Question The Church is protected by God from making an error in teaching and basic principles, but the people running it can still mess up, just as long as this mistake doesn't go against the teaching of the Church?
Answer The Church can still sin, even against it's own teaching. It just can't teach the wrong thing. This applies to matters of 'faith and morals'- ie:, things you can't prove by science or discover on your own, like "the trinity" and "abortion is wrong". But a pope could still be evil- he could even be a murderer! But if the Pope speaks with the authority of the Church, or if all the Bishops unite in a council, they can't teach the wrong thing. (An individual bishop, ior a Pope teaching just on his own, could make a mistake. It's like the disclaimer in my blog, that what I teach may be just my ideas, and not the teachings of the Church or even OLVC. That way if I make a mistake, no one can accuse the Church of being wrong!)
Suppose there was a Pope though who wanted to undermine Catholicism, for some reason. He says he's teaching with the full authority of the Church, and he says that the Eucharist is just a symbol. Theoretically, he would die before he could teach the thing- or go mute or something. In fact, aprantly rthere was a pope who wanted to teach error, and he died suddenly. There have evem been Popes who believed error- that Jesus was not God- but for some reason they never taught it!
This site is where I let my faith wrestle with reason. If you have a question to submit, do it at vankampen.peter@gmail.com. Although I try to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, these answers are the opinion of a Catholic youth Coordinator, and should not be construed as the views of the Catholic Church.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Can we achieve perfection on Earth?
Question So the difference between Catholics and Protestants ideas of salvation is that Catholics have hope of becoming perfect in this world, which might inspire us to try to make a difference, whereas Protestants think this to be impossible so it isn't worth trying, and therefore are less likely to make a difference? How is it possible for us to become perfect on earth? If we need the grace of God to be made perfect, why do we believe that we can work towards our own salvation? Basically what it comes down to then is that we will try harder if there is that hope, right?
Answer Sort of. Very few people actually aspire to perfection on earth... but we should try to be as righteous as possible. The difference is that Catholics think their efforts make a difference, and that if the process isn't finnished on earth, it will be in purgatory. Protestants still try to be righteous, as an expression of their faith, but they don't think 'salvation' is hinged on that. Some protestants- Calvinists- don't think they can do anything about whether they are going to Heaven or Hell- they think God just predestined them before all time, and they just have to put up with it!
I suggest you read the gospel of Matthew (7,8,25) and the letter of James (2) while thinking about this- and you will see that Jesus and his apostles clearly taught that works make a difference! While we may never be totally perfect in this world, we can gain in virtue and eliminate vice, and we should always push on towards that.
Answer Sort of. Very few people actually aspire to perfection on earth... but we should try to be as righteous as possible. The difference is that Catholics think their efforts make a difference, and that if the process isn't finnished on earth, it will be in purgatory. Protestants still try to be righteous, as an expression of their faith, but they don't think 'salvation' is hinged on that. Some protestants- Calvinists- don't think they can do anything about whether they are going to Heaven or Hell- they think God just predestined them before all time, and they just have to put up with it!
I suggest you read the gospel of Matthew (7,8,25) and the letter of James (2) while thinking about this- and you will see that Jesus and his apostles clearly taught that works make a difference! While we may never be totally perfect in this world, we can gain in virtue and eliminate vice, and we should always push on towards that.
How are the body and soul connected? What is the teaching on statues?
Question So at the end of the world when bodies and Souls are reunited. In the Eucharist the bread and wine take the form of the body and blood of Jesus. This is how there is a direct connection between physical and spiritual. How is that same connection present in things like statues?
Answer The human person is composed of 3 parts- body, soul, and spirit. Most people don't realize that there is a difference between soul and spirit. God is pure spirit, as are angels. Animals are body and soul, but no spirit. Because of the spiritual nature of the human soul, our soul will live forever, whereas an animals cannot. We are also capable of truly loving, considering our own existence, and therefore sinning. This is what is meant by "Created in the Image and Likeness of God"
JPII taught that our bodies are 'sacraments' of our spirits. A sacrament is a physical thing that shows a spiritual reality. So our bodies indicate something about our nature- (this means that men and women are not jsut different physically, but spiritually as well!). Your sould is that bit which 'animates' your body- in fact the word 'anima' is greek for 'soul' and is where we get the word animal. So your soul is your life. It is your personality. But if you damage your brain, it will effect your personality. So the two are totally linked! It's like saying that your soul is the neurions firing in your brain, and your body is the grey matter- they are completely linked, but have different names to describe different functions.
