|
Question 122: Has God given over some of his authority (forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgement) to Jesus? (TR)
Answer: This question is asked only by someone who assumes that Jesus of Nazareth was simply a man and no more. However, the Christian faith believes that Jesus himself is the personification of God’s wisdom. God himself as wisdom forgives sins, resurrects the dead and judges on the Last Day through the personification of wisdom which we recognise in Jesus Christ (read in this connection: The Letter to the Colossians 1:12-23, particularly 19-20).
Question 123: How does the Christian faith depict paradise and hell? What is life after death like? (TR)
Answer: “When it uses the word Heaven, the Bible, and therefore the teachings of the church do clearly not refer to a place up with the angels above the clouds. The many metaphors used in the Bible mean that Heaven is the everlasting communion of humankind with God. We will see Him, we will be happy in Him, filled with love, joy and peace, and with goodwill to all other people. God wants to take up all of creation into His splendor, world history purified, changed and completely renewed. God wants to reward our good deeds, although they are only possible through His grace. And so there will be different levels of blessedness, just like there are different sized vessels; in Heaven everyone will reach the full extent of his own happiness.
Regarding the teaching about hell, does it not contradict God’s mercy? There can be no doubt that Jesus confirms the Old Testament’s teachings: there are sins that are so profoundly evil that their consequence is a final separation from God. Everyone has to choose between life and death. God honors this freedom right down to its last consequence. The church proclaims the dogma of hell as a real possibility. It does this to make everyone see the utter importance of their own actions and to lead them to salvation. Whether there will ultimately be a person who is damned forever, the Bible doesn’t say. But to be separated from God forever, from Him who is our life, that would indeed be hell.
Fortunately it is only one desperately heavy burden that separates us from God. However, we have to admit that we will not stand before Him wholly pure and without blame when He finally calls us. And so we have been given the opportunity for purification and catharsis, which we may see as a sign of God’s mercy. We will be ’poor souls’ because we can no longer do anything for our own salvation and because the fire of God’s love causes us pain because of our sins (hence the term purgatory, which is derived from purgatorium – the place of purification). At the same time we are rich, because we belong in this place of purification for God, to the communion of saints. We can feel borne by the prayers the church prays for the departed, we can even offer our own intercessions.
We can therefore summarize: Heaven – is God whom we have won for ourselves forever. Hell – is God whom we have lost forever. Purgatory – is God as we are expecting him and in pain, while He purifies us and makes us holy.
In the end God will bring about a new Heaven and a new Earth. The Bible speaks of a heavenly banquet, or of the holy city of Jerusalem in which God will live among humankind. All of creation will be renewed. Unimaginable beauty is awaiting us.“ (Quoted from Winfried Henze, Glauben ist schön. Ein katholischer Familien-Katechismus. Harsum: Köhler, 2001. pages 178-80.)
Question 124: Can God regret? (TR)
Answer: The question is likely to arise from Old Testament texts such as Genesis 6:5-6 "When the Lord saw how great was man's wickedness in earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he hade made man on earth, and his heart was grieved". This "regret", or as it is also understood as "repentance", is a human way of expressing God’s holiness which cannot tolerate sin. In 1 Samuel 15:29 we read, "The glory of Israel neither retracts nor repents, for he is not man that he should repent". This is a warning against a too literal understanding of the term. Much more often God’s "regret" or "repentance" refer to the calming of His anger and the withdrawing of His threat. See also Jeremiah 26:3, "Perhaps they will listen and turn back, each from his evil way, so that I may repent of the evil I have planned to inflict upon them for their evil deeds".
Question 125: Why will Jesus Christ return? (TR)
Answer: “The bible says that we shall work for our salvation "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). However, hope is the most dominant emotion when Christians think of the last judgment. The reason for this is that Christians look at everything as coming from Christ and pointing to Christ. The Old Testament already mentions the “day of the Lord”, when God will punish all the evil of His people, but at the same time save and restore them. The meaning of this only becomes truly apparent in the New Testament. Christians are awaiting the day of Jesus Christ, His returning in glory. Then the whole world will see that Jesus Christ is the original cause and the core of history. Everything will be measured against Him and His truth. He is the one God has sent to judge the living and the dead. The Bible announces this with majestic metaphors. They all point to the same truth – in the end Christ will triumph, and with Him truth and justice. The small, the humbled, the forgotten, the victims of terror and disasters will come into their own, all evil and unjust violence will perish. Thus the proclamation of the final judgment is truly "Good News".
