Was the need for a priest abolished when the veil in the Temple was torn in two?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question: Was the need for a priest abolished when the veil in the Temple was torn in two?

And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split--Matt 27:51

Many Protestants understand the above verse to indicate that, prior to Christ's death, one needed priests as mediators between God and man.  Because of Christ's atoning death on the Cross, we no longer have a barrier (or veil) between us and God.  Thus, no priest is necessary.  An ex-Catholic explains his position here:  He writes: "Jesus has given me access to the Father (Eph. 2:18). This was powerfully demonstrated at the atoning death of Christ when the veil that partitioned the holy of holies was torn open from top to bottom.  Those who trust the redeeming work of Christ can exchange their ritualistic religion for an intimate relationship with almighty God." 

The above quotation, in particular the bolded section, rankles.  I don't like it when someone insults my Mama (that, is, the Holy Mother Church)!  Especially someone who used to be part of the Family.  Sadly, the above quotation demonstrates the poor catechesis this ex-Catholic received during his years as a Catholic.  For what could be more intimate a relationship than having a One Flesh Union in the Eucharist—where the two become One? 

The Catholic understand of the above verse in Matthew is that the tearing of the veil in the Temple at the death of Christ was symbolic of the fulfillment of the Old Covenant Temple sacrifices (sacrifices of animal blood made by the Jewish priests to present atonement for their sins); it did not eliminate the New Covenant priesthood.  In fact, the priesthood is cited in the New Testament in numerous places.  The word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbyteros, or "presbyters" (also translated "elders"), which is found in the NT.  "The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity." source

"In the New Covenant, we still have, and need, a high priest. Jesus, eternally alive, is our high priest in the true Holy of Holies. (Heb 4:14; 5:5) Because He is eternally alive, serving in that role, it is never necessary for a successor to be chosen (as there was under the Old Covenant when the High Priest died).

 

Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, Thou art a priest for ever.' This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. –Hebrews 7:21-26

 

In the New Covenant, we still have and need priests to make present for us on earth, the true sacrifice offered to God by Jesus on our behalf. But it is not a priesthood restricted to the particular Jewish tribe of Levi, or even restricted to Jews. It is the priesthood Isaiah foretold:

 

..and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; ... And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD." –Isaiah 66:18-21 source.

 

(Note:  The Holy of Holies refers to the inner sanctuary of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, and which can be entered only by the High Priest on Yom Kippur.  The Ark of the Covenant contained the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses and the Israelites. source.)

The priesthood is necessary because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is necessary.  No priests, no Mass.
And the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is necessary because the Eucharist is necessary.  No Mass, no Eucharist. 
And the Eucharist is necessary because the Church is necessary.  No Eucharist, no Church.
Priest...Mass...Eucharist....Church--they're all tied together intimately and profoundly.  Without one we cannot have the other.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

How does a Catholic respond to the comment, "Well, I believe Jesus was a good man, and a good teacher, and I respect all of his teachings, but he never said he was God."

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  How does a Catholic respond to the comment, "Well, I believe Jesus was a good man, and a good teacher, and I respect all of his teachings, but he never said he was God."

Best answer to the above comment is to cite Christian apologist and author C.S. Lewis who used the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument.  Essentially, Jesus was either God, (Lord), or a bad man (Liar) or a egocentric madman (Lunatic).  What he most certainly could NOT have been was what many modern "open-minded" thinkers seem to profess--"a good man".  Yet it seems that almost every modern day non-believer will claim that while Jesus was a good man, a great philosopher and teacher, he was not divine. 

However, Logic dictates that either Jesus was God, or he was a very bad man. For no good person goes around proclaiming to be God when he is in fact a mere man.  Either he was divine, as he claimed, or he was a corrupt man who tried to fool his contemporaries into worshipping him.

"Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane."  Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College.

Lewis' "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument is actually derived from an argument proposed by the early Christian apologists who, even way back in the first centuries, had to defend the divinity of Christ. (Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.)  The Early Church Fathers used the Latin phrase, "Aut Deus, Aut Homo Malus."  (Either God, or a bad man.)  Simple, pithy and profoundly true! 

So, did Jesus really never claim to be God, as some New Age/enlightened/"modern" (although, really, not so new) thinkers profess?

Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus did indeed make that claim. 
In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59). source  Jews considered the name YHWH (I AM) to be so sacred, so holy, that any man who uttered the name was guilty of profanation.  (see previous 3 minute Apologetics discussion on this topic)

Not only did Jesus utter the most sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH), but he applied it to himself.  Blasphemy!

Another verse which references Christ's divinity is this:  Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!"-John 20:28.  And Jesus accepts the worship and praise.

