represent an office, and are first mentioned in Isaiah 22:22 as the "key to the House of David". Christ is the son of David. It his now his "house" and his keys to give. He gives them to Peter. And just as the office of the "prime minister" as symbolized by the "keys" passed down from Hezechiah (Isaiah 22) and now to Peter, the keys, the office, continues to Pope Francis. 

So in answer to your question: "the pope's standards".

THE ATTACK ON MARY

As you may be aware, a local anti-Catholic pastor regularly makes the Catholic veneration of Mary a frequent target on his ubiquitous “drive time” radio spots. He’s not alone of course. Mary-bashing is almost a sport amongst many anti-Catholics, and any recognition of her, other than honorable mention for her role in the Christmas story, seems to drive them mad.

The thinly veiled disgust with which these people speak of Mary is a source of pain for many Catholics who not only regard Mary as the Mother of God, but as their own Mother as well. It's like these guys are saying bad things about your own mom, and there is nothing that quite boils the blood as when some jerk is messing with your mom!

I can remember my own mother crying after a fruitless conversation with a neighbor who had left the Catholic Church for one of those born-again church-in-an-abandoned-gas station deals. The neighbor blasted Mary with all the regurgitated venom she could recall from the anti-Marian diatribe she probably had heard from her “gas station pastor” the night before.  I was just a boy then, but even today, I can still feel the rage that welled up within me, seeing my mother wounded, but also smelling the evil I still smell today when someone attacks and degrades the Mother of God. Perhaps you know the “smell” as well.

But what to make of it? From whence comes this hostile disgust? This knee-jerk attack? What is it that drives these people nuts about the veneration of the Blessed Mother and impels them to degrade, impugn, muddy, and malign the Woman through whom the Son of God took flesh? Is it just a lack of understanding? Misinformation? Invincible ignorance? Perhaps all of the above. But perhaps something else too. And here's my thought.

In Genesis 3:15, God informs Satan of his doom: “I will put enmity between thee and the Woman and thy seed and her seed and she will crush thy head while you lie in wait for her heel.”  In short, it’s curtains for Satan, and Mary is at the center of it.

Some believe this verse (as found in the Vulgate) to be translated in error, that it is not Mary who will crush the head of Satan but her seed: Jesus. Thus later translations change the “she” to a “he”. But translation debates aside, God undeniably chooses to crush Satan through Mary. (Thus the centuries of paintings and statues showing her doing so.)

Without getting too theological here, it is necessary to understand that salvation is ongoing: that Christ has saved us, is saving us, and will continue to save us (should that be our desire) until the end of time; and he does so, he comes to us, as he first did, through his Mother. Thus John Paul II says: [it is] “in Mary and through Mary (that) the situation of humanity (sin) has been reversed...” (The Protoevangelium of Salvation). And this is why Satan hates her.

However, Satan cannot harm Mary directly because she is sinless. God has put “enmity” - total opposition - between Satan and the Woman. Since Satan is pure evil, total enmity in this case means the total opposite of pure evil which is pure good, sinlessness, which is precisely why Mary is the “Refuge of Sinners” and why we “flee to thy  (her) protection”.

As humans, it is impossible to imagine the cosmic proportions of Satan’s hatred of Mary. But I believe we get a glimpse of it when the Mother of God is attacked, either in the pornographic “art” of a Marian image splattered with elephant dung (as displayed in the Brooklyn Museum), or the diseased harangue we hear from the likes of the anti-Catholics already noted.

To Satan, it matters not how or through whom the Mother of God is discredited, demeaned, and disavowed. The fewer sinners that seek her refuge, the more for him to devour. Don’t be one of them.

The "Brothers of Jesus" and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a DOGMA of the Catholic Church. A DOGMA is a teaching of the Church that is “binding” on the faithful. That means if you don’t accept it you’re outside the Church. Pretty serious stuff!

Non-Catholic Christians (NCC’s) generally do not accept this Teaching. They commonly reference Mt. 13:55: “And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” as evidence that Jesus had “brothers” and therefore Mary must not have been a perpetual virgin. Lesser known are the “sisters of Jesus” found in the very next verse: “And are not all his sisters with us?” (NRSV-CE) Wow! If you take the word “all” as in “all his sisters”, it sounds like not only was Mary not a perpetual virgin but that she must have been perpetually pregnant!

