Letters to Karen: Prayer, Purgatory & Mary As New Eve

LETTER 1 - Prayer

Dear Karen,

You ask very good questions, and I must say that your manner in asking them is most refreshing. Thank you.

Before I say a few words about repetitive prayer, I must say that the failure of Catholic Christians to transmit the faith in our churches, CCD programs, and schools is indeed unfortunate. As a boy I was actually kicked out of the religious education program. The teacher was a nice man but he could not stand me correcting him in class and embarrassing the other kids with my advanced learning. I was a sickly young man with chronic asthma. Unable to participate in sports and physically aggressive activities, I turned to books and the bible. In hindsight, I think the church should have raised its sights higher regarding the content given the kids and the nurturing of personal and intimate relationships with the Lord. We are learning this lesson today, but a couple of generations were sorely short-changed. Catholic churches have often stressed the corporate element and the mechanics of faith and worship while not stressing the personal aspect enough. A personal relationship to Jesus, an acceptance of his role as Mediator and Savior, is fundamental to true Catholic Christianity; and yet, perhaps because of the great numbers, this truth is not always adequately communicated.

Now, turning to your concerns. Your youthful experience of so many prayers as empty and mechanical is precisely a case in point of the inadequacy of much religious preparation. Formal prayers, like THE LORD'S PRAYER, must be appropriated and made our own. We may have recited it thousands of times, and yet, at least for me, it has never lost its power and meaning. We need to understand the words and see in them an expression of ourselves to almighty God. We need also to assist people in using other biblical prayers and in devising extemporaneous prayers, based upon the inspired models given us. I also insist that our people should know the various types of prayer so that they will not neglect some ingredient of their dialogue with God: Adoration, Thanksgiving, Petition, and Reparation. I also stress the seven main qualities to prayer: Devotion (Mt. 15:8), Fervor (Lk. 22:43,44), Perseverance (Lk. 11:5-10, 18:1-8, Mt. 24:13), Humility (Jas. 4:6, Mt. 6:1-6, Lk. 18:9-14), Attention (Mt. 6:7,8), Faith (Dan. 3:40, Mt. 19:26, Heb. 11:6), Right Priority (Lk. 22:42, Mt. 6:31-33, 16:26).

It is within the context of the OUR FATHER that you ask about Matthew 6:5-13. Jesus is critical of two groups: hypocritical Jews who "love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners, in order to be seen by men." And Gentiles who pray by using "meaningless repetition." These warnings and the Lord's special prayer come at the end of a prayer against hypocrisy, especially that of the scribes and Pharisees. As with the professional mourners that Jesus sends away before raising a child from the dead, our Lord opposes any kind of pro-forma faith that looks impressive, but is really hollow. The Jewish leaders, at least some of them, had emphasized the Law and custom to the extent of violating the spirit of their faith and prayer. They placed the respect of men before any righteousness in the sight of God. This is still a terrible temptation for "religious" people. We must always be wary of our motives-- regarding alms, prayer, and penance. As for the Gentiles, these pagans worshipped false gods who could not save. Their babbling mentioned by Jesus is probably in regard to their superstitious recitation of a long list of so-called divine names, hoping that one of them might force a reaction from a god. These words often were little more than gibberish, and it has been suggested that similarities with the Christian "speaking in tongues" was one of the reasons why the presence of an interpreter was deemed important. Again, even today, I frequently run into prayer chain letters that superstitiously make promises while also making threats. Catholics would join most other Christians in decrying all such nonsense.

Having said this, repetitive prayer can very much be made our own and have a sustained meaning. I have already mentioned THE LORD'S PRAYER. Other structured prayers, like the WAY OF THE CROSS and THE ROSARY, while not absolutely required of Catholics, can provide wonderful opportunities for meditation upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus and his saving mysteries. It needs to be said that any Christian prayer would be empty and meaningless if it does not reflect a living relationship of love with our Savior.

Your next question is about whether we have to "do good things" in order to appease God and whether such activity is mandated in all of Catholicism. And by the way, I must say again, that it is a very good question given a religious climate critical of Catholicism.

John the Baptist's cry was "Repent and believe!" Amplified by Jesus, it remains a hallmark of conversion and faith. Jesus, himself, tells us that not everyone who cries out, "Lord, Lord!" will be saved. Our faith must be real. Catholics may speak of this as a faith actualized by charity. We often view saving faith as something to be professed in thoughts, words, and deeds. Apart from Christ, nothing has value. If there is anything of lasting merit in our lives, it is because Christ is its author. Certain critics who view Catholics as Pelagians trying to save themselves often misunderstand this very incarnational view of Christian discipleship. While we closely associate faith and obedience, it is ultimately the gratuity of Christ's intervention on our behalf that makes all the difference. Jesus is our Savior and Lord.

Catholics would agree wholeheartedly with your Scripture citations: "For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (Romans 3:22-25).