And in John 10:30 Jesus states, "The Father and I are one."  Again, the Jews understood very clearly exactly what Jesus was claiming for himself.  And no pious Jew would stand to hear any man ever claim to be the Almighty Creator of the Heavens.  Interesting to note what the next verse is after Jesus states he and the Father are one-- "The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him."

And in this Sunday's Gospel Jesus proclaims,  "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live,--John 11: 25
Another argument some may offer is that Jesus never really said the above words, but he was mis-interpreted by his disciples. In other words, they argue that Jesus never said he was God, but his foolish followers simply went ga-ga over this man's words and mistakenly hero-worshipped a mere man.  Quoting again from Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, "then who were the naive fools who first <mis-interpreted> it? There isn't another idea a Jew would be less likely to believe. Imagine this: the transcendent God who for millenia had strictly forbidden his chosen people to confuse him with a creature as the pagans did -- this Creator-God became a creature, a man -- a crucified criminal. Hardly a myth that naturally arises in the Jewish mind."

"No Jew would sincerely think He was God. No group in history was less likely to confuse the Creator with a creature than the Jews, the only people who had an absolute, and absolutely clear, distinction between the divine and human. And is far more inconceivable for them to confuse a "mad-man" with God."

If Christ was not divine, this permits modern intellectuals to pick and choose his teachings.  Any unpopular, unpalatable, difficult-to-follow teaching professed by this "good teacher" who's only human can be rejected.  It allows modernists to create a religion in their own image, rather than conforming their beliefs to that which God revealed. Those teachings which they find tolerable they accept.  Those which they find distasteful, they reject.  This paradigm sets up the almighty self as the almighty authority.  Eek!

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Why do Catholics proclaim Mary is the mother of GOD?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question: Why do Catholics proclaim Mary is the mother of GOD?  How in the world could GOD have a MOTHER?  Catholics must believe, then, that Mary pre-existed Jesus.

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners!"

One thought that all Catholics ought to keep in their minds whenever they are questioned about Mary is, "We believe _____ about Mary because we believe _________ about Jesus."

In other words, any dogma/doctrine/belief about Mary somehow confirms, enhances and re-affirms a teaching on Jesus (or His Body, the Church) rather than serving to exalt Mary.

Thus, our profession that Mary is the Mother of God confirms our understanding that Jesus is God.   Otherwise, if Mary is not the Mother of God, then who do we declare Jesus to be?  A mere man?  NOT God? 

It is interesting to note that this dogma of Mary as mother of God (or theotokos, which means, literally, God-bearer) was proclaimed during the 5th century, just when a heresy was being promoted that there were 2 separate persons, conjoined in Jesus Christ; a divine person and a human person.  Mary as the theotokos (or Mother of God) was declared a dogma of the Church at the Council of Ephesus.  This proclamation served to condemn any thought which questioned the divinity of Christ.

Devotion to Mary as the Mother of God in the early Church grew as the early Christians grew to understand more fully the nature of Jesus' humanity and divinity.  The theological term "hypostatic union" was used to profess the belief "that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human."  While the phrase "hypostatic union" is not found in Scripture, this understanding of the nature of Christ is accepted by all mainline Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

(This provides an interesting segue into the topic on the development of doctrine.  While, as stated in last week's post, the Christian faith was whole and complete before a single word of the New Testament was ever written down; however, it is also true that doctrine develops. Our understanding of God's revelation has progressed throughout our 2000 year history.  Thus, the 1st century understanding of the nature of Christ was elemental and fundamental, but not fully understood. It's likely that the first century bishops would have been unfamiliar with the term "hypostatic union" yet would have concurred with the concept.  Indeed, God chose to enrich and cultivate our understanding of this through His Church, not through the Scriptures.)

Contrary to what some Protestants may believe about Catholicism (see this anti-Catholic website:  http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/DeificationOfMary.htm) we do not elevate Mary to the level of a goddess or a deity.  She is NOT divine. 

 

So, do Catholics believe Mary pre-existed Jesus, or is co-eternal with the Trinity?  The argument is presented in this way:  "Since Catholics say Mary is the "Mother of God", and Jesus is Eternal, in order to be his mother, Mary would have to be equally Eternal." However, in calling Mary "Mother of God" we do not proclaim that Mary is the source of Jesus' divine nature (just like mothers are not the source of their children's immortal souls).  We simply say that Mary gave birth to a Person, a Person with both a divine nature and a human nature--but she is not the source of His divine nature (nor is she, in fact, the source of His human nature).

