|
L e t t e r s
THREE GOADS
|
This Rock
Volume 6, Number 12
 December 1995 
|
|
|
YOUR magazine, publications, and audio tapes have been a continual and blessed response to my prayers for further growth and knowledge about my faith, and apologetics specifically. I speak with Catholics every day, and it disheartens me to hear them accepting what the liberal media say about the Church.
For the past two years I have undertaken a personal study of the Church and apologetics. Three situations led me to this study. The first involved subtle attacks on the Church by my two Fundamentalist brothers.
John has discussed with me his problems with what he thinks the Church teaches. I challenged him to look at patristic writings if he was serious about living his faith as a "pure" Christian. I explained that some of the beliefs and doctrines he claimed were "invented" by Catholics were actually believed and practiced by first-century Christians, such as the truth of the Eucharist and Marian devotion. A few months later, he told me that he had ordered a 40-volume set of the writings of the Church Fathers and was in the process of reading them.
David, though, is a close-minded, self-righteous, anti-Catholic Fundamentalist. He states that he does not hate individual Catholics; rather it's the magisterium with which he contends. The assembly to which he belongs is called, I think, the Plymouth Brotherhood. The irony is that, by some strange event, the items I receive from Catholic Answers arrive with his name.
The second situation which led me to study the Church was an encounter I had with two Jehovah's Witnesses. My wife, Laura, and I had been infrequent Mass-goers; I considered myself a Christian who was open to understand others' views on religion.
I invited the two Witnesses into our apartment and talked with them. Laura chose not to join us. We covered many topics, and, after a few meetings with them, I began to consider seriously some of their teachings.
Laura remained silent while I recounted the meetings and explained what I thought about the Witnesses' beliefs. She muttered that the Catholic Church had been around for 2,000 years, therefore something must be right about it. Her urgings were sufficient to get me interested to discover the truth for myself. Thank God!
Thirdly, a priest gave me Rome Sweet Home to read. He told me that I would not be able to put it down. In less than two days I read the book from cover to cover. I related to Scott and Kimberly Hahn's struggle and determined that I would attend the very next seminar at the Franciscan University in Steubenville. I don't remember what the seminar was about, but I do remember something about that day that will remain with me forever.
In the chapel, prior to Mass, a student minister requested that the students give up their seats for the seminar attendees because the university had many more attendees than expected. He added that there would be an additional Mass for the students later that evening. It amazed and thrilled me when I realized that what I witnessed was a group of college student being asked not to attend Mass (at least temporarily). It was that day, more than any other, that convinced me to begin my study of the Church and apologetics.
Laura and I now attend Mass at least once every week, and we recognize the need for a day of abstinence, which we observe every Friday. I receive This Rock. I readCatholicism and Fundamentalism twice and now have loaned it, along with some back issues of This Rock, to a priest at our church.
At present I cannot afford to get any other subscriptions or to purchase the books and tapes that I would like. When the Lord blesses us, through my work and business, I will be in a position to take advantage of all that you offer.
I pray for your continued success. Laura and I appreciate the orthodox teaching that you present in your materials and magazine. When we are on more solid financial ground, I plan to assist you in your mission.
Donald D. Ross
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
It's Greek to me
I would like to make a couple comments concerning your feature article "John 3:16 and Eternal Security" (September 1995) by Steve Ray. I have nothing to take away from the article, but I would like to build upon the comments that Mr. Ray made concerning the Greek text of the passage.
Being a Greek student myself (Koiné Greek minor during my undergrad studies), I am fascinated to see anything in your magazine that deals with the Greek text.
I believe Mr. Ray's case would be stronger if mention had been made of the clause in 3:16b. In Greek grammar it is called a hina clause that tips one off that the subjunctive mood is in the structure. The subjunctive mood carries with it the idea of contingency ("if," "when," "who," and purpose or result). In the case of hina, the idea of purpose or result is to be considered ("may" or "might"). (See A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, 170-172).
I am concerned with two words in this clause. The first is hina (which can mean "that" or "in order that"), which I have already mentioned, and the other is eche (which means "to have"). In the preceding verse John 3:15) the same construction is found, and yet most translations have "may" or "might" in the clause. In John 3:16b, the "may" or "might" is left out. For me, this makes a sharp distinction in context. A rough rendering of the clause ought to read like this: "in order that all the one who believes into him may not be destroyed but may have life eternal" (Greek New Testament UBS, 3d ed., 330).
The way I see it, just "believing" does not guarantee anybody anything; rather, if you do work out your salvation (this believing), you will see heaven. This verse shows that it takes more than just belief at a single moment to gain heaven. Even if you believe all your life, that does not guarantee anything. Don't forget, even the demons believe (Jas. 2:19)! We must remember to work out our salvation (Phil. 2:12). This verse (John 3:16) plainly states that belief is the first step to eternal life. What we do after this step is what really counts.
I forgot to mention: I too used to be Protestant
David Reynolds
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
"Your Aquinas is off"
I WISH to respond to a statement I read in This Rock ("'Habemus papam'?", July/August 1995).
The assertion was made that St. Thomas Aquinas denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This assertion is sometimes made by those who dissent from Catholic doctrine in a lame attempt to justify their own stance: If Aquinas denied an infallible doctrine of the Church and still is recognized as the prince of theologians, a saint, and Doctor of the Church, then one who simply does not agree with the Church on certain issues (some even infallibly defined) can remain a Catholic in good standing. By some inverted logic some even go as far as to say, "Do not be surprised it my present 'faithful dissent' is finally recognized as valid by the Church at some future date." They say the same could happen to theologians such as Hans Küng or Charles Curran.
