3 Minute Apologetics

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

Monday, February 4, 2013

What is Sacred Tradition?

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

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

In light of next Sunday's 2nd reading, I thought I'd address the question of Sacred Tradition.

Note what Sacred Tradition is not: it is not customs or man-made traditions. The Catholic Church has some of these traditions or customs, such as bowing our heads when praying, having a church steeple, decorating the church during Christmas, flowers on the altar...

But this is not to be confused with Sacred Tradition.

Catholics profess that the Word of God has been revealed to us through two channels: Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Thus, Sacred Tradition is the Word of God that is contained in the teachings of the Apostles, preserved for us via the Holy Spirit, and proclaimed by the Church.

"Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church......It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church......The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority.....The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed." --Apologist Mark Shea

Our 2nd reading this Sunday offers examples from St. Paul of what we mean by Sacred Tradition:

I am reminding you, brothers and sisters,
of the gospel I preached to you,
which you indeed received and in which you also stand.
Through it you are also being saved,
if you hold fast to the word I preached to you,
unless you believed in vain.
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received:--1 Corinthians 15

In other words, Sacred Tradition, as St. Paul says, is the gospel preached to the early Christians, BY WORD OF MOUTH. As the New Testament had not yet been compiled, he could not have been referencing the Bible when he talks about the "gospel" preached to them, and to hold fast to the "word" preached to them. Rather, what he was alluding to was the paradosis--or, the Word of God orally proclaimed through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. AKA Sacred Tradition.

Incidentally, when in dialogue with Christians who object to the Catholic view of Sacred Tradition and who hold a Sola Scriptura (or, Bible Alone) point of view, it might be helpful to show them that they do indeed believe some things NOT found in the Bible, and thus are contradicting their Sola Scriptura paradigm.

Most Christians believe these things that are not found in the Bible:

-the table of contents of the Bible. That is, the canon of Scripture, or what books are considered inspired (or God-breathed) and what books are not inspired. There were over 400 ancient Christian texts that the bishops of the early Church either affirmed or rejected as being inspired. Thus, when a Christian says that he knows that the Gospel of Mark is inspired, it is because of Sacred Tradition. Not from the Bible. For the Bible does not say that the Gospel of Mark is inspired. (And even if an ancient text did claim inspiration, does claiming to be inspired make it so? Nope.)

-that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Not in the Bible, but believed by a majority of Protestants.

-that the canon of Scripture is closed. Christians believe that there are no further books that may be considered inspired. This is something known by Tradition, but not found in the Bible.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Newsletter by Apologist John Martignoni on Sacred Tradition

"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

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

How can you be against abortion in ALL cases? What about rape? Could you really force a woman to bear a baby when she was raped

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

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

And the corollary that pro-choicers rightly use if someone says, "I am against abortion, except in the case of rape and incest" is this very valid question: "Then how can you state that life begins at conception, if you believe that it's okay to kill this life in the case of rape and incest? You must not really believe that life begins at conception."

So it seems that the pro-choicers have us between a rock and a hard place. If we say we're against abortion in the case of rape, then we look like incompassionate monsters with no empathy towards a woman who has experienced a horrific event in her life, wanting to force her to endure more suffering. If we say we're against abortion, but make an exception for rape, then they will point out (correctly) the inconsistency of our position.

The Catholic answer is to not take the position that we're against abortion, except in the case of rape and incest. For the smart pro-choicer will rightly point out our inconsistency. Either it's a human life or it's not.

Now, as for the objection that we have no empathy for a woman who has been victimized by rape, I offer this example I recently heard on Catholic Answers Live:

Let's say that there is a woman who is married, has relations with her husband, and is later that night raped by a stranger and becomes pregnant.

She seeks testing to see whether the baby is her husbands, or the product of the rape.

Testing reveals that it is indeed a life conceived with her husband, so she continues the pregnancy and gives birth.

Later, the laboratory reveals that an error was made: the baby is actually the child of the rapist.

Do you believe that it's permissible for the woman to kill this baby, as it is actually the product of the rapist?

Of course, no moral person would say that now that we know that the baby was conceived in rape that it's permissible to kill this baby. No one could accuse us of being heartless monsters for saying that it's immoral to kill this baby, even if its father was a rapist.

Question: why would it be ok to kill the fetus because it was conceived in rape before it's born, but not after?

Answer: it's not!

With this example we see the pro-life position: a life already exists, even if it was conceived in rape. And it's never permissible to kill an innocent human life, no matter what the circumstances of its conception.