The new universal catechism speaks about this Scriptural truth as follows:

CCC #433 - The name of the Savior God was invoked only once in the year by the high priest in atonement for the sins of Israel, after he had sprinkled the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies with the sacrificial blood. The mercy seat was the place of God's presence. When St. Paul speaks of Jesus whom "God put forward as an expiation by his blood," he means that in Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself."

CCC #1460 - (quoting Trent) The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.

CCC #1992 - Justification has been MERITED FOR US BY THE PASSION OF CHRIST who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.

Here would be an example of how Catholic doctrine draws out and explains a vital Scriptural truth.

Your next citation is one of my favorites: "But God shows his love for us I that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" (Romans 5:8-9).

Turning to the universal catechism, we find the following:

CCC #603 - Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all," so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son."

CCC #604 - By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins." God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

Next, you quote John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.'" Jesus is the WAY, a word also used to designate Christianity (Acts 9:2; 19:23; 22:4; 24:14,22). Jesus is the TRUTH. This refers to the divine revelation of the face of the Father, his reality, in the person and works of Jesus. The acquisition of this truth brings wisdom and freedom from sin.

Something of your questions about prayer and doing "good things" applies the Church's reflection on this passage:

CCC #2614 - When Jesus openly entrusts to his disciples the mystery of prayer to the Father, he reveals to them what their prayer and ours must be, once he has returned to the Father in his glorified humanity. What is new is to "ask IN HIS NAME." Faith in the Son introduces the disciples into the knowledge of the Father, because Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life." Faith bears its fruit in love: it means keeping the word and the commandments of Jesus, it means abiding with him in the Father who, in him, so loves us that he abides with us. In this new covenant the certitude that our petitions will be heard is founded on the prayer of Jesus.

You see a contradiction between the sacrament of confession and John 14:6. And yet, the Catholic Church acknowledges Jesus as her Mediator and Savior. We believe that the saving work of Jesus can be given expression in the ministry of the Church. The forgiveness of sins, in whatever setting, is always properly the work of Jesus. The Church imitates Christ and perpetuates his teachings and saving ministry. Returning to John 14, we read in verse 12: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father." The Scriptures reveal that Jesus gave this power to his apostles. We read in John 20:22,23: "Jesus breathed on the apostles and said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them and those you shall retain, they are retained.'" Our Lord says also says, "To me is given all power in heaven and on earth, as my Father has sent me, so I also send you" (John 20:21). Jesus was sent into the world to forgive sins, and so he similarly sent the apostles.

I hope this helps in understanding how the Catholic Church sees some of these serious matters. We might differ on some points, but I always cherish a friendly dialogue based upon sincerity and respect.

May our Lord Jesus continue to bless you and your loved ones,

Fr. Joe

Letter 2 - Purgatory

Dear Karen,

While we might differ on how we read these Scriptures, they provide a background for Catholic belief about Purgatory.

Matthew 12:32: And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age [world] or in the age [world] to come. (Some sins can therefore be forgiven after death.)

1 Corinthians 3:13-15: . . . each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

2 Maccabees 12:45-46: (This is one of the Old Testament books omitted from the Protestant Bible). But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Revelation 21:27: Nothing defiled can enter Heaven.

While many Protestant critics reject Purgatory because the word does not appear in the bible, the actual reason is that such a teaching would make their view of justification by faith alone untenable. This Catholic teaching sustains our understanding of intercessory prayer for the dead, meritorious works done in Christ in reparation for sin, the temporal punishment due to sin, and transformation over imputation in Christ. Our justification is not a mere juridical rendering from God, but the elect are made into a new creation. They are changed. Purgatory allows this transformation to come to completion. The Scriptures uphold such a teaching, despite the protestations of so-called bible-Christians. The bible teaches that some sins are forgiven in the world to come, on the other side of death. We are not talking here about mortal sin that damns the soul. The Scriptures also indicate that some, although not all, are saved in the next world by fire. Literally the fire of God's love purifies his own and makes them ready for heaven. In addition, the value of intercessory prayer for the dead is advocated by the bible. Like a bride who wants to look her best before meeting her bridegroom, Purgatory allows us to undergo a cleansing or purgation of any residual stain-- venial sin, the temporal punishment due to sin, and the tendency (habit) to sin.

Peace,
Fr. Joe

Letter 3 - More on Life After Death

Dear Karen,

Forgive me for intruding in your dialogue with Debi, but I wanted to attempt some comment about your concerns on Purgatory. Because of the late hour, and serious fatigue after the labor of a priest on a holy day, I will reserve myself tonight simply to your first citation.

"We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). Note how the verse that follows relates to the importance of doing "good things" you mentioned in another post: "So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:9-10).