Christians should think and speak much more often of "... until He comes in glory!" , a part of the Eucharistic prayer. Christians of the early Church delighted in the hope of the second coming of Christ, indeed, they expected this coming of the Lord for the near future. The realization that the end of time might be a long, long time away crystallized only very slowly. But for Christians this was no question of timing. There was no crisis when the expectation of the Second Coming was not fulfilled immediately. The coming of Jesus is still a very real expectation. Being a Christian means living in expectation.
Occasionally there are people who claim to know exactly when that time will come, although the Bible tells us that no-one knows the day or hour (Mark 13:32). They point to wars and disasters which Jesus announced to be the precursors to the end. They are, however, no pointers to a specific date. Rather, the proclamation of Jesus gives a different meaning to all the horrors of this world: for Christians they are a sign of the coming salvation! Even the "antichrist", whose coming will precede the end of time (2 Thessalonians 2:4), is not a specific person in history. The world is full of such opponents of God, but their power is not to frighten Christians because Jesus will claim the final victory.
And so Christians expect Jesus to bring about the fulfilling of history. This is good news to make us joyful. At the same time it has considerable importance for the present - it is not we who will accomplish the perfecting of the world, but the Lord who will do this. Once we have understood this we will no longer follow those who proclaim other kinds of heaven on earth. Truly believing Christians are not confused by the ebb and flow of world history. They have the duty to fight for justice, to do as much good as they can, but they must not expect to be able to achieve it all on their own. The hope in the victor and the judge Jesus Christ protects Christians from dangerous utopias which, as history proves, easily end in blood and tears. Thus the proclamation of the coming of Christ in glory protects us from the false hope of earthly paradise, as well as from lame resignation without hope. (Slightly adapted, from W. Henze, Glauben ist schön. Ein katholischer Familien-Katechismus. Harsum: Köhler, 2001, pages. 176-7. )
Question 126: What is your view on the insults to a prophet through cartoon strips? (TR)
Answer: In the following I cite the press release by the Head of the German General Synod, Karl Cardinal Lehman dated 3 February 2006 in response to the controversy surrounding the Mohammed cartoons, with which I concur.
“The principles of living together include honoring the religious faith of other people. This applies to all religions. Satire or caricatures, which in democracies are part of the freedom to hold ones own opinions, become an issue when they touch the core tenets of a religious faith. Many Muslims are convinced that their faith has been insulted by the cartoons which were first published in Denmark. This lack of sensibility is to be regretted. Equally, however, any use of violence and all theoretical calls to war or threats of boycotts are to be rejected comprehensively. The event shows how much we still have to learn in our interactions with each other.“
Question 127: Is it allowed in Europe to insult Jesus Christ with caricatures? (TR)
Answer: From a legal point of view, yes. The moral evaluation of such an insult is a different matter. In Europe, Jesus Christ is insulted in caricatures again and again. All historical experience shows that special legal protection of religion has been abused repeatedly, and that it cannot be combined with the freedom of expression and freedom of scientific enquiry. I agree with the following comments by Professor Muhammad Kalisch at the University of Münster:
"The legal protection of faith and religious feelings is nonsensical and to be rejected not least because of the fact can never be defined precisely and any evaluation automatically tends towards arbitrariness. For lawyers in a constitutional state, however, arbitrariness is the strongest sign of an invalid verdict. That the facts cannot be defined is a consequence of the different views each individual has about when his or her religious feelings have been insulted. In the case of religious or philosophical views there is the added problem that what is utter rubbish for one person can be an absolute truth for another...
If you hold the Pope to be a criminal and Mohammed a murderer, you must be allowed to say it. If you want a society which recognizes the freedom of opinion and the freedom of scientific enquiry, you have to live with the consequence that there will be people who do not share your view of the world and who consider things to be nonsense which are holy to you.