However, there is a problem with this assumption regardless of the number of the supposed siblings of Jesus: It’s NOT in the Bible! It is our NCC friends who make the claim that in order to believe something it has to “be in the Bible”. However, NOWHERE in the Bible does it ever say that Mary had other children. NOWHERE! Thus, by the NCC logic of “the Bible Alone”, there is simply NO scriptural evidence that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

The common Catholic “apologetic” or response on this issue is to point out that in the language which Jesus spoke (Aramaic) there is no word for “cousin” and thus the word “brother” or “sister” was used to indicate a cousin relationship. While the “cousin” apologetic is correct, it seems to be rather ineffective as evidenced by the fact that it rarely convinces an NCC to the Catholic side. Thus it is probably much better to use their own doctrine “the Bible Alone” to show that irregardless of their belief about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, there is no evidence in the Bible to the contrary. NCC’s will have to agree with you on that point.

But what of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? Yes, they could have been cousins, but they could also have been blood brothers. Many early sources, most notably the Protoevangelium of James, make reference to the fact that Joseph may have in fact been a widower and thus could have had children by a previous wife. Thus the “brothers” (and “sisters”) of Jesus certainly could have been his half-brothers (and sisters).

There is also another problem with the NCC thinking on this. Most NCC’s accept that Joseph died while Jesus was an adolescent. (The last time we hear of Joseph is in Luke 2 when he and Mary find the 12 year old Jesus teaching in the Temple.) It is interesting to note that no mention of siblings is made at this time. So if we stay with the “Bible Alone” approach of our NCC friends, then we have to assume that no siblings had yet been born.

However, by the time we get to the initial accounts of Jesus’ public ministry when He is approximately 30 years old, we, if we take the NCC interpretation of Mt. 13:55, have to accept that Jesus had at least 7 siblings: the four brothers, as named in the passage, plus at least 3 sisters (“all his sisters” implies that there had to be at least 3 – “all” implies more than one, and if there were only 2, the word “both” would have been used).

Doing the math, Joseph and Mary would have had to have had 7 more children in 18 years. Not impossible, however, Mt. 13 implies that at least the males are adults. Also, in order for the “sisters” to have been “here with us”, the girls probably were not infants, and must have at least been in their teens. So subtract at least 10 years from the 18 and we get 8, meaning Mary had to have had at least 7 children in 8 years. Also not impossible, but then we’d have to believe that either Mary found another husband after Joseph died or Joseph must have lived a lot longer (and have been a lot healthier!) than what 2000 years of tradition (both Catholic and NCC) has left us.

It is hoped by now that you deem all this adding, subtracting, assuming, and implying to be a bit ridiculous. It is. And that’s why our Church has not cared to address it. It also demonstrates what happens to those outside our Church who do not have any authority other than their own private interpretation of Scripture.

The Catholic Church has the authority of Christ who did not leave us a Bible, but a Church, and a teaching authority for that Church, which He meant to continue and protect until the end of time (Mt. 16:13). And that same Church has proclaimed Mary as “Ever-Virgin”. There is simply no evidence, Biblical or otherwise, to the contrary.

A personal note to Catholics: While it is encouraging to see a great interest among Catholics in “Bible Study” it is proportionately discouraging to see a great lack of interest in “Doctrinal Study” or a study of what our Church teaches, particularly those teachings which come from the chair of Peter which Jesus himself established. The two studies certainly do not have to be opposed. In fact, they are not. They are part of one and the same teaching and good for those who understand and teach in this way.

Fr. Mitch's Challenge - and some help from his audience

A man called into Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s show on EWTN the other day and asked the following question:

“Why is there more praying to Mary on your network than there is to Jesus?”

It was immediately obvious that Fr. Mitch was perturbed and even angry. The man had called in before with the same question and was an obvious heckler.

I was interested to see how Fr. Mitch would handle it. Unfortunately, I think his anger got the better of him. He tried to show restraint, but fumbled around quite a bit trying to defend the network and even claiming to not know everything that goes on with the programming, which unfortunately put him in an even bigger hole with the assailant.

