Is the Catholic Church the one, true Church? Here are 7 things to know and share with others . . .
In today’s brave new world of ecumenism, the Catholic Church no longer claims to be unique, right?
After all, Vatican II didn’t say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
It merely said that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church.
So that means the Catholic Church no longer views itself as the “one true Church,” right?
Not so fast . . .
1. The Source of the Issue
The source of the issue is found in Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, where we read:
8. This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
2. “Subsists In”?
The matter would be much clearer if the Council had used the traditional language of saying that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
Instead, they use the unfamiliar wording “subsists in” (Latin, subsistit in) instead of “is” (Latin, est).
This can make it appear that the Council was backing away from the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and many people–including Catholic theologians–took it in precisely this way.
Did Pope Francis intentionally poke Protestants in the eye?
Did Pope Francis intentionally poke Protestants in the eye?
In a recent column, Presbyterian Bill Tammeus appeared to accuse Pope Francis of “intentionally offering a poke in the eye to people outside your faith tradition.”
He asks if Pope Francis is “saying that I, as a Presbyterian, cannot follow Jesus outside of Catholicism? That’s what he appears to be claiming, and I think it’s a dicey position to highlight so early in his papacy.”
Did Pope Francis “intentionally“ poke Protestants in the eye? Did he say that Presbyterians cannot follow Jesus?
Ever since the start of the Protestant Reformation nearly 500 years ago, Protestants have been understandably dismissive of the idea that the Roman Catholic church is the only true Christian church.
I hope that Tammeus realizes that this is not what the Catholic Church claims. That’s too simplistic (see below).
And yet the leaders of the Catholic church have made that claim persistently over time in various ways.
Oops. Maybe not. Well, I certainly hope he at least understands that this is not the way the Magisterium articulates the issue.
The [way leaders of the Catholic Church have made that claim] that stirred up the most resentment under Pope John Paul II was contained in Dominus Iesus, issued in August 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI.
The declaration said churches outside the Catholic church “are not Churches in the proper sense.”
Okay.
Mr. Tammeus: It is my great pleasure to inform you that your concerns are to a substantial degree misplaced.
“Dear young people, the Church expects great things of you and your generosity. Don’t be afraid to aim high.” @pontifex, 28 May 2013
“The Church is born from the supreme act of love on the Cross, from Jesus’ open side. The Church is a family where we love and are loved.” @pontifex, 29 May 2013
“The whole of salvation history is the story of God looking for us: he offers us love and welcomes us with tenderness.” @pontifex, 31 May 2013
“In this Year of Faith, we pray to the Lord that the Church may always be a true family that brings God’s love to everyone.” @pontifex, 1 June 2013
“The world tells us to seek success, power and money;
God tells us to seek humility, service and love.” @pontifex, 2 June 2013
An image from the recent worldwide Eucharistic exposition.
This Sunday I went out for breakfast after Mass, which is something I very rarely do.
I almost never eat out, but I decided to do so as a way of celebrating the Lord’s Day.
While I was waiting in the restaurant, I was reading Facebook and discovered that the planned worldwide, Eucharistic exposition was going on right then–a fact I had not previously known.
Here are a few thoughts on the event . . .
1) These are the days of miracle and wonder.
As I sat in the restaurant, I downloaded, for free, The Pope App from News.va (iOS version, Android version) to let me watch the event live and then was able to do so–to join countless people from all over the planet in a simultaneous act of worship.
To quote Paul Simon, “These are the days of miracle and wonder.
June 1 is a special day for me, and it has been for the last 20 years.
One reason is that it's the memorial day of St. Justin Martyr, who is one of the main patron saints of apologists.
As an apologist, that makes it special to me.
But there is another reason as well.
I didn't plan it this way, but my report-to-work day at Catholic Answers happened to be June 1.
It's a significant day to embark on a career of apologetics, and I've always regarded it as a gift of divine providence.
Since I started doing apologetics professionally on June 1, 1993, that makes June 1, 2013 my 20th anniversary in the field. (Professionally speaking, at least; I'd been doing apologetics informally before that or I wouldn't have got the job.)
So this June 1 is my platinum anniversary, and I'm celebrating.
The More Things Change . . .
Things have changed a lot in the field of apologetics in the last twenty years.
One of the biggest changes was the commercial availability of the Internet, which emerged from its shadowy origins as a DARPA research project to facilitate communication during a nuclear war and became the civilization-changing technology that it is today.
When I started in apologetics, it was uncommon for anybody to have an email address, and research was done exclusively though books and journals.
When I wanted to find something out, I think, "What book or journal should I look in to find the answer to this?"
I remember the moment in the mid-1990s when I realized that–via the Internet–I had the World's Greatest Research Library sitting on my desktop. A light went on in my head, and I said, "From now on, this is going to be the thing I turn to first to find research leads on a question." (Of course, that still means verifying the data, since not everything you read on the Internet is true.)
The advent of the Internet opened up new possibilities for apologetics as well. I've tried to be an early-adopter as web-based opportunities have come along, and in the mid-90s, I started a web site, which still exists today as JimmyAkin.com.