It is possible to try to criticize the content of faith and at the same time try to show your discussion partner that you still respect his dignity as a human being, and to search for a way of criticizing that is as little painful as possible… It must nevertheless be noted that any conflicts arising out of the discussion cannot and must not be solved through the law. Within the area of conflict between the freedom of opinion and the freedom of scientific enquiry on the one hand, and religion on the other, there has to be the absolute freedom of opinion and science, even if this may hurt religious feelings. Any attempt at imposing restrictions cannot be confirm with the above mentioned basic freedoms, and all historic experience shows that no good can come of it.
However, there are limits. These limits do not concern the religious faith of other people, but their personal dignity. Where the followers of any religious faith, be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Baha'is or any other, are represented in word or caricature in a manner that they appear to be a mere homogenous mass, which without any individual differentiation can be ascribed negative characteristics such as lying, falsity, fraudulency or even a desire to kill, then there is no doubt that their human dignity has been violated and an insulting representation has been made.
It must not be that a person is automatically under general suspicion and considered to be a criminal simply because of his faith. This must indeed be strongly prosecuted by the Government." (CIBEDO (Frankfurt a.Main), 1/2006 , p. 22-23)!
Question 128: Did Jesus know in advance that Judas would betray him? If so, then why did He not defend Himself? (TR)
Answer: According to the four Gospels, at the Last Supper Jesus says that one of the disciples will betray Him and hand Him over. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus refers to Judas, at least indirectly. This announcement of betrayal is foretold by the Psalm: “Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me” (Psalm 41:10). The power of evil is potent even in Jesus’ closest circle of disciples.
Why did Jesus not defend Himself? Why did He not elude capture? It apparently became increasingly clear to Him that He would not escape a violent death if He wanted to remain faithful to His message of God’s unconditional love to all humankind. He will suffer the fate of God’s suffering servant (see Isaiah 53), who is rejected and killed, despite his innocence. Without resorting to violence Himself and without bitterness, Jesus accepts His death trusting in God. However, it is precisely this act that breaks the cycle of violence and contributes to the reconciliation of a world that is without peace. In obedience to God, Jesus follows the path of God’s suffering servant. He sacrifices His life “for you and for all”. He said this primarily at the Last Supper, and the Christian community celebrates this sacrifice when it celebrates the Eucharist. In the Eucharist Jesus invites the faithful to the dedicated service of others and gives them His strength in the power of the Holy Spirit to do this.
Question 129: How should one regard church recognition of [so-called] same-sex marriages, as argued and practiced by some Protestants? (TR)
Answer: To clarify the Catholic position on the question of same-sex relationships, I reproduce here the main statements (in an unofficial translation) from the Catholic Adult Catechism (Volume II: Leben aus dem Glauben [Freiburg: Herder, 1995], pp. 385-87).
“The legal regulation of same-sex (i.e. homosexual) relationships should not be confused with the moral evaluation of homosexual acts. Homosexuality is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Attempts to dissect the homosexual phenomenon into various forms and to describe its origins and development, as well as the degree of homosexual orientation, indicate just how controversial research into homosexuality and its characterisation is even in modern psychology and medicine. Differing opinions regarding the form and development of homosexuality reveal that a distinction needs to be made between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts. Homosexuals themselves come to recognise their sexual orientation or tendency as permanent only within the scope of different phases of development. Those with a homosexual orientation have not chosen this themselves (cf Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). Medical research into homosexuality still maintains the view that the homosexually oriented cannot change this tendency. On the other hand, acknowledged medical writers point out that, under favourable conditions, certain therapies can permanently change a homosexual orientation. Whatever can be said from a medical point of view regarding homosexual orientation or tendency, from an ethical point of view, it is clear that the homosexual is no more responsible for their homosexual behaviour than a heterosexual is responsible for their heterosexual behaviour. That is significant not only from the perspective of basic ethical considerations but also in regard to the threat to health from a possible transfer of the HIV virus, which is possible through homosexual acts as well as through heterosexual acts.