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

Thursday, December 6, 2012

The Immaculate Conception

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

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

December 8 is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception! It is the day in which we honor the fact that Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. She was, from the very moment of her existence, a pure vessel, created to be the "tabernacle" of the Second Person of the Trinity.

Not sure why the Church, in her wisdom, always proclaims the Gospel reading in which the angel announces to Mary that she will conceive a Son.

That seems to confuse us into thinking that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception concerns how Mary conceived Jesus "immaculately" in her womb.

This is an incorrect explication of the Catholic view on sex. If it were true that Mary conceived Jesus "immaculately", that would suggest that Catholics view the other way to conceive (that is, the normal way) as not immaculate...or dirty. And, of course, that is NOT how Catholicism views sex. It is not dirty. It is holy. So for Catholics to proclaim that Mary conceived Jesus immaculately is to promote a falsehood: that the Church views sex as dirty.

So the correct understanding is that God set aside a special person to be a fitting vessel for His Son. And doesn't it make sense that the vessel which contains the Holy of Holies would be created to look, symbolically like this: (that is, pure, undefiled, beautiful and for one purpose only: to hold the Numinous. Not to hold any other thing)

rather than to look like this:
stock-photo-15885725-still-life-of-a-dirty-crushed-plastic-water-bottle.jpg

which is how all the rest of creation (human creation, that is) looks, symbolically, due to Original Sin. And each time we sin we become an unfitting vessel for Our Lord.

A non-Catholic who objected to the Church's teaching on the IC once posted this:

"hmmm...please tell me how exactly this works (in your mind). At your Eucharist you believe that the body of the Lord is taken entirely into your mouth...you are then the alleged vessel of the Lord, just as Mary was the vessel of the Lord (though the womb is perhaps a more "honorable" location than the mouth, esophagus, and gut). You are not sinless and the millions of other Catholics all over the world that participate in your Eucharist aren't sinless (and some are extremely depraved)....Let's say that, on average, one out of a hundred Catholics participates in the Eucharist each day and that the Lord's body persists for a minute in each case....we then have the Lord's body (cumulatively) residing in a non-sinless person 10 million minutes/day...as opposed to 400,000 minutes for Mary's pregnancy...so what gives? How is it so impossible for Jesus to spend about 400,000 minutes in the womb of a sinner and yet spend far, far more time in the mouths and guts of sinners each and every day?

In other words, this non-Catholic is saying: if you say that it was fitting that Mary was sinless because she was the vessel which carried Our Lord, then how can Catholics, sinners all, claim to be receiving Him in the Eucharist?

The Catholic response is this: we indeed ought to be sinless, pure and undefiled, when we receive Him in the Eucharist. No one with mortal sin ought to approach the altar and receive Him. That's why the Sacrament of Reconciliation is offered every Saturday before Masses. And all of us with venial sins have our sins cleansed during the Penitential Rite at Mass.

So the Catholic Church is nothing if not consistent in her teachings.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

"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

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Jesus is the Firstborn? Doesn't that imply that Mary had other children?

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

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

In other words, why do Catholic proclaim Mary to be a Perpetual Virgin? If Jesus was the firstborn, then the must have been other children of Mary and Joseph. And why are Catholics so hung up on what Mary and Joseph did AFTER Jesus was born? Isn't the important part that Mary was a virgin BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus? Who cares what happened after?

In light of this Sunday's reading I thought I'd re-visit the above questions that are often posed to Catholics.

From this Sunday's 2nd reading:

Jesus Christ is the faithful witness,
the firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth.--Rev 1:5

Fundamentalist Christians like to point out that the term "firstborn" implies that there were subsequent children. And thus the Catholic Church's teaching on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is another Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture.

However, the term “firstborn” refers to the Mosaic law, and can reference the eldest of several, but also can be applicable to an only son.
The firstborn sons of Israel received the inheritance. If he were an only child, he would not be excluded from the inheritance because he is not, literally, a firstborn, but actually an only born. Rather, it was understood that firstborn sons referred to both eldest AND only sons.

In this verse, "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’"--Exodus 13: 1-2 The Hebrews did not only present to God those children who were the eldest of many, but any child (son) who was born first. Including only sons.

In Exodus 34:20 the Israelites are commanded to "redeem" their firstborn: "The firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The firstborn among your sons you shall redeem. No one shall appear before me empty-handed." They did not wait until a second child was born before presenting their firstborn child. He was a firstborn even if no further children were conceived.

The "firstborn" were not given this designation when there became a "second-born." They were deemed "firstborn" at their birth. Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him.