That's what is meant when we say that the soul is not trapped in the body- it's kind of part of it. You can't seperate them, isolate them and say here's one and here's the other.
Statues do not have souls or spirits- they are just symbols. The reason Catholic and Protestants have a difference about statues goes back to John Calvin. He was a reformer who saw the commandment "Though shalt not make images..." (against making idols) and thought that any statues or pictures in Church must therefore be wrong. That's why even today protestant churches tend not to have any. It ignored the fact that shortly after that God commanded Moses to make the Ark of the Covenant- complete with statues- and that the temple itself had statues and images in it.
It became deeply political, and entrenched- in Holland. At that time, Holland was being run by the Spanish. So the dutch threw off the Spanish and the Church at the same time- and when they did, they ransacked Churches, destroying all the artwork and statues and stained glass. Catholics of course were very sad about this, and it created considerable tension between the denominations in Holland.
Answer The human person is composed of 3 parts- body, soul, and spirit. Most people don't realize that there is a difference between soul and spirit. God is pure spirit, as are angels. Animals are body and soul, but no spirit. Because of the spiritual nature of the human soul, our soul will live forever, whereas an animals cannot. We are also capable of truly loving, considering our own existence, and therefore sinning. This is what is meant by "Created in the Image and Likeness of God"
JPII taught that our bodies are 'sacraments' of our spirits. A sacrament is a physical thing that shows a spiritual reality. So our bodies indicate something about our nature- (this means that men and women are not jsut different physically, but spiritually as well!). Your sould is that bit which 'animates' your body- in fact the word 'anima' is greek for 'soul' and is where we get the word animal. So your soul is your life. It is your personality. But if you damage your brain, it will effect your personality. So the two are totally linked! It's like saying that your soul is the neurions firing in your brain, and your body is the grey matter- they are completely linked, but have different names to describe different functions.
That's what is meant when we say that the soul is not trapped in the body- it's kind of part of it. You can't seperate them, isolate them and say here's one and here's the other.
Statues do not have souls or spirits- they are just symbols. The reason Catholic and Protestants have a difference about statues goes back to John Calvin. He was a reformer who saw the commandment "Though shalt not make images..." (against making idols) and thought that any statues or pictures in Church must therefore be wrong. That's why even today protestant churches tend not to have any. It ignored the fact that shortly after that God commanded Moses to make the Ark of the Covenant- complete with statues- and that the temple itself had statues and images in it.
It became deeply political, and entrenched- in Holland. At that time, Holland was being run by the Spanish. So the dutch threw off the Spanish and the Church at the same time- and when they did, they ransacked Churches, destroying all the artwork and statues and stained glass. Catholics of course were very sad about this, and it created considerable tension between the denominations in Holland.
Why do protestants believe in Sola Scriptura?
Why do Protestants believe the only source of truth is the Bible, given the clear contradiction to that idea you made? Do they not believe in the trinity either? (see How can the Church teach things not found in Scripture?)
When Luther seperated, one of his mottos was "Sola Scriptura". I don't think he forsaw the difficulties this would raise. Protestants read the bible, come to a conclusion, and when they find out that The Catholic Church has a different conclusion, they say 'well the Church must be worng'. So basically, they have to keep believing in just the Bible, or change too many other things they believe in!
Luther still believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (though slightly different than Catholics)- but even in his day, Calvin and Zwingli came to different conclusions using the Bible alone- so they formed new denominations! Nowadays, there are thousands of protestant denominations all with their own teachings- all using 'just the Bible'!
So, most of them still believe in the Trinity, but not all. Jehovahs Witnesses (usually not considered a denomination, but a cult) think Jesus was St Michael the Archangel, and not God. The United Church officially stated that they don't know for sure.
The problem is they grow up proving everything they believe in scripture to each other, and learn to argue so intensely from the Bible that they never even ask the question if it can stand alone or if the Bible ever intended to teach on things like the trinity. Catholics do this too, so that when Protestants ask us to defend our faith, we show them scripture passages that support our teaching, even though at the end of the day some of the passages were not written to do that. We basically treat scripture like a countries constitution- a basis from which to debate. And we read it like we're a bunch of lawyers. This is not how Catholic have traditionally read scripture- it is not to argue about theology, but rather to come to know the person who is God. This is why we ordain preachers- so that we can say they officially represent what the Church has to say, and we know when we hear a preacher that they are not just spouting off their opinion!