I've also done work in other media, including publishing books, booklets, and audio sets, appearing on Catholic radio (which has blossomed in recent years), and reaching out in every practical way I can think of.
My goal has been to reach as many people for Christ as I can, through the best means I have available to me, and to do so in a way that's fair, accurate, kind, and–when appropriate–playful.
BTW, if I've helped you–in person or at a distance–in the last twenty years, I'd love to hear how I've done so. Just let me know in the comments box or by email.
It's been my honor to serve Christ and serve others these last twenty years.
If Jesus died on the cross in A.D. 33 and made forgiveness possible, how does that apply to people who lived before or after this event? (Like us!)
Jesus died on the Cross so that people could be forgiven their sins.
But if he died in A.D. 33, what about all the people who lived and died before that time? Were their sins forgiven?
And if their sins were forgiven, does that mean Jesus’ sacrifice applies to all of history?
If so, does that mean that we’ve been forgiven for all of our sins—past, present, and future—so that we don’t need to go to confession?
How does this all work?
Here’s the story . . .
The Bottom Line
It may seem unusual to put the bottom line at the top of a post, but I generally find it better to state things in a straightforward, literal manner and only then (if necessary) use analogies to help clarify them.
So here’s are the literal facts:
1) Jesus’ death on the Cross made it possible for all human beings to be forgiven of their sins, regardless of whether they lived before, during, or after his time.
2) In order to appropriate that forgiveness, people have to repent and turn to God. When they do so, God forgives them, regardless of when in history they lived.
3) During this life, people have free will, so if they un-repent (backslide, fall from grace, commit mortal sin) then they have committed new sins that are not (at that moment) forgiven.
4) In order to be forgiven of these new sins, they need to once more repent and turn to God. Then they will be forgiven of the new sins they committed.
Forgiveness B.C.
Suppose there is a person living in 800 B.C. Let’s call him King Bob.
One of the most common topics in discussion between Christians and atheists is the question of what atheism actually is.
For a long time, the word has been defined as the view that there is no God–i.e., the claim “God does not exist.”
More recently, some atheists have begun to define it differently.
According to them, atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. On this view, a person would be an atheist if he thought there was no God, thought it unlikely that there is a God, or didn’t know if there is a God.
Simply not agreeing with the claim “There is a God” would make you an atheist.
Some atheists have claimed that this is the natural state of humanity. On this view, we all start out as atheists and we have to learn belief in God.
In other words: Babies are atheists.
Are they right?
What’s the Attraction?
I understand why the atheists who make this claim would be attracted to it. At least, I understand why I would find it attractive if I were an atheist:
It can be plausibly claimed that babies do not have a belief in God, which makes one of the premises of the argument seem true.
If every position other than outright assertion of God’s existence falls under my banner, my position would seem larger and more popular.
I could claim atheism as mankind’s natural state, thus creating an implicit argument for it. Being in accord with human nature is good, right?
I could claim atheism as the default human belief, and thus relieve me of the burden of proof in arguing with others. I could then claim that the burden of proof is on those who want to believe in God. Until I’m satisfied by their arguments, I’m entitled to act on the assumption that God does not exist.
“I am close to the families of all who died in the Oklahoma tornado, especially those who lost young children. Join me in praying for them.” @pontifex, 21 May 2013
“To live according to the Gospel is to fight against selfishness. The Gospel is forgiveness and peace; it is love that comes from God.” @pontifex, 22 May 2013
“Do I take the Gospel message of reconciliation and love into the places where I live and work?” @pontifex, 23 May 2013
“On the feast of Mary Help of Christians I join the Catholics in China who trust in the protection of Our Lady of Sheshan and I pray for them” @pontifex, 23 May 2013
“Miracles happen. But prayer is needed! Prayer that is courageous, struggling and persevering, not prayer that is a mere formality.” @pontifex, 24 May 2013
“We all have in our hearts some areas of unbelief. Let us say to the Lord: I believe! Help my unbelief.” @pontifex, 25 May 2013
“Every time we give in to selfishness and say “No” to God, we spoil his loving plan for us.” @pontifex, 26 May 2013
The Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian Faith. Here are 12 things to know and share . . .
The Church teaches that the Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian Faith.
But how much do you know about this mystery?
What is its history?
What does it mean?
And how can it be proved?
Here are 12 things to know and share . . .
1. Where does the word “Trinity” come from?
It comes from the Latin word trinitas, which means “three” or “triad.” The Greek equivalent is triados.
2. When was it first used?
The first surviving use of the term (there may have been earlier uses that are now lost) was around A.D. 170 by Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man [To Autolycus 2:15].
3. What is the Trinity?
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:
The Church expresses her trinitarian faith by professing a belief in the oneness of God in whom there are three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The three divine Persons are only one God because each of them equally possesses the fullness of the one and indivisible divine nature.
They are really distinct from each other by reason of the relations which place them in correspondence to each other.
The Father generates the Son; the Son is generated by the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [CCCC 48].