Homosexuality brings drawbacks compared to heterosexuality. Even the anatomy of sexual organs points to the duality of the sexes. Homosexual acts fundamentally rule out a complete sexual polarity as well as procreation. Therefore, a same-sex relationship implies infertility. From this perspective, the homosexual also perceives their orientation as being different even if they have reconciled themselves to this predetermination.
From the perspective of the order of creation and from God’s instruction to man and woman to procreate, homosexuality cannot be regarded as equal to heterosexuality. According to the Bible, the real room for full sexual union is marriage between a man and a woman, and marriage is the germ cell of human society.
Homosexuality was strongly condemned in biblical times. The Bible was clear in both the Old and the New Testament that homosexual practices cannot represent the actual purpose of human sexuality. In Israel people who consummated homosexual acts – for whatever reason – were even cast out by the people according to the law (cf Lev 18:22; 20:13). In the New Testament the Apostle Paul interprets homosexual behaviour as unnatural intercourse (cf Rom 1:15-27; 1 Tim 1:10), which he warns against in the same way that he warns against other sexual wrongdoing.
In the past a lack of knowledge regarding the causes of homosexuality led to persecution and condemnation. Today’s insight into the development of homosexuality prohibits any defamation of homosexuals. From an ethical point of view, it is important for homosexuals to make an effort not to let their sexuality control them, but instead consciously integrate this into humane moral concepts and purposes. Above all, they must respect their human dignity and must not misuse their homosexuality as a means to satisfy their own sexual drive. They must avoid causing offence by their behaviour and seducing others. They “are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358).
In society all people have a duty to treat homosexuals with sympathy. Defamation and degradation drives them into an intolerable situation and hampers communication. Christians are called to offer homosexuals pastoral care. Same-sex partners cannot obtain Church recognition as an institution.”
Question 130: Does not abolishing the Law of Moses, e.g. the commandment to circumcise or the prohibition against eating pork, represent a rejection of God’s will? (TR)
Answer: At the centre of Jesus’ proclamation was the message of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Mk 1:15). In this way Jesus relativised the early Jewish law. Jesus by no means declared the Mosaic Law as invalid and obsolete. He did, however, criticise and reveal, in the most authoritative tone, the will of God expressed originally in the law (Mt 5ff: “But I say to you”). Jesus’ critical words regarding the law and the culture include, for example, His proclamations regarding marriage, vengeance and love for one’s enemies (Mt 5:31ff.38.43ff par Lk), ritual purity (Mk 7:15), healing on the Sabbath (Mk 2:27ff), the law’s focus on the dual commandment to love God and one’s neighbour (Mk 12:28-34) and regarding the narrowness of the Jerusalem Temple cult (Mk 14:58). Some of these proclamations are closely linked to certain behaviour of Jesus e.g. His unconditional devotion to sinners (particularly in eating with them: Mk 2:15-17; Lk 15) and the sick (healing on the Sabbath: Mk 3:1-6; Lk 13:10-17; healing outcasts: Mk 1:40; Lk 17:12), as well as the prophetic sign of cleansing the Temple (Mk 11:11-17). Jesus’ execution by the Jewish rulers then in power indicates that His criticism of the Law and the culture overstepped the bounds of what was permissible and tolerable in the eyes of certain circles.
In the early Christian communities some members continued to unproblematically follow the law and participated in the Temple cult (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:20). Others, the “Hellenists”, drew far-reaching consequences that were critical of the law from Jesus’ own behaviour, His execution and their belief in His resurrection. Their leader Stephen was stoned because of this criticism of the law and the Temple (Acts 6ff). His followers were persecuted and they fled Jerusalem. The persecutors included Saul/Paul. The fact that he was a Pharisee and a fervent follower of the law and as such persecuted the Hellenistic Jewish Christians (Gal 1:13ff; Phil 3:5ff) also throws light on the Hellenists’ critical attitude towards the law. Understandably, they made the first approach to include heathens in the community of believers without requiring circumcision and following the Mosaic Law (Acts 11:20; Acts 15; Gal 2:22-24).
