The pope is just a man! Why do you Catholics worship the pope?

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

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Prayer for our Holy Father Pope Francis:

O God, shepherd and ruler of all the faithful,
look favorably on your servant Francis,
whom you have set at the head of your Church as her shepherd;
Grant, we pray, that by word and example
he may be of service to those over whom he presides
so that, together with the flock entrusted to his care,
he may come to everlasting life.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
 who lives and reigns with you in the
unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Amen.
http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/holy-see/francis/pope-francis-prayer-card-and-photo.cfm

Question:  The pope is just a man!  Why do you Catholics worship the pope?

My initial reaction, when I hear questions like this, is:


During this historic month after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, the Catholic Church has been front and center in the news media. While the world took interest in this surprising and newsworthy event, much negativity has been proffered by some Christians regarding the papacy.

And lots of, frankly, really dumb things have been said about Catholicism.

On Facebook I've read these comments, (in addition to the one mentioned in the subject line):

1. "The pope doesn't save you.  Only Jesus saves you!" (followed by about a million "likes" from lots of uninformed people)

2. "I would never bow down before a man!"

3. "Anyway we all know the next pope is going to be a.) A hypocrite.... b.) probably instrumental in 'cover ups' of child abuse by Priests.... and c.) Embezzlement!!!!"

4. "I know of only One Holy Father and He reigns in heaven, not in the Vatican!"

What's the Catholic response?

In response to the question "The pope is just a man!  Why do you Catholics worship the pope?" the answer is, of course:  we don't.  We worship God alone.  The pope is given great honor and respect, but we don't worship him.   And is there any Church teaching that proclaims that the pope is anything other than a man? Sheesh!

As far as the comment #1 about the pope not saving us, (only Jesus saves), our response is, "True, dat!"  Except we ought to point out that we all participate in the salvation of the world by our actions.  Even St. Paul says that he (Paul) saves (but we understand it to mean that he saves only by his conformity to the atoning death of Christ). St. Paul states:  To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak.  I have become all things to all, to save at least some.-1 Cor 9:22. Note that St. Paul says that he saves "at least some"! 

Regarding #2 about not bowing before a man, there's numerous examples in Scripture of people bowing before someone other than God.  That's simply an age-old custom of respect.  It doesn't necessarily mean worship.

And he came and stood near where I stood: and when he was come, I fell on my face trembling, and he said to me: Understand, O son of man, for in the time of the end the vision shall be fulfilled.—Daniel 8:17

Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”

The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.—Joshua 5:12-15

#3 is too ludicrous to even make an attempt at a response. But it's insulting nonetheless and bothersome that this sentiment is out there.

#4 opposes calling the pope "Holy Father" because only God is our Father.  Yes, God is our Father, but all men who participate in spiritual fatherhood can be called "holy father", right?  The Bible has numerous examples of men  being called "father".  And if these men are righteous and saintly, then we are justified in calling them "holy fathers", yes? 

In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.–Isaiah 22:20

They answered and said to him, “Our father is Abraham.”—John 8

I(Paul) became your father in Jesus Christ through the Gospel -1 Cor 4:15

as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised.—Rom 4:12

All of the above reference holy men, so we ought to be able to call them "holy fathers".

Despite comments like the above from uninformed folks, it's a great time to be Catholic!  It just really bothers me to read things like that because sooo many people hate what they think the Catholic Church teaches, but hardly anyone objects to what we truly do profess. 

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

 

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 about inclusive language?

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

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

What is meant by "inclusive language"? In this context, it is a movement in the Church to change all language that refers to God as "Father".  It also wants to ensure that any writings that say "brother" be changed to "brother and sister", "men" to "humanity", "mankind" to 'humankind", etc etc etc.  Women, in this paradigm, have been excluded from the Church's liturgical and theological language for centuries and it's time for the Church to adapt to the 21st century.  It is also insensitive to women to refer to God as "Father" and to use masculine pronouns when referring to God, according to this movement.

My opinion: regarding assuring that women are included in "mankind" and "brother"--is this really necessary?  Regarding changing God from "Father" and "He" to a more generic "Creator"--this is absolutely unnecessary, and maybe even heretical!  (Especially some literature that refer to God as Mother! Examples: 
http://www.lightparty.com/Spirituality/FatherMotherGod.html
http://www.worldprayers.org/archive/prayers/celebrations/father_mother_god_thank_you.html)

I remember going to a women's retreat and the nun who directed it refused to start our prayers with, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".  Rather, she used, "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.".  Eek!  There was even a movement in some circles to baptize some folks using this formula (or a variation), and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith came down hard on this practice and declared these baptisms to be invalid.

Many Catholic publications have been required to revise their writings so that no reference to God as "He" will remain. Instead,they must use "God" rather than the masculine pronoun.  Note how God is never replaced with "He" in this example:  http://onlineministries.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMinistry/Lent/invitation.html

The inability to refer to God in the masculine, and as Father is to deny a truth revealed to us by Jesus himself.  God is indeed our Father.  In the masculine.  This in no way denigrates women.  It is simply a fact that we image God as a loving Father.  From CS Lewis:

Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.... Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter? Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable. source

Yet this also is not to say that God is male.  (Well, yes, Jesus is a male, but God, in the Godhead, is not male; God has no gender.)