Finally, the term "Mother of God" can indeed be found in Scripture, contrary to what some Fundamentalists may maintain. In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth exults that Mary is the "Mother of my Lord!" (i.e. the Mother of God). While it is true that there are many places in Scripture in which the title "lord" does not refer to God (as in "the owner was the lord of the vineyard"), it is clear that Elizabeth is referring to Mary as the Mother of God (her LORD) because just 2 verses prior Scripture states that Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit". If Elizabeth called Jesus "Lord" under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who could doubt that this is a proclamation of Jesus' DIVINITY? 

As Pope Benedict wrote in 2007:  “All the other titles with which the Church honours Our Lady then derive from the title "Mother of God", but this one is fundamental.”

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

What does it mean to say that Scripture is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  What does it mean to say that Scripture is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient?      

Here is a question that lies at the heart of the disagreement between Catholicism and the rest of Christendom and that which fueled the Protestant Reformation:  Does Scripture contain ALL that is necessary for our salvation?

The Catholic can answer:  yes, Scripture contains all the truths necessary for our salvation. On this we can agree with our Protestant brothers and sisters.

But this must be understood with some nuance.

The Catholic may proclaim:  "Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient."

"For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians."  source  One such theologian who supports this view is Pope Benedict XVI.   However, it must be noted that this "material sufficiency of Scripture" paradigm is not THE "official" Catholic position, only a position that a Catholic may hold.  So while this view is supported by our pope, since he is speaking as a theologian, and not as pope, this position is not binding on all Catholics.

However, one area in which this "material sufficiency of Scripture" position is problematic is in several truths which we (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) believe which are not found in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, namely:

• the canon of Scripture (that is, the list of books which belong in the Bible).  The Bible did not come with a table of contents.  This was discerned by the Catholic Church in the 4th century.
• the belief that public revelation has ended.  Not stated explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
• the belief that there will be no more apostles.  Not stated explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

While we are permitted to hold the "material sufficiency of Scripture" position, we must also assert that some theological truths must be drawn from Sacred Tradition, the oral proclamation of God's Word.  Indeed, the entire Catholic faith was complete and entire before a single word of the New Testament was ever written down.  It subsisted, fully and completely, in the Word of God--Jesus Christ, and was delivered, once for all, to the Apostles.  Thus, the kerygma, or the proclamation of the Gospel, existed before the New Testament was ever committed to a manuscript.  

Therefore,  Scripture AND Tradition are 2 modes of God's revelation. That is, Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione ("All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition")--not either/or but both/and.

Finally, a bit more on the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura--the belief that the Scriptures alone are materially sufficient for theological truths.  Sola Scriptura proclaims that there is no authority outside of Scripture required in interpreting or discerning its meaning.

 

(Here we echo some previous apologetics discussions.)

Clearly the paradigm of sola scriptura is untenable, for one needs a Church--an outside authority--to proclaim what actually IS Scripture.  Unless someone (that is, the Catholic Church) discerned that, say, the Gospel of Mark was inspired but that the Gospel of Thomas was not, Christians today would have no idea what was part of God's revelation and what was simply an early Christian manuscript. See this list of the multitude of early Christian texts--some which the Church discerned to be inspired, and some which the Church rejected.  In other words, Scripture ALONE cannot be the sole authority, because someone else--not Scripture--had to proclaim what belonged in the canon (or list) of books of the Bible.

Again, this belief of sola scriptura is NOT found in the Bible, thus it is a self-contradictory, self-refuting proclamation.

Secondly, history has borne out the sad fruits of this sola scriptura paradigm--it simply doesn't work.

• If the Bible alone is all that's required why are there over 30,000 different understandings of what this Bible proclaims?  How "perspicuous" (clear, lucid) could it be if one can't even agree on what 1 Peter 3:21 means?  (Does Baptism save you?  Is it a sacrament or an ordinance?  Must it be done as an infant or at the age of reason?  Must one be baptized in a river or at a font? By sprinkling or immersion?   These are just a few of the differing doctrines Christians hold on this one verse!)
• If the Bible alone is all that's required, why are there Protestant seminaries?  Why are there Protestant Bible studies?  Wouldn't sola scriptura advocates simply need to pick up their Bible, and, guided by the Holy Spirit, come to an understanding of its meaning?  
• And why doesn't the First Baptist Church on Main St have the same beliefs as the Church of the Nazarene on Maple Dr if they're both reading the very same Bible?

So, while a Catholic can say that Scripture contains references to all that is necessary for our salvation, Scripture alone (without Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium) fails as a theological truth.

"It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence"—Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, 1965.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

Why I am Catholic (Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholicism)

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15