After Paul himself became a Christian he, more than any early Christian prophet, continued to concern himself with the difficulties of the law and frequently referred to them in his written testimonials. The profession of faith that God has raised Jesus, who had been condemned by the law, from the dead and made Him Lord leads to the conviction that it is not by adhering to the law that all people get to live in God but through the faith in Jesus Christ given by God’s mercy (Gal 2:16; 3:10-14; Rom 1:17; 3:20.24ff). Thus the law does not stop being divine beneficence but as a path to salvation it ends in Christ (Rom 10:4). The ethical instructions remain valid in realising life through faith in Christ, particularly the commandment to love one’s neighbour (Gal 5:14; 6:2; Rom 13:8). However, they are valid only by constantly observing the gift of salvation previously granted by God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.
In short: Jesus did not negate the Mosaic Law. However, His proclamation of God’s reign fundamentally altered its significance as well as the early Jewish interpretation of the law. Christianity drew various conclusions from Jesus’ behaviour, execution and resurrection. Particularly significant and momentous here is the Apostle Paul’s insight that it is not the law that is the decisive path to salvation but Jesus Christ, whose Holy Spirit is alive in a special way in His Church.
What we have stated clearly answers our question: Jesus’ relativism of individual commandments of the law, His summing up the entire law into the commandment to love God and one’s neighbour to the point of loving one’s enemy, and the Church’s stance derived from this regarding the detailed commandments of the Mosaic Law do not signify a rejection of the will of the God of the prophets but is their deepest fulfilment.
Question 131: Where is the primary, original Gospel that was given to Jesus? (TR)
Answer: The reader should read Chapter 1: “Scripture and the Word of God” in the book at the top of this homepage. In addition, the reader should look at questions and answers 60 and 93 on page 7 and 10, respectively, in this homepage. All this reveals: According to Christian faith and knowledge, at no time was Jesus given or “sent” a book, the indschīl, i.e. the Gospel. This idea is oriented towards the idea of the Koran as a book “sent down” by God to Mohammad. Rather, according to Christian knowledge and faith in Jesus Himself – His life as well as His teaching – is the “good news” (Greek: euangélion, English: good news) in the first and intrinsic sense. The four Gospels of the New Testament carry the title Gospel because they authentically convey in words the good news which is Jesus’ life and teaching.
Question 132: Did God who calls upon His people to kill in the Old Testament, suddenly become merciful since, through Jesus, He calls upon His people to love their enemies? (TR)
Answer: The biblical narrative presents an evolution over time regarding the question whether it is legitimate to kill one’s neighbour, as well as the religious and ethical significance of war and military force: Here God enables His people to increasingly and clearly discern the contours of His will, which reaches perfection in Jesus’ life and teaching. We present this evolution in two strands.
1. The prohibition in the fifth commandment against murder and killing and Jesus’ commandment to love
The Old Testament teachings regarding the value and dignity of human life are succinctly formulated in the fifth Commandment of the Decalogue: “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17). The reason why the Bible talks of “murder” instead of “killing” is because the corresponding Hebrew word does not mean “killing” in the sense of killing as such, but in the sense of unlawful killing. It is primarily aimed at murder but also includes manslaughter.
The fifth commandment reflects the conviction in Israel that life is valuable and sacrosanct. This applies particularly to human life since the human being is an image of God. This is the source of their worth and dignity. No one is allowed to arbitrarily dispose of human life. Whoever violates human life will be severely punished. Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed, “for in his own image God made humankind” (Gen 9:6). The deliberate annihilation of a fellow human being’s life will be regarded as a sin “crying out to me from the ground” (Gen 4:10). Whoever murdered was condemned to death and the murderer could not buy his own freedom (cf Num 35:25). Precisely this heavy sanction by the community reveals its respect for the God of life…
The positive purpose of the fifth Commandment is humankind’s Yes to its fellow human beings, which has its foundation in humankind’s Yes to God and in God’s Yes to humankind.