In the end he claimed to not know what the caller was talking about and he moved on with the rest of the show. But I was left with a little bit of an empty feeling and a little upset with Fr. Mitch for not being Mother Angelica.

Of course he can’t be Mother Angelica, but the situation highlighted how much EWTN will change (it already has) without her. I wish she could have taken on the man. I’m sure she would have said something that would have turned the caller on his ear and at the same time would have been instructive to the viewers.

Some think that such an action would not have been charitable, but “charitable” is a difficult thing to pin down. Jesus turned such insincere questioners on their ears many times throughout the Gospel. But be that as it may, I began to think of how I would answer that question.

The question falls into the common anti-Mary category of anti-Catholic attacks, a category that easily sends Catholics over the edge as per Fr. Mitch’s ruffled response. This is because from the outside the attack seems to have substance. We do “pray” to Mary more than we do to Jesus. I find myself saying “Hail Mary’s” several times a day. EWTN devotes two half hour segments to the recitation of the Rosary and of course the listener hears “Hail Mary” over and over.

The real deal is of course that we don’t distinguish prayer to Mary or prayer to the saints from prayer to God. We believe that regardless of who we are addressing that God hears our prayers and that our prayers through Mary and other heavenly benefactors are augmented by their saintly merits (…the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. - Jam 5:16).

But I’m getting ahead of myself. I wouldn’t even go there with this at this point. Here’s how I would respond (assuming of course that I didn’t get mad and forget my lines):

Caller: Why do you pray more to Mary than to Jesus?
Me: That’s an interesting question. What makes you think we do?
Caller: Well, I’m always hearing prayers to Mary and Jesus is rarely mentioned.
Me: Is that so! May I ask you a question? How do you define prayer?
Caller: Prayer is worship and we should worship God alone.
Me: Do you think we are worshipping Mary when we pray to her?
Caller: Of course you are.
Me: Well then let me ask you your definition of “worship”.
Caller: Worship is the praise and honoring of God.
Me: Do you think that Jesus is offended when we praise and honor His Mother?
Caller: Of course he is, you should only praise God.

(At this point you have come upon the distinct difference between the “dulia”, “hyper-dulia”, and “latria” properties of the word “praise”, but no need to go there just now. Just shift gears as per the following.)

Me: Do you think that Jesus ever praised and honored His Mother while He was on earth?
Caller: Well, probably, but..
Me: Don’t you think we should imitate Jesus in all things including honoring His mother?
Caller: Well…
Me: Do you honor Mary?
Caller: Well no, but…
Me: Don’t you want to be like Jesus in all things?
Caller: Well yes but…
Me: Perhaps you should consider why your Church has not taught you to imitate Jesus in this area. Listen, I’d love to talk to you more about this. Is there a number I can call you back at?

(Remember the ultimate goal is to bring them “home to Rome”…so never leave a conversation without setting up a time to get back together.)

I’m not picking on Fr. Mitch. I’ve reacted as he reacted more than once. We’re just so caught off guard by the complete lack of appreciation for the Mother of God by non-Catholics. The idea is to count to 10 before you answer…and say a Hail Mary :>)

Why Not Believing that Mary is the Mother of God Is Hazardous to Your Marriage

Virtually all Christian religions other than the Catholic Church allow for divorce and remarriage. Their reasons may differ and they may preach vehemently against it, but ultimately they allow it.

Most Catholic apologists will point to the protestant misinterpretation of Matthew 19:9 where Jesus seems to allow divorce for reasons of “fornication” or “adultery” depending on which version you are reading. Whereas Protestants take this passage as permission to divorce and remarry, the Catholic Church, while allowing for the physical separation of the spouses for a variety of good reasons, still does not allow for remarriage.

(Some scholars point out that the original Greek word used in this passage – and still used by some translations- is “pornea”, and that “pornea” does not refer to adultery but to illicit union such as a marriage between two close relatives.)