The assertion that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception is inaccurate, misleading, and superficial. One could say. following the same logic, that the Pelagians (e.g., Julian of Eclanum) were among the first to proclaim the dogma of the Immaculate Conception back in the fifth century. Those that know the history of the Pelagian controversy realize how misleading (nay, ridiculous) it would be to make such a claim. It is true that the Pelagians would have the Virgin Mary as the first and most obvious example of a sinless, including original sin.
The Pelagians, though, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception as taught and defined by the Church; they believed in an "immaculate conception" that has no need of redemption, an immaculate conception that no Catholic can believe in. After all, for the Pelagians, Christ was more of a teacher and an example than a redeemer; for them original sin was contracted by imitation of the sin of Adam (not by generation as Trent, using an Augustinian formula, declared). The Pelagians denied that this first sin of our first parents had any other particular effect on human nature beyond the bad example it gave us to follow.
Analogously, one who claims that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception is making a very superficial and misleading statement. The following would be far more accurate and less misleading: If the Blessed Virgin had not contracted original sin, then (so thought Aquinas) this would detract from the dignity of Christ, who is the Redeemer of all men, including the Virgin. Aquinas never denied the Immaculate Conception as defined by the Church. He simply did not see how the universality of Christ's salvation would have been preserved in the case of the Virgin. The so called "immaculate conception" that Aquinas could not accept is an unredeemed immaculate conception, an opinion that all Catholics, not just Aquinas, have to reject, especially after the true meaning of the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church.
To be fair to St. Thomas, the most we can say is that he did not see how two facts could be reconciled-that Christ is the true Redeemer of all mankind and that a particular human being, the Virgin, was conceived without sin. The concept of "anticipated redemption" or "preservation" from original sin by the merits of Christ simply did not occur to him. If Aquinas had been presented with this solution to his dilemma, no one could seriously doubt that he would have been the first to teach the Virgin's privilege.
Aquinas (and for that matter Anselm, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales (and several other theological heavyweights of the Middle Ages) did not so much deny the Immaculate Conception as simply assert the universality of Christ's Redemption, a clear and undisputed dogma of Christianity which they could not intellectually reconcile with a human being conceived free from original sin.
Manuel A. Pedrozo
Hilliard, Ohio
Where's the full listing?
WE have many of your tapes-all that we know of-all are just great. But many of the tapes and books we have from Catholic Answers were learned about in ways other than any listing we have from your organization. Are we missing something? We are on your mailing list and have ordered several things from you and have donated from time to time what little we can. Do you have a catalogue of everything you have to sell?
Wilma Rauch
Aurora, Oregon
Editor's reply:
We're unable to list everything we have in these pages. We're working on two catalogues, each of which will be sent to subscribers. An interim catalogue will include more than a hundred items, including the most popular ones. A later catalogue will include a wider and deeper selection. We ask that you be patient-the catalogues will come in due course.
I just gotta say this
YOUR appeal letter [concerning anti-Catholic attacks on the Church] did not make my blood boil, but it did make me very sad. These people you speak of, and they are numerous, live in semi-darkness, darkness and ignorance of things divine.
Two weeks before December 25, non-Catholics greet one another with "Merry Christmas," and they have no idea what they are saying. They are not aware that Christmas is the way we celebrate the Incarnation-the Mass of Christ.
They do not realize that the truth they do have comes from the Catholic Church and the Catholic Book, the Bible. They are like dogs that bite the hands that feed them.
They do not realize that the day-after-day life they live is and has been planned and influenced by the Catholic Church: the calendar they follow, the time that directs their actions, the holidays (holy days) they enjoy. They do not realize that the Bible they attempt to follow is incomplete, although I understand that some of the more expensive copies have now added the seven missing books.
I realize that none of the above is unknown to you but it is good for me to express my thoughts.
Veronica E. Nielson
Reed City, Michigan
Sorry, but I won't help
ALTHOUGH you are fighting so strongly against the anti-Catholic attacks, I have found that I am unable to participate for one main reason. To convince an anti-Catholic that the Catholic Church is the true church I would have to convince him of the truth of the Vatican II experience. This is impossible for me to do.
I don't know if you were a Roman Catholic before Vatican II, but I was. The Church was holy and protected the traditions that had come down from the ages. There has been a revolution and what is left is not good. The Pope allows the bishops free reign to run their dioceses with minimal interference from Rome. Slowly they have replaced the traditions of the Catholic faith with an anything-goes smorgasbord of beliefs, and the people are allowed to to pick and choose their faith. Pope John Paul and his three predecessors have turned the Church upside down.
The allowance of the Tridentine Mass in a few areas was not a sympathetic gesture to people who believed in the old Mass. The new allowance was a maneuver to divide the Pius X Society and bring its followers back to Rome. Also, the Fraternity of St. Peter was established to bring in the Latin Mass people. As soon as they feel they have drawn out enough people from the Society of St. Pius X, they will abolish the trite allowance of the "legal" Mass, thus defeating the holy cause for the Latin Mass.
It is a revolution. I don't think that Pope John Paul II is an evil man -just misguided. He is determined to be ecumenical, but he is way off. I truly await the return to the Roman Catholic faith. I will not forget. I can not accept this reformed substitute. Please forgive my bluntness, but I have seen nothing good come out of Vatican II.
Lawrence C. Cameron
Keokuk, Iowa
Editor's reply:
Forgive my bluntness, but if you've seen nothing good arising in the last thirty years, you haven't been looking. You seem paralyzed by problems around us-in the liturgy, in doctrinal teaching, in moral teaching. You blame all these woes on Vatican II. By doing that you show you haven't thought things through with a truly critical sense. Why not start afresh by reading the documents of Vatican II? I'll wager you've never read more than a few snippets. If you had, you wouldn't be rejecting an ecumenical council-a cheeky thing for a supposedly loyal Catholic to do.
|
Catholic Answers