According to the Old Testament, the “Yes” to Yahweh is only then a fully valid Yes when it is directed towards God and humankind. Yes to God and Yes to humankind form the foundation of what the Bible calls love. That is why immediately after the proclamation of the Decalogue (Deut 5), Deuteronomy contains the fundamental demand of the “Yes to God” in the expression: “Hear, O Israel. The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut 6:4). The commandment to love God also addresses love of one’s neighbour…The explicit expression is: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18). That also applies to aliens (cf Lev 19:33ff). This revelation of divine will was summarised by the prophet Micah in this way: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic 6:8).
What is proclaimed in the Old Testament commandments to love God and one’s neighbour (Deut 6:4ff; Lev 19:18) as the revelation of divine will and what the prophets refer to in concrete social actions, is impressively confirmed and outdone in Jesus and His message. He, who is the “the justice of God” and who brings the message of God’s justice as loving mercy commands, as words of the prophet Hosea (6:6) say: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Mt 9:13; 12:7)…. Jesus broadens the general framework of the prohibition against killing. Not just physical manslaughter but even anger and evil words achieve the offence of killing: “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment” (Mt 5:21). The final reason for the commandment not to kill, not to be angry, not to hate is to be a commandment to love on which all other laws depend (cf Mt 22:37–40). Jesus expands this commandment to love to include all people, also one’s enemies (Mt 5:44). He commands not only an inner disposition of benevolence, but also to do good in concrete actions. Jesus Himself expresses love of neighbour in His particular devotion to the poor, the weak, the disadvantaged and the sick. According to Jesus’ judgement of the nations (Mt 25), the decision over salvation or doom depends on whether we have actually put into practice this love in “works of charity”. Jesus said that the charity shown to others was the charity shown to Him.
“Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me… Just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” (Mt 25:40.45).
The commandment acknowledged by all people “You shall not kill” changes under the influence of the Christian proclamation and the modern orientation towards humankind into: “Preserve life” This positive orientation affects people in the changed world that we now live in with an urgency that our forebears could not have perceived in earlier times. Scientific, technical, economic and political opportunities have made more apparent than was ever possible before not only the grandeur of human life, but also the limits and threats to human life. Human responsibility for life covers all the aspects of one’s own life, the life of others from beginning to end, on peaceful co-existence in society, between nations, peoples, and in preserving creation. Thus the fifth commandment is simultaneously an individual and a social commandment. (Abbreviated and slightly modified from: Leben aus dem Glauben, Catholic Adult Catechism, Vol. 2, pp. 270-75).
2. War as a topic in the Bible and Jesus’ commandment to love
Even if today’s research into the Old Testament seldom accepts that ancient Israel knew holy wars in the way that wars were carried out by the city alliance in aid of the sanctuary of Delphi, ancient Israel evidently still regarded the God of the Israelites as a god of war, as “the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel” (1 Sam 17:45). Israel’s early history is still interpreted as a history of military self-determination under Yahweh’s help. Yahweh’s and Israel’s interests largely coincide and Israel’s wars are Yahweh’s wars. The annihilation of the enemy is considered as an act by Yahweh Himself (Ex 15:21). However, following the consolidation of the Davidian empire, Israel increasingly called into question its early identification of God’s will and military self-determination, and the military ascendancy of the people. Israel is increasingly pulled into the power-political and military conflicts around it and finally falls victim with its captivity in Babylon. Particularly the prophets call for unshrinking silence in the midst of war (Isa 7:4.9; 30:15) and proclaim that Yahweh Himself will break Israel’s weapons (Hos 1:5) and will bring about an end-of-time peace when the people shall beat their swords into ploughshares (Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3). There are also expectations of an end-of-time military act by Yahweh, which will put an end to worldly power (Ez 30). Israel’s military disposition was also very dominant during the time of the Maccabees. However, Rabbinical Jewry emphasised the primacy of peace, for peace is the will of God and is God’s name. However, in the present, following the founding of the State of Israel, this has seldom led to a pacific willingness to compromise.….