When Luther seperated, one of his mottos was "Sola Scriptura". I don't think he forsaw the difficulties this would raise. Protestants read the bible, come to a conclusion, and when they find out that The Catholic Church has a different conclusion, they say 'well the Church must be worng'. So basically, they have to keep believing in just the Bible, or change too many other things they believe in!
Luther still believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (though slightly different than Catholics)- but even in his day, Calvin and Zwingli came to different conclusions using the Bible alone- so they formed new denominations! Nowadays, there are thousands of protestant denominations all with their own teachings- all using 'just the Bible'!
So, most of them still believe in the Trinity, but not all. Jehovahs Witnesses (usually not considered a denomination, but a cult) think Jesus was St Michael the Archangel, and not God. The United Church officially stated that they don't know for sure.
The problem is they grow up proving everything they believe in scripture to each other, and learn to argue so intensely from the Bible that they never even ask the question if it can stand alone or if the Bible ever intended to teach on things like the trinity. Catholics do this too, so that when Protestants ask us to defend our faith, we show them scripture passages that support our teaching, even though at the end of the day some of the passages were not written to do that. We basically treat scripture like a countries constitution- a basis from which to debate. And we read it like we're a bunch of lawyers. This is not how Catholic have traditionally read scripture- it is not to argue about theology, but rather to come to know the person who is God. This is why we ordain preachers- so that we can say they officially represent what the Church has to say, and we know when we hear a preacher that they are not just spouting off their opinion!
How does the Catholic Church settle arguments that protestants can't settle?
Question Take the example of all of the disagreements you said protestants have (Whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, whether or not we should be allowed to divorce, have women pastors, how much to give, who gets saved, sacraments, honor Mary, etc.). How do we, as Catholics, know the answers to these?
Answer Again, we have the authority of the Church which has never contradicted itself. The Church is inpsired the same way as scripture- so if something is not explicit in scripture, the Church herself can teach on it. We don't have to read the Bible to find the truth- but rather God directly insp[ires the Church. You can see how this idea is offenseive to protestants, but on the other hand you can see the Church teaching the same thing all over the world and all throughout history, where protestants acknowledge that they do not have that authority.
Answer Again, we have the authority of the Church which has never contradicted itself. The Church is inpsired the same way as scripture- so if something is not explicit in scripture, the Church herself can teach on it. We don't have to read the Bible to find the truth- but rather God directly insp[ires the Church. You can see how this idea is offenseive to protestants, but on the other hand you can see the Church teaching the same thing all over the world and all throughout history, where protestants acknowledge that they do not have that authority.
Why can't women be priests?
Question Why can't women be priests? Isn't this incredibly sexist and something that as a society we've evolved away from?
Answer This goes back to the idea that our bodies reflect our spiritual nature. While men and women are perfectly equal, we are not the same. You should know that feminists like to argue that men and women are the same, and that saying otherwise is sexist. In fact, the president of Harvard was recently fired for making the outlandish claim that men and women are different. It's funny because it is so obvious that we are different, it's actually pretty ridiculous to imply otherwise!
So, in being different, it should not be surprising that our roles are different. Jesus, for some reason, only chose male apostles. Some people say that he was just going according to his culture, but then he did choose tax collectors and ignorant fishermen for apostles, and hung out with prostitutes- he didn't seem too concerned with the culture!
The Catholic Church claims to be inspired by God- but God only made male priests! (Might as well ask why men can't have babies- isn't that sexist? God decided) We don't have the authority to change what God did. If God wants women priests, than theoretically he could tell the Church that, and we could start making women priests- but so far God has not told us that, and I suspect He never will!
The significance of the difference between Men and Women is that men have to give love to accept love, and women have to accept love to give love. This is true physically- and that is a sign. The man has to penetrate the woman. It's also just how we are- men want to pursue, and women want to be pursued! (I bet when this is on my blog I will be eventually called sexist for writing this stuff.)
So because of this, we always refer to God in the masculine, even though God is pure spirit, and so technically neither male nor female. We always refer to the Church in the feminine. The preist is in 'personal Christi'- the person of Christ, so he represents Christ. He is a much better symbol as a male.
There's this funny notion out there that the Catholic Church should change her teachings according to culture. But again, the Church is above and outside of culture- we don't sway with the tide. JPII pretty much settled the debate on women in the pristhood when he said (quoting Pope Paul VI) "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Answer This goes back to the idea that our bodies reflect our spiritual nature. While men and women are perfectly equal, we are not the same. You should know that feminists like to argue that men and women are the same, and that saying otherwise is sexist. In fact, the president of Harvard was recently fired for making the outlandish claim that men and women are different. It's funny because it is so obvious that we are different, it's actually pretty ridiculous to imply otherwise!