[2 Corinthians 5:8] This verse appears in one of the most preferred texts for Catholic funeral liturgies. The Anglican and Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis noted it in his view that this existence we now know is simply a world of shadows and that real life has yet to begin-- heaven is our true home. Taken in context, the message from chapter five is that we will be like Christ and possess a resurrected bodily life. This is what God has planned for us. The gift of the Spirit in baptism prepares us for it. We are to be filled with Christian fortitude, knowing that whatever this world or men take away from us, God will return many times over.

I used to visit an elderly woman by the name of Edna. She was a good and holy woman who suffered much. I came with the sheriff one day to tell her that the police had shot her adored foster son while he was robbing a convenience store. I think she cried until the tears refused to come. Soon thereafter she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I still remember the last time I saw her at the senior citizen home. She sat up in her bed, thanked me for coming to see her, and with little emotion announced that this visit with communion would be the last time. She was ready to meet the Lord. Indeed, she longed to see Jesus and to be reunited with those who had passed over already. Fear had been replaced by a joy that soon she would be in heaven. She slipped away in her sleep from natural causes a day later. In my own heart, I had little doubt that she awakened to a bright new day.

Thank you for your post,

Fr. Joe

Letter 4 - Purgatory in the NT

Dear Karen,

You bring up two other biblical citations in your concern about Purgatory.

1. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 17:19-31).

2. The Good Thief on the Cross (Luke 23:39-43).

Several years ago I viewed a video series in which Fr. Ken Roberts used both of these New Testament passages in a catechesis upon Purgatory. However, it has been so long that I cannot clearly recall how he connected them. I would refer you to his web page, but due to health reasons (he has a bad heart), his doctor has required him to take things easy. The site is down and he is not taking questions.

I am just a simple parish priest, but I will try to make an intelligent reply.

As with all the parables, this one shows a reversal in the usual logic that motivates people. Christ's parables all point to the wisdom of God that men count as folly-- to his kingdom and the ways of the kingdom. Many Jews would conclude from the rich man's bounty that he was very much blessed by God and that Lazarus' poverty was a sign of being accursed. Calvinist Protestants would also subscribe to this thinking, resolving that the poor and wretched are not among the chosen elect. You still hear such reasoning among some of the television evangelists like Pat Robertson, as in THE SEVEN SECRETS TO SUCCESS. Material well being signifies God's special favor. Catholicism, perhaps because of the dire poverty of so many of its children, makes no such strict correlation.

Both men die. There is a fable in Latin America about a man cooking his meal while out on a mountainside. Many pass by and ask for a share in his dinner. He turns them all down, but one. When Death meets him, the man says: "To you I will share my meal, because unlike the others, you treat all men the same." Death is the great equalizer.

The parable really pulls the heartstrings. Luke wants us to really sense the wrong done to Lazarus. Note the language: the rich man "feasted sumptuously every day" while Lazarus "desired" the scraps that "fell from the rich man's table." The beggar did not get them. The rich man is "clothed in purple and fine linen" while Lazarus is "full of sores" and "licked" by the dogs. In other words, he is naked and relegated to nothing more than dog food. The parable of the kingdom reveals that with death there comes a role reversal.

If I recall correctly the teaching video I saw, the priest suggested that maybe the rich man was in purgatory and not hell. The word, "Hades," which is "Sheol" in Hebrew simply meant the abode of the dead. The dilemma is that he communicates with Abraham, who is among the just. Abraham recognizes him as one of his sons. The damned are usually considered radically segregated from the elect. Indeed, even in this text, it is remarked that "a great chasm" is fixed between them. To further complicate matters, this story comes prior to the saving death and resurrection of Jesus. The statement from the creed that Jesus descended into hell (actually to the righteous dead who awaited their Savior) reminds us that heaven was properly inaccessible until the saving sacrifice of Christ. Some authorities would insist that the parable is simply to teach about God's justice and mercy, apart from the mechanics of the afterlife.

The universal Catholic catechism intimates that the rich man is indeed among the damned. A reference is made to this parable in regard to mortal sin [CCC #1859]. It also asserts that the petition from the Lord's Prayer, "Give us this day our daily bread," cannot be isolated from the parable of the poor man Lazarus [CCC #2831]. Prior to Christ's redemptive act on the cross, the righteous dead awaited their Savior. Here is where we find Lazarus. "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ delivered when he descended into hell" [Roman Catechism I, 6, 3 & CCC #633].

Now, what about the good thief? Fr. Roberts mentioned how he might have quickly passed through purgatory and into heaven. That is a possibility. But, there is a lot here we do not know. As a rule, petty thieves were imprisoned, not crucified. Some authorities tell us that St. Dismas was an insurrectionist as well. This would make more sense. But again, no facts are available about him.