4. Is the Trinity the central mystery of the Christian Faith?
Yes. The Compendium explains:
The central mystery of Christian faith and life is the mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [CCCC 44].
Did Pope Francis recently say that atheists can get to heaven by "good works"? Or was he talking about something else entirely?
Color me annoyed.
The press has been going nuts about remarks concerning atheists that Pope Francis made at one of his daily homilies.
As usual, the press is hyping the remarks as if they are earthshaking, unprecedented, and in contrast to mean ol’ Pope Emeritus Benedict.
I know this will come as a shock, but . . . they’re getting the story wrong.
Here’s the story . . .
Daily Homilies
Let’s start with the context in which Pope Francis made the remarks: One of his homilies at daily Mass, celebrated in St. Martha’s House (where he lives).
Pope Francis is in the habit of saying daily Mass for the people at St. Martha’s House and invited guests, and when he does so he gives an off-the-cuff homily (rather than reading from a prepared text).
This is actually something new.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not do this. They did not celebrate daily Mass as publicly as Pope Francis, and they did not have daily homilies published in this way. Instead, they occasionally delivered prepared homilies at public Masses on special occasions, and only these were published. As a result, if you look at the Vatican web site, there are surprisingly few homilies listed in their sections!
As a result, the Vatican web people aren’t scaled up for this volume of homilies, and–MADDENINGLY–you can’t find complete texts of Pope Francis’s daily ones on the site.
They, apparently, aren’t running these homilies through “the usual process,” which involves transcribing what the pope says in off-the-cuff remarks, showing him the transcript so that he can revise it if needed, and then translating and publishing them.
As a result, we’re not getting complete transcripts of these homilies, only partial ones, such as those carried by Vatican Radio.
And that, right there, is a problem. It drives me nuts, because these homilies contain interesting information, but I hesitate to comment on anything for which I don’t have a complete text.
As they say, a text without a context is a pretext. Without seeing the full text, we run the risk of misunderstanding.
The Homily in Question
On Wednesday, Pope Francis gave a homily based on the Gospel reading of the day (Mark 9:38-40), in which the disciples have told a man to stop casting out demons in Jesus’ name because he doesn’t follow along with them.
The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.”
“This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation.”
Pope Francis first applies this principle to non-Catholics in general, engaging in dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor:
“‘But, Father, this [person] is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. . . .
“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:
“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!
So far so good: Christ redeemed all of us, making it possible for every human to be saved.
What About Atheists?
Now we get to the subject of atheists, as the imaginary interlocutor asks:
“‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good.”
Here is where “the usual process” might be helpful in clarifying the pope’s thought. Everyone, when speaking off-the-cuff, encounters occasions where things could be further clarified, and this may be one of them.
We can be called children of God in several senses. One of them is merely be being created as rational beings made in God’s image. Another is by becoming Christian. Another sense (used in the Old Testament) is connected with righteous behavior. And there can be other senses as well.
Here Pope Francis may be envisioning a sense in which we can be called children of God because Christ redeemed us, even apart from embracing that redemption by becoming Christian.
This, however, was not what caught the press’s eye.
Pope Francis continued:
“And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.”
Nothing particularly controversial here.
But then comes this, as the imaginary interlocutor says:
“‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Where Is “There”?
The press latched onto this, taking the phrase “we will meet one another there” as a reference to heaven.
They then inferred that the pope was saying that if atheists merely “do good” then they will go to heaven.
This, in turn, alarmed some in the Protestant community, who thought that the pope was saying that atheists can get to heaven by “good works.”
We can deal with the possibility of salvation for atheists in another post, but first we need to ask a question . . .
Was Pope Francis Even Talking About Heaven?
If so, you wouldn’t know it from the transcript of what he said.
Let’s back up a bit. Remember, Pope Francis was just talking about the duty to do good:
“And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace.”
So if everyone does good, we have a path toward peace. That’s the goal.
“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.
Note the parallelism between the phrases. Pope Francis is talking about a path “toward peace” and wants us to “meet there” by doing our part and doing good so that we build “that culture of encounter” and “meet one another doing good.”
He’s not talking about heaven at all.
He’s talking about earth.
It’s in that context that he has the imaginary interlocutor say:
‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’
And he replies:
“But do good: we will meet one another there.”
What he’s saying is that even atheists need to do good on earth to build their part of the culture of encounter that promotes peace and allows people to “meet together” in harmony.
At least that’s what appears from a careful reading of the text.
Another translation, found in The Guardian (of all places), better conveys the idea:
“Even them, everyone,” the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. “We all have the duty to do good,” he said.
“Just do good, and we’ll find a meeting point,” the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment: “But I don’t believe. I’m an atheist.”
Text Without Context
Remember that saying I mentioned earlier, that a text without a context is a pretext for misunderstanding?
This is why.
This is exactly why.
And it is why I am so annoyed that we aren’t getting the full text of Pope Francis’s daily homilies.
Of course, even with the context we had at hand, which clearly suggests that Pope Francis wasn’t talking about meeting atheists in heaven but meeting with them in fraternity and peace here on earth, that didn’t stop the press from getting it wrong.