We as a Church simply do not have the authority to change the way God has revealed Himself to us.  As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says,

One issue is whether we have the authority to change the names of God used by Christ, the Bible and the church. The traditional defense of masculine imagery for God rests on the premise that the Bible is divine revelation, not culturally relative, negotiable and changeable. source

So, no, I am not a fan of inclusive language. It seems patronizing, awkward and removes the natural elegance of language. I may be able to tolerate it when changes are made horizontally (mankind to humankind, brothers to brothers and sisters), no matter how cumbersome it makes the language. However, I believe it to be wrong when changes are instituted vertically (God as Father to God as Father-Mother; the inability to use the pronoun "He" for God).

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Inclusive Language: Is it Necessary?

Catholics Come Home

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 can't Catholics just read the Bible and be guided by the Holy Spirit?

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

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Short answer:  we can.  We must.  Catholics are mandated to contemplate and study the Bible--it is the Word of God!  We must "ponder and treasure these things" in our hearts. (Dei Verbum)
 
We are most certainly free--indeed obligated--to meditate upon the Scriptures and see what God is telling us privately, personally. For example, if I am prayerfully asking for direction as to how to provide food for my family when I've lost my job, and then I turn to Scripture and open to the verses in which Jesus multiplies the loaves...well, I am certainly free to interpret that as God telling me, "Don't worry, my beloved! I will take care of that!"

However, the fire that lit the Protestant Reformation (PR) was the rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church to be the guardian and final interpreter of the Word of God.  What was wrought by the PR was the idea of, "me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit", and I don't need a Church to tell me what it means!  This paradigm, sadly, has led to doctrinal chaos and confusion.

It is the reason that, instead of One Church, established by Jesus,  delivered to His Apostles, handed on to bishops through 2000 years of apostolic succession, we now have the obscenity of tens of thousands of different Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretations of Scripture are the correct ones.  It has led to the doctrinal chaos and confusion that now leads millions of folks to a multitude of differing beliefs, each from reading, curiously, the same Scripture verses! 

There are denominations that preach that baptism is an ordinance.  No!  It's one of the 2 sacraments!  It needs to be done in a river!  No!  It needs to be done by sprinkling!  And Bible verses will be quoted to support their views.

There are denominations that preach that we cannot lose our salvation once we accept Jesus into our hearts.  No! Other preachers say that the Bible clearly teaches that we can, indeed, falter and lose our way, even after becoming a Christian.  Scripture verses will be provided by both denominations, each ostensibly supporting their contradictory points of view.

There are denominations that preach that Saturday should be the day of worship. And others that profess that Sunday is the Lord's Day.  Scripture verses will be cited to support their contradictory views.

The fruit of the PR's denial of the authority of the Catholic Church to be the Bible's authentic interpreter is that every day there are churches like this one popping up on every street corner in the US. 





Each one claiming that they have the correct vision of Christ's words.  Each one answerable to no authority save that of their own fallible pastor's personal interpretations and practices.

When a person reads and studies the Bible, comes to a differing opinion than his pastor, the natural result of this type of "me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit" thinking is that this person now feels free to start his own church.  Reason tells us that this cannot be what Jesus envisioned for His Body, the Church.  It cannot be good that there is doctrinal chaos and confusion with thousands and thousands of differing understandings of what the Bible says.  That's just what the devil ordered, in my opinion. 

We need a Church that is the guardian and authentic interpreter of the Word of God, so when there are disagreements about the Scriptures (and there most certainly will be, for the Scriptures themselves say that there are things that are "hard to understand")

In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. --2 Peter 3:16

we will have the assurance that we will be guided by Christ himself, through His Body, the Church,  to the correct meaning.

 

"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

Praying to Saints--Dead People Can't Hear You!

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

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

This Sunday's Gospel proclaims the Transfiguration of Our Lord.

We will hear this passage:

And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah,
who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus
that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.--Luke 9

I love this passage as far as apologetics goes, when it comes to the objection that non-Catholic Christians often pose against the Catholic practice of praying to saints. 

Here's something from an anti-Catholic website that is called "Just for Catholics" and poses many, many objections to Catholicism.  Here, the author states: 

You pray to dead saints and bow down before graven images, contrary to the second commandment.

Of course those in heaven are not dead!  They are more alive in Christ than we are.  The saints can indeed hear us!  They can do this and so much more, for "eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, the things God has prepared for those who love him."--1 Cor 2:9

That's why I love this gospel so much.  It's a great example of 2 saints in heaven--Moses and Elijah--conversing with someone on earth!

And since we've established that those in heaven are not "dead" spirits, then what's wrong with asking them to pray for us?  Isn't this practice nothing more than a heavenly prayer chain?  We are asking for their intercession, in the same way that we might ask a holy friend to pray for us before surgery.  We are not worshipping them. Catholics worship God alone!  Even the most clueless Catholics don't think that we worship statues!

Incidentally, bowing down before statues does not contradict the 2nd commandment as the anti-Catholic website accuses us of doing. Worshipping idols is what contradicts the 2nd commandment, not merely bowing down before a statue. 

And bowing down is not the same as worshipping.

This photo is a great example of Protestant worshippers bowing down before a box of kleenex.  Clearly, no one here is worshipping the box of kleenex, right?  



So it's curious that Catholics get accused of worshipping statues.

Incidentally the Scriptures are full of examples of bowing as a sign of reverence, not of worship.  

See Genesis 18:2

Genesis 23:7

Numbers 22:31

2 Samuel 9:6

Luke 24:5

Despite the numerous objections we Catholics might encounter regarding the practice of the veneration of the saints, each one can be indeed be refuted!

Where does the Bible say to Pray to Dead Saints? by Steve Ray

Catholics Come Home

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 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

Catholics Come Home

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 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:

Catholics Come Home

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