As for why Catholics seem to be so focused on Mary's Perpetual Virginity, the response is this: any doctrine/teaching on Mary only serves to enhance and highlight our understanding of Jesus. An impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of her Son.

Because the womb which contained He Who Could Not Be Contained was especially set apart, we know that what was contained in Mary's womb was like no other. If this womb held other sinful creatures, how special could that first "creature" have been?

It's like the Ark of the Covenant, when it was through carrying the Divine Presence, later carrying some pretty desert pebbles. That wouldn't make sense, would it?

Imagine trying to evangelize a Muslim. He could validly say to a Christian: "You believe Mary had other children? Hmmm....if Jesus were divine, how could the womb which carried him also carry other sinful creatures? I don't think Jesus could have been God if the womb which carried him also carried mere humans?"

So Catholics are better equipped to proclaim the Divinity of Christ, when we proclaim the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Apologist Mark Shea on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

"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

Monday, October 29, 2012

Isn't Praying to the Saints Un-Biblical?

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

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

In light of our Church's celebration of the Feast of All Saints, I thought it was important to address this question that is often posed to Catholics.

The objections to praying to the saints are many and look like this:

Saints are dead. How can they hear us?
Jesus is the ONLY mediator. So why do Catholics elevate saints to mediators?
How can people in heaven hear all the simultaneous prayers of billions of people?
Where in the Bible does it say we're supposed to pray to saints?
Why not go directly to Jesus?

Regarding objection #1 that saints are dead, that is easily refuted by John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. This verse proclaims that those in heaven have not "perished", but rather have "eternal life". Thus, the saints in heaven are not dead but are ALIVE in Christ. Even more ALIVE than we are here on earth!

Regarding #2, the objection that Jesus is the ONLY mediator is actually not found in the Bible. What the Bible actually says is that Jesus is the ONE mediator. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human-1 Tim 2:5. That's a distinction that's important. Jesus is, indeed, the ONE mediator, but through our union with him, we are all participants in this mediation. Thus, Jesus is not the ONLY mediator. We are ALL mediators, including the saints in heaven, who intercede for us eternally before the throne of heaven.

Incidentally, non-Catholics like to bring up that verse in 1 Timothy about Jesus being the One Mediator, but what's interesting is just a few verses earlier St. Paul tells us this: First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone--1 Timothy 2:1, which is a request for us to be mediators for each other, isn't it?

Regarding #3 asking how they could hear a multitude of prayers simultaneously, we know that Scripture tells us, Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, nor has it entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him--1 Cor 2:9. What those who are rejoicing with God in heaven, joined eternally as the Body of Christ, can do is not limited by our finite and limited reasoning.

Regarding #4 which asks where it can be found in the Bible, there's the standard response: why do we have to find everything we believe in the pages of the Bible? Where does the Bible state that? (Answer: no where. That's a man-made tradition that many have been duped into believing). Also, we can ask the non-Catholic, "Where does it say in the Bible that we can't pray to saints in heaven?"

Objection #4 segues nicely into a question that I like to pose to Protestants who ask me, "Where is Doctrine X in the Bible?" The question I pose is this: "If it's not in the Bible does that mean it's allowed, or does that mean it's prohibited?"

The question is troubling for most Bible-alone Christians because they will see their inconsistency. On the one hand, they will say, for things such as praying to the saints, "Well, if it's not in the Bible then it's not allowed. You can't pray to saints because it's not in the Bible." But on the other hand, they will say, for things such as contraception, "Well, if it's not in the Bible then it is allowed. So you can use the Pill because it doesn't say you can't in the Bible."

In other words, the Bible-alone Christian needs to be consistent. Either follow this paradigm: "Where the Bible is silent on an issue, it is forbidden." OR! follow this paradigm, "Where the Bible is silent on an issue it is permissible." But they ought not pick and choose when to apply these paradigms.

Finally, regarding objection #5 on why not go to Jesus Directly. 2 words: Prayer Chains.

In other words, almost all non-Catholic Christians who object to praying to the saints because they believe we should go to Jesus Directly also have Prayer Chains. If they really believed that we should go to Jesus Directly then they wouldn't have prayer chains. They would simply, individually, pray for their own private intentions directly to Jesus. But they understand the power of the prayers of a righteous man and thus ask for the intercession of others through the Prayer Chain.

Praying to the saints is nothing more than a Prayer Chain, extended to the Heavenly Body of Christ!

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Any Friend of God's is a Friend of Mine