Putting aside speculation, the text tells us what we need to know. The poor thief is in great agony and admits that along with the other criminal, " . . . we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, . . . ." He is being punished for his deeds; but what is more important, Jesus is alongside him, dying for this man's sins, and everyone like him. The other criminal desperately challenges Jesus with a mocking question, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" The good thief speaks quite differently. For him the identity of Jesus is not open for debate, he throws the question back to the other thief, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?" He literally professes Jesus as Messiah and even intimates our Lord's divinity. His plea to Jesus is filled with repentance and faith, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus promises him in return, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." The destiny of the Christian is to be with Jesus.

Karen, you tell us, "I was always taught that purgatory was a place of torment [where] EVERYONE had to go when they died, and yet . . ." Actually, such is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

CCC #1023 - Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live forever with Christ. They are like God forever, for they "see him as he is," face to face.

Further, just as souls might also go straight to heaven, others are delivered immediately into the hell of the damned. The Catholic notion of purgatory is a transitory business, not an absolute alternative to salvation and damnation. If a soul suffers a momentary purgation after death, there is still great joy because that individual is destined for heaven. Purgatory is simply a recognition that good people who have faith in Jesus and who live godly lives are sometimes selfish and struggle with weaknesses that conflict with the Gospel. Not so much something outside of ourselves, purgation is a final letting go of those elements of our life that can have no part in eternity. Divine justice requires that temporal punishment be requited while his mercy never fails to respond to the sincere invocation of the name "Jesus" in prayer. As we approach the fire of God's love, remnants of darkness are supplanted by light.

At the final judgment, all Catholics and most Protestants agree, there will only be two realities: heaven and hell. Note this explanation in the universal catechism:

CCC #1021 - Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ (cf. 2 Timothy 1:9-10). The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul -- a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

CCC #1022 - Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven -- through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.

While a few like C. S. Lewis actually think that the teaching of purgatory has merit (see his book THE GREAT DIVORCE). Left to their own devices, believers outside the Catholic Christian family may have very different ideas. Some bible Christians think that the dead are neither in heaven or hell, but rather sleep in an unconscious oblivion until the judgment and second coming. Others discount the "limbo of the fathers" about the righteous dead awaiting the Savior prior to the saving work of Jesus. Some assert that the dead (even in heaven) are utterly ruptured from the living and are disinterested in our lot. Today, we must also deal with those who introduce New Age and eastern perspectives into the question of life after death. The popular Hollywood conviction regarding reincarnation is particularly offensive.

I hope this helps you in understanding "real" Catholicism better, even if you do disagree with it.

As always, peace,

Fr. Joe

Letter 5 - Mary as New Eve

Dear Debi,

The Immaculate Conception does indeed mean that Mary was conceived without sin. This gift at her own conception was in preparation for the later conception of Jesus which was brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit (see Luke 1:26-38). As the Mother of God, for Jesus our Savior was divine, she was made into a pure vessel for her sinless and holy Son. She is proclaimed by the heavenly messenger as "full of grace," finding favor with God. This grace, the very presence of divine life, abandoned no corner of her soul to sin. God chose to apply the anticipated merits of Jesus Christ to her soul at the first moment of her existence in the womb of St. Ann, preserving her from original sin. Thus, even Mary could acclaim the Lord as her Savior. In the beginning God created a sinless man and woman who fell; now in the new beginning (of our redemption), God created a sinless Adam and a new Eve who remain faithful.

Peace,

Fr. Joe

Letter 6 - Immaculate Conception

Dear Gloria,

Is there any Scripture verse that "clearly" attests to the Immaculate Conception of Mary? The suitability of any answer to this question rests upon our view of the sources for Christian teaching. I have already noted on another post here that Catholics and sola-Scriptura Protestants differ in this regard. The Gospels relate principally the life of Jesus, not Mary. Anything said about her, or anyone else for that fact, is parenthetical to the intent of the evangelists. Further, the New Testament epistles and Acts are largely missionary documents detailing the expansion of the Good News and the Church. Again, the emphasis will be upon the saving work of Jesus and our need, as sinners, for the gift of salvation. Any Catholic would be hard-pressed to find a Scripture citation that would prove the claim made for Mary. It is largely the result of an organic development of doctrine in the living tradition of the Church. As such, while Catholics and Evangelicals can agree that Jesus is the universal Savior, even of Mary, the element of her sinlessness will probably remain a matter of contention.

Some have contended that the mention of Mary as the "favored one" or translated by many ancient authorities as "full of grace" provided some evidence for her privilege.

Luke 1:26-35: In the sixth month the angels Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." And Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no husband? And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

Note also that Mary says that God "had done great things" for her.

Luke 1:48: ". . . for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, . . . ." (Also see Luke 1:42, "Blessed art thou among women.")