So, in being different, it should not be surprising that our roles are different. Jesus, for some reason, only chose male apostles. Some people say that he was just going according to his culture, but then he did choose tax collectors and ignorant fishermen for apostles, and hung out with prostitutes- he didn't seem too concerned with the culture!
The Catholic Church claims to be inspired by God- but God only made male priests! (Might as well ask why men can't have babies- isn't that sexist? God decided) We don't have the authority to change what God did. If God wants women priests, than theoretically he could tell the Church that, and we could start making women priests- but so far God has not told us that, and I suspect He never will!
The significance of the difference between Men and Women is that men have to give love to accept love, and women have to accept love to give love. This is true physically- and that is a sign. The man has to penetrate the woman. It's also just how we are- men want to pursue, and women want to be pursued! (I bet when this is on my blog I will be eventually called sexist for writing this stuff.)
So because of this, we always refer to God in the masculine, even though God is pure spirit, and so technically neither male nor female. We always refer to the Church in the feminine. The preist is in 'personal Christi'- the person of Christ, so he represents Christ. He is a much better symbol as a male.
There's this funny notion out there that the Catholic Church should change her teachings according to culture. But again, the Church is above and outside of culture- we don't sway with the tide. JPII pretty much settled the debate on women in the pristhood when he said (quoting Pope Paul VI) "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Why do protestants believe in 'once saved always saved'?
Question You said that we do not believe in 'once saved always saved', that even once we are Christian we can still fall back into sin and away from God. So then being saved is kind of like it is in flag wars- you get freed, but can get caught again? Given this passage, why do Protestants believe "once saved always saved"? wouldn't it make more sense that the passage would be interpreted in this way? (Follow up on Can we work for our own salvation?)
AnswerThat's a decent analogy, except remember that the word 'saved' means healed, forgiven, rescued, freed.... so depending on the context in scripture, it could be refering to any number of things.
But protestants tend to use the word only in the sense of 'rescued', like from Hell.
The Calvinists taught (teach) that we are predestined, and can do nothing to contribute to out own salvation. This idea is scriptural, in that we can't possibly deserve salvation and it is only because of the mercy of God that we can be saved- but it ignores the fact that scripture tells us to wortk for our salvation and that we will be judged and saved according to what we did. For a Calvinist, if you're 'predestined' it means that from before all time it was decided, so it is impossible to lose your slavation. So, "once saved, always saved". When confronted with someone who obviously was a Christian and later rejected Christ, they just say that he was never really saved in the first place, he was never really predestined.
It is a problem, because scripture does refer to the 'elect', and 'predestination' (Eph 1). Like anything the ballance has to be struck between two extremes. One is that we can totally earn our way to Heaven, the other that we can't do anything and we just passively recieve salvation. Catholics are somewhere between these two extremes, and we say that anything good we do is done by the grace and prompting of God, grace builds on nature, but nature must cooperate with grace. I don't think we'll fully understand this until Heaven. (Though it'd be interesting to look into further...)
AnswerThat's a decent analogy, except remember that the word 'saved' means healed, forgiven, rescued, freed.... so depending on the context in scripture, it could be refering to any number of things.
But protestants tend to use the word only in the sense of 'rescued', like from Hell.
The Calvinists taught (teach) that we are predestined, and can do nothing to contribute to out own salvation. This idea is scriptural, in that we can't possibly deserve salvation and it is only because of the mercy of God that we can be saved- but it ignores the fact that scripture tells us to wortk for our salvation and that we will be judged and saved according to what we did. For a Calvinist, if you're 'predestined' it means that from before all time it was decided, so it is impossible to lose your slavation. So, "once saved, always saved". When confronted with someone who obviously was a Christian and later rejected Christ, they just say that he was never really saved in the first place, he was never really predestined.
It is a problem, because scripture does refer to the 'elect', and 'predestination' (Eph 1). Like anything the ballance has to be struck between two extremes. One is that we can totally earn our way to Heaven, the other that we can't do anything and we just passively recieve salvation. Catholics are somewhere between these two extremes, and we say that anything good we do is done by the grace and prompting of God, grace builds on nature, but nature must cooperate with grace. I don't think we'll fully understand this until Heaven. (Though it'd be interesting to look into further...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)