Dr. Robert Morgan, in his recent visit to Guam, pointed out that the further away one gets from Catholic truth, the further one gets from the true understanding of the person of Christ. As evidence of this he pointed out that most Protestants will not refer to Mary as the “Mother of God”. To not accept Mary as the Mother of God and address her as such is to deny the fundamental truth of the Trinity: that there are three persons in one God, that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Blessed Trinity, and that Mary is His Mother.

So what does this have to do with divorce? The Catholic Church teaches that though a full understanding of the Trinity is not possible in this life, there are some things we do know:

• That God is a community of persons: Father, Son, & Holy Spirit
• That it is the Father eternally loving the Son that begets the Spirit
• That we are made in the image of the Trinity (Gen 1:26-27)
  

There is only one other reference in Scripture to a community of persons comprising a single being and that would be Marriage: “…and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This union physically manifests itself in the birth of a third person and thus images the Trinity in an earthly way.

Because the Trinity is indissoluble, Marriage is indissoluble. The Godhead cannot be broken and reassembled. Neither can Marriage. Jesus reminds us that this in fact is God’s design when, commenting on the leniency of Moses to allow divorce, He says “from the beginning it was not so”. (Mat 19:8) Emphasis is on the word “beginning” which is the word “genesis”.

It follows then that if one does not accept the Trinity as an indissoluble community of persons, then one can easily allow for the dissolubility of that other community of persons. In fact, this is exactly what happens. The willingness to allow for divorce and remarriage evinces a fundamental denial of the nature of the Trinity.

Protestants will argue otherwise but the litmus test remains whether or not they can address Mary as “Mother of God”. “Mother of God” is more than just another affectionate title, it is our guarantee that Jesus is in fact: “God with us”, God Himself. To deny that Mary is the “Mother of God” is to deny that Jesus is God. To deny that Jesus is God is to deny the Trinity. To deny the Trinity is to deny all that God has revealed to us about Himself…including His Son.

Divorce then is both symptom and cause: symptom in the sense that divorce evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the Trinity and God’s design for Marriage; and cause in the sense that divorce, because it negates the indissoluble community of persons signified by the words “one flesh” inevitably and logically leads to a negation of the ultimate community of persons upon which Marriage is modeled.

This fundamental error also inevitably leads to the ultimate manifestation of the denial of the Trinity by also admitting contraception which completes the denial of the Trinity by negating a “third person”. Is it any wonder that the same religions that allow divorce also allow artificial contraception? Having denied Mary her rightful title as “Mother of God” they have inevitably denied the Trinity, rendered the marriage vow void, and the nuptial act sterile.

This is why our Church CANNOT change its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage or the sacred openness to life in the nuptial act. She would first have to deny the Trinitarian God.

Creeping Sola Scriptura

by Tim Rohr, 5/26/2005

Note: Hope no one takes personal offense to this little essay. I’ve spoken to many of you about this topic and my feelings about it, but just thought I’d put it on (virtual) paper.

As most of you know I operate a small Catholic book distribution operation called Veritas Books. Because of this and because we are often present at different parishes around the island on various Sundays, we often receive requests and inquiries for certain resources. By default I am able to see certain trends and the main trend is a desire for more resources for Bible study.

This is a good thing, but I am bit alarmed at how we may unthinkingly just be “chasing the Protestants” here. The main motivation for Bible study seems to be “to get our kids back” ala: The Bible church down the street has a great Bible study and its attracting some of our kids, so we need to have a Bible study too.

Well, we’ve already followed our sep-breth down that slippery slope in the music arena (indeed the whole area of liturgy it sometimes seems), let us think twice before we do the same here. Let me explain.

We would do well to recall once in awhile the 70’s mantra “the medium is the message”. There are three things in operation here:
Our kids can see that we are scrambling to compete with the Protestants – what does that say?
Studying the Bible before studying Church Teachings contradicts the example of the Catholic Church, which uses Scripture to support doctrine and not the other way around, as is the way of our sep-breth.
Prioritizing Bible study over Catechism teaches (the medium is the message) our kids that the Bible came first and not the Church, and by extension that we should the Bible is the foundation of truth and not the Church. In short we are teaching “sola scriptura”.

Here’s a short solution. But first let me say that I do know of fine Scripture studies taking place on our island that are in no danger of imputing a “sola scriptura” mindset. But for the rest of us I propose that we use the Catechism as the template for our Bible study. The Catechism is full of Scripture references on every page. We read the Catechism and reference the Scriptures.