Mary is the mother of Jesus. This truth is attested by the Scriptures and universally held. However, a few verses later in Luke it is written that all generations will honor her. The Catholic Church still venerates her as the blessed Virgin, the mother of the Redeemer who is now the mother of the redeemed. Fundamentalist churches tend to respond to Mary with silence or with a quick rebuke that she was "only" the mother of Christ. Ours is the Church where the prophecy is fulfilled! Yes, she is a creature like us, although "full of grace" and preserved from sin, but she is the mother of the whole identity of her Son. Her Son is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. As with all mothers, her maternal role never ceases. Truly, she is "blessed among women"! Our honor of Mary imitates that of heaven. As for her assumption, there is precedent in the Old Testament. Unlike Jesus, she is not taken up by her own power but by that of her Son.

There are many proponents of the Marian privilege from the earliest days of the Church up to its subsequent definition. Admittedly, it had its detractors too, that is until Duns Scotus masterfully explained how this belief kept alive by God's people could be explained in a way not to subtract from the unique and necessary Mediation of Christ.

But as I said, I think disagreement will probably remain upon this question between Protestants and Catholics.

Peace,
Fr. Joe

Dealing with an Ex-Catholic Critic of the Church (T-bird)

[Please note that the various views of T-bird are proposed in opposition to Catholicism.]

T-bird writes:

Why do you keep deleteing this message Father Joe...If you read this verse in Timothy it speaks of people living in latter times....Latter times in The Bible means in the Last days prior the coming of Christ....The people Timothy speaks of... is people alive in the last days prior the return of The Lord.... Now I'm not saying that the Catholic Church are the ones....I just have trouble with this when I Think of the Church I grew up in.... Don't ignore me......but respond like a servant of God should respond to a lay person....I do not condemn anyone....Catholics need to learn the truth and not a bunch of water down lovy dubby rituals and stories made up by the Catholic church....Wakeup Father Joe....You know the truth and I'm telling you....you will have no excuse on that Day of judgement....Jesus said Feed my sheep.....The catholic church needs born again priests who will teach the Bible and truth about Christ.....for get about all the volumes of liturgy written by men....It does not do anything for salvation....I'm a disappointed Catholic because I have been fed all that stuff for years....and God finally opened my eyes to the truth.....You might've studied for years...but you have learned nothing.... before you delete my post pray about it... Your brother in Christ Thunderbird

Fr. Joe writes:

[I have already explained my rationale for deletions in another post. However, as some time has come available, I thought I might relate a few more of my thoughts regarding the charges of T-bird.]

While I have made a reliable response to the passage taken out of context in 1 Timothy and stretched to attack Catholicism, he continues to insist that it is a decisive proof text in his arsenal. Another good priest, Fr. Charles Pope, has written upon it regarding the matter of periodic abstinence. Here is the question and answer posed to him:

Q. In Lent we are told by the Church to abstain from meat on Fridays. Who could ever dispute such a fine and noble practice? But, sure enough, I was told by an evangelical that this was not only not good, but was in fact an evil practice! He showed me some text from the Bible that seemed to say that abstaining from meat was a doctrine of demons. I didn't know how to answer him. Can you help me with an answer?

A. The text that many evangelicals and fundamentalists cite is 1 Timothy 4:1-4: "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." Some consider this text to be a clear condemnation of the Catholic practice of abstaining from meat and the Catholic discipline of celibacy for priests and religious. However this is not the case.

To understand this biblical text it is helpful to recall that the historical situation was likely the emergence of an early form of Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy that, among other things, considered the material world to be evil. This was a heresy because God created the world and God does not create anything that is evil. Gnostics would often command that certain material things (for example, meat) be avoided because all matter was evil. Marriage too, because it involved pleasures of the body, was considered evil (and thus forbidden) by many Gnostics. The text from First Timothy is obviously condemning such views and rightly emphasizes that everything God created is good.

Now the Catholic Church does not call for the abstinence from meat from meat because meat is considered evil. Rather, meat is something good. Most people enjoy its taste and, taken in moderation, it can be part of a healthy and nutritious diet. In abstaining from meat on the Fridays of Lent, Catholics freely renounce something that is good as a sacrifice. We also learn to discipline our bodies by these and other forms of self-denial freely undertaken. If the Catholic Church considered meat to be evil then why would the eating of meat be permitted on all the other days of the year? Clearly we do not consider meat an evil to be rejected.

Likewise, the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage or consider it evil. Rather, she celebrates Christian marriage as a lofty sacrament. Priests and religious are asked to forgo the goods of marriage in order to more fully serve a large number of people. They are not forbidden to marry since they make this decision freely and knowingly before entering upon their vocation.

You can email Fr. Charles Pope at [cepope@juno.com].

Dear T-bird, we as Catholics do not utterly reject the prophetic aspect of such tasks. Certainly today, there are many who malign the institution of marriage, treat certain foods as bad, etc. However, the Catholic Church is not among these. If the Church forbid everyone to marry (like certain sects and cults have done), rejected certain foods as unclean (more in line with the old Law than the freedom of the new dispensation), and made such disciplines mandatory toward salvation-- then condemnation would be warranted. However, such is not the case. As a priest, I FREELY chose to live a celibate life, in imitation of our Lord and as recommended by St. Paul. I oppose sexual perversion, immodesty, fornication, and adultery. I support the families in my charge and strive to be a help in keeping their marriages strong and holy. Your charge does not stick.

