|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 13, Number 9
 November 2002 
|
|
|
"Mrs. Jesus, I Presume?"
Q: The other day I was talking with a friend who insisted that Jesus was married, because he was called "Rabbi," and rabbinical law at that time required rabbis to be married. How should I respond?
A: The term "rabbi" was a title of honor given to the teachers of the law, and to Jesus by his disciples and others. It is not clear that at the time of Christ there was a mandate that a rabbi be married. As a matter of fact, a rabbi could be said to be "married to the Torah."
Jesus himself praised virginity for the sake of the kingdom (Matt. 19:11-12). In the New Testament, the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ. The Church hardly would have used this metaphor if there were a Mrs. Jesus offstage somewhere.
Finally, not only is there absolutely no support for this claim in Scripture or Tradition, but tradition unanimously regards Jesus himself as an exemplar of virginity.
Q: A divorced woman I know was told her that she could not receive Communion because she has not gotten an annulment, even though she has never remarried. I told her that I thought she could receive Communion.
A: Provided that she is otherwise properly disposed to receive the Eucharist, you are correct. The reason Catholic individuals who remarry after a divorce (without an annulment) may not receive Communion is that they are living in sin with an individual not their spouse. Individuals who have been divorced but have not remarried may or may not have some degree of culpability regarding their divorce, but that is a matter of particular sins in the past of which one can repent and be absolved.
On the other hand, even someone who has remarried without an annulment, if that person recognizes that it is wrong to live with the new partner as if with a spouse, can make the decision to live chastely, recover the life of grace through confession, and return to the sacraments.
Q: As a Calvinist, I believe those who fall away were never truly saved. How else do you explain these verses: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" (1 John 2:19), and "Depart from me, for I never knew you" (Matt. 7:23)?
A: For your argument to have demonstrative force, you must show that in 1 John 2:19, for example, the phrase "they were not of us" means something like, "They were not of us with respect to regeneration or justification."
The problem with this is that the passage can be just as easily understood to mean, "They were not of us with respect to election or predestination to glory." In fact, that's precisely how Augustine, one of the Calvinists' favorite theologians before Calvin, did understand this verse. Unless you can refute Augustine's interpretation, the verse does not prove your belief.
Likewise with the other verse you cite, you must interpret "I never knew you" to mean something like, "I never knew you as a regenerate son." But it could also mean something like "I never knew you from before the foundation of the world as one of my elect to glory," so the verse does not prove your belief.
Not only do these verses not prove your belief, there are many other scripture passages that disprove it. To pick just one example, in Galatians 5:3 Paul warns those who seek to be justified by keeping the Law of Moses, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." To be "severed from Christ" implies that one was previously joined to him, just as a severed arm is one that was once attached. Likewise, to be "fallen from grace" implies that one was previously in grace.
Q: How can free will be genuinely free if the only other option is supposedly burning in hell for eternity? We're "free" to do as we please, God supposedly tells us, but if we don't do things his way, we'll suffer for it. That's not free will—it's extortion.
A: While it's certainly true that if we refuse "to do things his way, we'll suffer for it," this can no more be called "extortion" than the fact that, if we refuse water, we'll suffer thirst and eventually die.
Christianity teaches that goodness is to God as wetness is to water. In other words, all goodness comes from God and is dependent upon him; everything that's good is good because it comes from him and somehow expresses, relates to, and depends upon who and what he is.
Thus, just as it would be meaningless to speak of something being wet in the absence of water, so it would be meaningless to speak of anything being in any way enjoyable, beautiful, or otherwise good, apart from or opposed to God.
But we have to learn to see past the gifts, good as they are, and get to the Giver. Just as we need water (not just wet things) to live, so we need God himself (not just good things) for another kind of life. Just as the only alternative to water and life is death, so the only alternative to God is another kind of death. Within the context of the Christian picture of who God is, this is nothing like "extortion"-it's inexorable reality.
God is offering us goodness and happiness and the choice of whether or not we will take it. That isn't extortion; it's grace.
Q: Is the difference between good and bad whatever God says it is? Or is God good because he conforms to a standard of goodness?
A: Neither. Goodness is not imposed upon God from some external standard nor is it invented by him. Rather, it is rooted in his own eternal and unchanging nature. For example, when God commands us to love him with our whole heart and to our neighbor as ourselves, that is rooted in the fact that God himself is love (cf. 1 John 4:8). He could not suddenly choose to forbid loving God and neighbor, or command hating God and neighbor, for he cannot be other than what he is.
Q: I have read that the St. Pius X Society (SSPX) is anywhere from schismatic to irregular. What is the truth?
A: It is in schism. Ecclesia Dei is an apostolic letter issued by Pope John Paul II on July 2, 1988. The document provides the pontiff's determination regarding the schismatic acts committed two days earlier by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre and a number of associates. In the document, the Pope confirmed the existence of a schism and the consequent excommunication of those directly involved. He explained the origins of Lefebvre's move into schism and he made a direct appeal to the faithful not to support the Lefebvrist schism. He warned that formal adherence to the Lefebvrist schism was a grave sin (i.e., a mortal one if done with adequate knowledge and deliberate consent) and that it incurs excommunication.
He instituted a commission that led to the creation of a number of Tridentine Mass groups, including the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which was founded by former SSPX priests who refused to go into schism with Lefebvre or who returned from schism. Finally, he affirmed that, in spite of Lefebvre's move into schism, it was still legitimate to desire to worship according to the Latin liturgical tradition. He therefore ordered a "wide and generous application" of the directives previously issued to facilitate this: "Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962" (Ecclesia Dei 6c).
Q: Pope Sixtus V, in his bull Effraenatam (1583), taught that abortion results in the "certain loss, not only of bodies, but of souls." Does this mean that aborted babies and other unbaptized babies go to hell?
A: No. Without unforgiven personal sin, a soul cannot go to hell and be punished. On the other hand, without sanctifying grace, a soul cannot experience the Beatific Vision. God is merciful, but he is also just.
From the earliest of times the Church has struggled with this issue. The tension has led some theologians to speculate about the fate of unbaptized persons who die without personal sin but with original sin on their souls. One possibility is that they experience neither the Beatific Vision nor eternal damnation, but a third state of perfect natural happiness. This state, sometimes called limbo, has never been more than theological speculation.
Another possibility is that God gives sanctifying grace to dying infants so that they can experience the Beatific Vision. The Catechism tells us that it is permissible "to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism" (CCC 1261). However, we cannot know that this is the case.
What Pope Sixtus meant by "loss of souls" is subject to interpretation. Souls who depart from this earth are lost to us, and furthermore are deprived of the opportunity to win glory for themselves and God through heroic virtue in this life. Such souls might also be "lost" to heaven if they went to limbo. However, since they lack personal sin, they cannot be "lost" in the sense of eternally damned.
This is assuming, of course, that he was not referring to the loss of the souls of those who commit abortion.
Q: Can the souls in heaven pray for the souls in purgatory?
A: It would seem so. The Catechism says, "In the communion of saints, 'a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.' In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin" (CCC 1475).
If the communion of saints allows us to intercede on behalf of those in purgatory and allows them to intercede for us, then there would seem to be little blocking their asking for and receiving the intercession of those in heaven.
|
Catholic Answers