This allows us to take an approach that says, “here’s what we believe (Catechism) and here’s why we believe it (Scripture) -though it will still be very important to show that the first reason we believe anything is because the Church says so. If we don’t do this we run the danger of not only imputing the lesson of “sola scriptura” (or at least “scripture prima”), but also the inevitable next step of private interpretation. At that point we might as well let them go to the church down the street because they’re probably doing a better job of it than we can.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t delve into the Bible as the great story of God’s plan of salvation and enjoy all its history and meditative depth. Certainly, we should! But how much richer that experience will be when we are grounded in the great teachings of our Mother, the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth”! No need to chase the Protestants.

Apologetics for Those Who Don't Know What They're Doing

by Tim Rohr, 10/04/2005

You're busy doing what you're supposed to be doing at work and a co-worker makes an off-hand anti-Catholic remark. You're mowing the lawn and a group of nicely dressed people with umbrellas and handbags wave to catch your attention. You're preparing dinner for the family and you answer a knock on the door and find your Catholic faith being challenged.

Would that we all would take the time to learn our faith not only well enough to defend it, but to advance it. We can all work toward that. Meanwhile, because of the everyday, on the spot nature of the majority of the challenges to our faith, many of us find ourselves in immediate need of a way to deal with a co-worker, a family member, or fellow students who question and challenge or even impugn our Holy Mother Church.

Listening to the likes of Scott Hahn, James Akin, Patrick Madrid, or even our own Fr. Eric, or my good friend, Dr. Robert Morgan, can be quite daunting. Their grasp of scripture and their skill can leave many of us, including me, inspired, but thinking "I could never do that".

Well, the good news is that you don't have to, at least not right away. You can handle any challenger to the Catholic faith with a simple two-step method: 1. Buy Time; 2. Run for help!

Example:

Protestant Pete: "Why do you Catholics worship idols in clear violation of the teachings of the Bible!?”

Catholic Cathy: “You know Pete, that's a good question. I'd really like to talk to you about that. But now's not a good time. Could we get together tomorrow after work? “

If it was a comment instead of a question just change the words around a bit: "You know Pete, that's a really interesting thought..."

Buy as much time as you want. It could be next week or whenever. The main thing is not to get stuck trying to answer the other person's question or respond to his or her comment without proper preparation. Also, make the sign of the cross and say a short prayer before opening thy mouth.

Now, run for help. It would be best to find a knowledgeable member of the clergy to actually meet with you and Pete, because not only do you want to answer Pete's challenge, you want to use the opportunity to begin brining him "home to Rome". So try your pastors first.

There are also a number of excellent resources that you can consult, but before I tell you what they are I need to advise you about your upcoming meeting with Protestant Pete. Of course if you can get a pastor or an informed lay person to come with you then all you have to do is let them do the talking. But since most often you'll probably have to deal with challenger alone, keep the same two step method in mind. Prepare your answer, but be prepared for Protestant Pete to take your answer apart or change the subject. If that happens, simply say something like: "Pete, I can appreciate your point of view on this, however, I would like to think more about what you said before I reply. Can we get together again tomorrow?"

Now here are a few resources that you can begin adding to your apologetics library.
1. The whole Beginning Apologetics Series Vol.1-7, but Volumes 1 and 2 will definitely be enough to get you started.
2. Beginning Apologetics on tape. This is an in depth discussion of the above Volume 1. You can learn much listening to these in your car, your bathroom, or wherever you have a tape player.
3. Catholic Verse Finder. This is a single laminated sheet that functions like an Apologetics concordance.
4. Topic Tabs - enable you to set up your Bible so that you can quickly and easily find the bible verse that supports the Catholic teaching.

Also, one more note. It's best not to quote the scripture itself, but to quote Chapter and Verse and put it in the form of a question. Example. When you reply to Protestant Pete's original question, instead of saying "well God certainly didn't mean not to make graven images because later on He says to Moses to make a bronze serpent”, try it this way: Well, Pete, what is your interpretation of Numbers 21:8?

Well, more later.