T-bird writes:

Destruction was sent to the nations who practiced human sacrifices....these were nations who fought against God by attacking God's people...who is the Jewish nation....The Bible makes it clear...whosoever harms the Jewish people the curse of God will be upon them...Whosoever blessed the Jewish nation The Blessing of God will be upon them....When the enemies of God attacked God's people....That nation was doomed by the God's people attacking and destroying everthing including women and children....The same judgement occured in Soddom and Gommorra...these two wicked cities were destroyed by God...everyone there perished...except for the righteous who God warned and allowed to flee....Again the judgement of God shall be upon us for our wickness... satan is the accuser who accuses God of the destructions of nations....instead it is the devil himself who is responsible for all death and destruction on this planet....For man will not turn from sin....but rather persih than accept the salvation God offers.... satan is a liar and murderer it is he and his hordes who cause the suffering of this world...

Fr. Joe responds:

Okay, we as Catholics also believe that God has not forgotten his covenant with Israel.

However, we still view the Church as the People of God and the new Israel. God calls to himself a people. Scriptural language and the singular mention of the Church verifies this.

Do you get much debate or criticism about the "angry God" model to which you subscribe? "When the enemies of God attacked God's people.... That nation was doomed by the God's people attacking and destroying everything including women and children." Did God directly will the execution of the Canaanite children by bashing in their heads? Such is the dilemma in interpretation when a fundamentalist reads a line like" They did not destroy [exterminate] the peoples as the Lord commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and learned to do as they did" (Psalm 106:34-35). I am sure glad that I am a Catholic who knows his faith and is confident in the mercy and salvation that comes through Christ.

Some General Observations About Faith

Reflections and Responses Regarding the Catholic Christian Faith

Many anti-Catholics only speak in general terms and with isolated proof texts from Scripture. Why? I suspect that their lack of background is part of it. Personal inspiration is an element of his or her faith that makes every believer into his own Pope. Anyone, who contradicts them, obviously in their own minds, is deceived and/or lost. Further, fundamentalism tends to discredit cultural and language elements, or else offers a narrow interpretation. Often believers are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Catholics, parroting their ministers and the leaders of their bible study groups. An element of seduction associated with fellowship is also at work. This emotional quality can make any rational discussion difficult or impossible. History is also avoided or skewed so as to avoid the legacy of Catholicism and its contribution to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

One critic was challenged for being too general on my message board and placed the blame on me, the moderator, because I deleted offensive posts. He then argued, no doubt from minimal experience, that such an approach was typical of Catholic priests who cannot answer and feel trapped regarding so-called biblical truths. What really troubled this priest was the total disregard for his scholarship and the objectivity of his answers. I did not make them up; they were the conclusions of learned scholars of faith, filled with the Holy Spirit.
The critic claimed that he (could it be a she?) grew up as a Catholic, received all the sacraments of initiation, and was even married in the Church. He said the trouble started when he began to read the Scriptures. I suspect that he had "some help" to come to his anti-Catholic conclusions; but, nothing is said about this.

He says he discovered the bible to be contrary to Catholic teaching and practice. He found problems with the following:

1. The claim of the Catholic Church that the bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics only.

Well, we do believe that the Catholic Church today is one with the Christian community established by Jesus and that is chronicled in the New Testament. This much is true. However, we also believe that the Holy Scriptures may be efficacious for all, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. It is in a unique fashion, "our" book, but we do not begrudge it to others; indeed, they may find true consolation and encouragement toward conversion in its pages. We are glad to have been party to its divine inspiration and composition. It is truly a gift to all humanity. An insistence that the Catholic Church (in union with our Orthodox brothers and sisters) had nothing to do with the development of the New Testament and the establishment of the canon (for both the Old and New Testaments) runs counter to the historical record. His insistence to the contrary remains unsubstantiated. Rather, he simply contends that the Catholic Church has sought to suppress the bible. This sidesteps the early history of the bible and the conflicts with errant translations.

2. He insists that there are only 66 books in the biblical canon as opposed to the 73 in Catholic bibles.

He stipulates that Catholics "added" books and yet what happened was that after fifteen hundred years, Luther SUBTRACTED books from it. He says they show no degree of inspiration and that they teach false doctrine-- in other words, things offensive to the Protestant reformers and their modern-day offspring in the world today. He says that Christians did not accept these "Catholic" books in biblical times (he must mean apostolic) and yet there is ample evidence that they did. Indeed, the Greek canon containing the disputed books was implemented whenever Jesus quoted the Old Testament in the Gospels.

He tells us that Palestinian Jews during the time of Christ had already determined the Old Testament canon. This is historically misleading because it dismisses the legacy of the many Jews of the Diaspora. The Pharisees of Palestine set up four arbitrary criteria for the biblical canon: (1) They had to be in harmony with the Torah or Law as interpreted at that time; (2) That had to be written prior to Ezra; (3) They had to be in Hebrew; and (4) They had to originate in Palestine. This immediately eliminated Judith (Aramaic); Wisdom, 2 Maccabees (Greek), Tobit, parts of Daniel and Esther (Aramaic and outside Palestine), Baruch (outside Palestine), and Sirach and 1 Maccabees (written after Ezra). All Jews did NOT generally accept this canon until a century AFTER Christ. There is evidence that the rabbinical redactor was also motivated by a concern to make the Hebrew Scriptures distinctively different from the canon used by Christians. From the earliest days, the Christian Church accepted the Jewish canon from the Greek-Roman tradition, the ALEXANDRINE CANON. As I have said before, Jesus himself quoted from this bible and the canon was not seriously challenged until the Protestant reformation. It should be noted that Martin Luther also rejected New Testament books. It is interesting that while Protestants accept Luther's abbreviated Hebrew canon, they replaced the books he stripped from the New Testament. What did he remove? He eliminated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (Apocalypse).

2. He claims that it is easy to prove the non-existence of the Catholic Church and yet he offers no real proof whatsoever.

Why? Because it cannot be done. Rather, he attacks elements of the Church that have organically developed over time. This is like saying the boy did not exist because he did not yet resemble the man.

NO POPE? - Except regarding "fatherhood" (papa/pater), the word was not used, but this does not dismiss the role of Peter and his successors. Their authority remains, no matter what they are called.

NO PRIESTS? - There is ample evidence of men who participated in the one priesthood of Christ.

NO SACRIFICE OF THE MASS? - Here is the utter dismissal of the command of Christ at the Last Supper to perpetuate it "in remembrance" of him. The cultic and sacrificial language of the setting is unavoidable.

NO NUNS? - Of course, there were holy women who from their purse aided Jesus and the apostles and later others like St. Paul.

NO MONKS? - St. Paul himself advises a celibate life and proposes severity upon himself. The evangelical counsels are in effect.

NO CONFESSIONAL? - Jesus and then his apostles would make possible the forgiveness of sins. Even today, no special room is absolutely required.

NO PRAYERS TO MARY? - And yet, there are Scriptural examples of orations to consecrated figures or spiritual messengers from God.

NO PURGATORY? - Although Jesus offered ample evidence in his statements that some would need to be purified by fire and pay the last penny.

The anti-Catholic critic throws out one issue after another, making a concerted response on any one topic difficult to impossible. He needs no evidence, the charge itself is a proof in his own reckoning and unfortunately, enough to influence weak minds.

Catholics agree that those who had a saving faith sought baptism. However, he speaks about the various local congregations as if there was no unity with one another. Just as today, in reference to the many parishes and dioceses, the Catholic Church is one. Jesus established a Church, not many churches.

He contends that bishops were only the local pastors; and yet, the history of the matter would show that as the churches grew, so did their jurisdiction. These "episcopoi" are literally the successors to the apostles and possess the high priesthood of Christ. There were many helpers, even though many human elements of the true Church would have to develop over time. Catholicism, for instance, admits that the papal electors (cardinals) represent a later adaptation to insure the smooth transition of authority and the effective running of the Church. There is no need for an absolute return to primitive Christianity. Indeed, because of the size of the Church, it would not work. Protestant communities that wipe out most Church history are forced to reinvent the wheel in this regard.

The assertion that Peter never went to Rome is a denial of archeological evidence, extra-biblical testimony, and the living tradition of the Church. Since it does not appear in the bible, such fundamentalist critics assume that it could not have happened. The anti-Catholic critic mentions the rebuke and difference of opinion from Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, but says nothing about the fact that Peter gives the decisive decision regarding the initiation of the Gentile men at the council in Jerusalem. He confuses impeccability with infallibility. Papal infallibility does not mean that popes are sinless or that every opinion they have is necessarily right. It is peculiar that anti-Catholic critics will often grant the Pope more authority in their arguments than he actually possesses. Of course, the critics save the final say to themselves.

Let me repeat, at the first council of the Church in Jerusalem, note that after the debate about ritual circumcision, it is Peter who resolves the matter. The mere fact that Paul and Barnabas had come to Jerusalem illustrated their confidence in the apostolic authority there. As in any council, there was debate and dialogue; however, in the end it was Peter who stood up and supported Paul in his refusal to impose the Mosaic law upon the Gentiles-- they would not have to become Jews before becoming Christians. Citing the work of God's Spirit in Cornelius and his household, whom they knew and accepted, Peter summarizes the core proclamation of salvation: "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they" (Acts 15:7-11). We are told that the whole assembly was reduced to silence. The issue was resolved. Paul and Barnabas then enthusiastically recounted how God had used them as instruments to reach the Gentiles.

Many distinctions need to be made about Peter. He is certainly much altered after the Christ has suffered, died, and risen. The Holy Spirit on Pentecost grants him a special charism of authority and infallibility. This did not mean that either Peter or his successors would be impeccable and unable to sin. The miraculous truth in the long history of the Church is that even weak and sinful men have seemed changed by the office of Peter. Without such an authority, we would suffer from the same endless fragmentation and deviation from Gospel truth that other religious communities experience. We believe we have Christ's Rock to preserve and protect the deposit of faith. Given to Peter, this gift of infallibility is for the entire Church. This forum demands brevity, but we see it observed when the Holy Father makes a formal proclamation of dogma as the universal shepherd (the Vicar of Christ) on a matter of faith or morals. Neither the Pope, nor the bishops, nor an ecumenical council can manufacture new beliefs-- they define something which has always been taught and believed, but reformulate it in a more concise and solemn way. A papal declaration along these terms is an exercise of his Universal Extraordinary Magisterium.

The unanimous teaching of all the worlds bishops in union with the Pope is called the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This latter expression of infallibility is much more common. The laity and the religious of the Church also enter into this mystery. The Sensus Fidelium (sense of the faithful) among Catholics who have informed their consciences according to Church teaching and who live out the faith also touch upon this mystery of faith. (Admittedly this latter aspect is usually only mentioned by dissenters these days; however, they cite people who have largely rejected the deposit of faith and the Christian life-- the ones to whom it does not really apply.)

Contrary to accepted biblical interpretation, the anti-Catholic critic notes that Peter was instead at Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). He disputes the fact that such was a word often given Rome by the early Christians. We see this again in the book of Revelation.

Obviously, as a good anti-Catholic apologist, he denies the practice of asking angels, saints, or Mary to pray with and for us. He seems ignorant of the fact that Catholicism teaches that all prayer has as its proper object, God.

He does accept the divinity of Christ, something that others reject. We can at least agree upon this point. He also acknowledges the Trinity.

He uses a double negative in saying "we don't need no mediator" except Christ in going to Father. What he actually means, and Catholics agree, is that Jesus is our Mediator before God and brings our offering and prayer to the Father. He says rightly that the bible prohibits the "worship" of graven images, and yet he wrongly accuses the Catholic Church of doing so. The economy of images is altered by the incarnation, and thus pictures and statues for Catholics are venerated as depicting holy personages or themes, but they are NOT WORSHIPPED. Only God is truly given divine worship.

Context here means everything. Otherwise, one would have to say that the Word of God contradicts itself. The invisible God of the Hebrews absolutely forbid the making of images for purposes of divine adoration. However, he did not prohibit images as such. Indeed, in the case of the ark, they were mandated. Of course, given the inclination of the early Jews to fall easily into idol worship, it is no wonder that the prohibition was often extended and made more severe.

Making a secular comparison. Many of us adorn our homes with statuary, paintings, and photographs. We have them for beauty and for sentimental reasons. Is a picture of one's child or a grandmother vain idolatry? I think not. Neither are depictions of saints and other holy personages.

The anti-Catholic critic condemns the Church for its many volumes on the liturgy and upon doctrine; and yet he makes no qualm about the many words he writes on the Internet. Why would he deny Catholics the right to share their insights and spiritual reflection upon the Gospel? Any view that does not agree with his own, he considers a twisting of Scripture. He becomes the final authority.

He condemns Catholic remembrance and prayer for the dead, dismissing the second book of Maccabees. And yet, such a practice finds other Scriptural support and is an ancient Christian practice.

Obviously, he cannot finish is demagogic diatribe without some castigation against the role of works in Catholic theology. Of course, no mention is made that many modern-day Lutherans and Catholics have come to a consensus regarding justification by faith. He creates false parodies of Catholic faith, straw man arguments, to tear them down. Catholics also teach and preach Ephesians 2:8-9:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- not because of works, lest any man should boast."

Salvation is a gratuity from God. The work that saves is the self-offering of Christ. Apart from Christ, we cannot save ourselves.

The anti-Catholic critic says he does not condemn the Catholic Church, but after he has finished, that is precisely what he has done.

At points the anti-Catholic critic spouts silliness. He suggests that the Catholic Church disregard all its doctrines for the so-called true Gospel. And yet, her doctrines represent the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Catholics would agree with him that men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the bible. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

Catholics would agree that Jesus is our one Mediator who makes possible our entry into heaven. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

Catholics contend that Jesus rose from the dead. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

Catholics contend that Jesus is God and man. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

The anti-Catholic critic paints with broad strokes and condemns what he does not understand. Many Catholics in the past were poorly instructed and their ignorance became fair game for religious bigots and fanatics. It is truly sad.