Early Christianity lived in a world of major political conflicts and uprisings. Conflicts with the Roman occupiers urged insurrection and a fight for freedom, but from the beginning Jesus distanced Himself from every political-Messianic picture (Mt 4:10; 26:52; Mk 10:42ff; Jn 18:36). In linking the title of the Son of Man with the image and form of the suffering servant of God, the early community’s proclamation rejected the political Messiah. Alongside Jesus’ instructions to love one’s neighbour and to renounce all violence, as passed down in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:38ff), is of course also the demand to basically acknowledge political violence (Rom 13:1 ff). This tension characterise Christianity’s relationship to war and peace up to the present time…
In recent times in view of the production and stationing of an ever-growing number of more powerful weapons of mass destruction the Churches have withdrawn the ethical legitimacy of their use. Even if it cannot be said that the traditions of a just war have now given way to a model of just peace, the conciliar process for ”Justice, Peace and the Preservation of Creation” clearly indicates this direction (from Wolfgang Lienemann, art. Krieg in: Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon [Göttingen, 1989], Vol. 2, pp 1477-1481).
Question 133: Did Christians fail to understand or even to recognise Jesus, so that they were still arguing over his nature in 325 AD? (TR)
Answer: The year 325 AD referred to in the question is the date of the first ecumenical (i.e. worldwide) council, the Council of Nicea, which condemned Arius’ teaching. The profession of faith of this Council, the so-called Nicean Creed, joyfully acknowledges that Jesus is one Being (Gk. homoousios) of the Father.
Many contemporaries make life unnecessarily difficult for themselves when they approach problems “undogmatically” and “pragmatically”, as they say. The word dogma sounds somewhat negative to many people because they associate it with the immovable, stubborn and unfree, and it awakens memories of the Inquisition, religious wars and moral constraints etc. Freedom of thought, speech, research, conscience and religious freedom are rightly considered valuable properties, also in the Church. Some even believe that we are now living in a time when Christianity is at its most undogmatic and practically oriented.
Why have they been and still are internal Church discussions regarding the correct understanding of faith and its declarations? Jesus Himself admonishes in the Gospel according to Matthew: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I will also deny before my father in heaven.” (Mt 10:32-33). All Christians are called to give such an unequivocal acknowledgement. To make the Creed unambiguous requires also unanimous acknowledgement. Since there have been splits and parties in the Church since the beginning (cf Acts 6:1; 1 Cor 1:11-13, etc), we frequently find in the New Testament an admonishment for unity. “Now I appeal to you....that all you be in agreement and that there be no divisions amongst you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose” (1 Cor 1:10). The diversity in proclaiming God’s word, the form of Mass, theologies and order of the Church are legitimate and even desirable. The intention here is not to impose a flat uniformity. But legitimate diversity should be distinguished from a diversity of contradictory declarations of faith and ethical doctrine in the core aspects of life. An unrestrained and wild proliferation of pluralism would make the question of and search for unity meaningless. If Christian truth was not clear and definite, shared worship of Christian would be meaningless and the Christian faith would lack any credibility. The Church is thankful for the beneficence that God grants her by bringing her ever closer to the truth by the power of the Holy Spirit in the midst of all the confusing and destructive ambiguity, and that He accomplishes this through His people and through human actions i.e. through the reflections of, and at times tense disputes between, theologians and the shepherds of the Church, who are called to serve the unity of the Church.
A dogma such as the creed from the Council of Nicea regarding Jesus Christ is no addition to the original Gospel or even a new revelation. It is an exegesis, officially binding for the entire Church, of a revelation valid for all eternity to delineate against erroneous, abridging and adulterating interpretations. Dogmas contain two aspects: They must refer to the original and common revelation of truth, and they must be presented as official and conclusive and binding for all believers. When the Church does this, she trusts in the presence of Jesus and the support of the Holy Spirit promised to her, who will lead her to all truths (cf Jn 16:3).
Faith is a comprehensive life concept and a holistic attitude towards existence. The whole of this is not one sentence or a sum of sentences, but trusting and building on God as He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ. Therefore, we do not believe in dogmas in the same way that we believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. We believe in the dogmas as a concrete form of intercession for the substance of faith. It is not dogmas that justify the truth of faith but the truth of faith justifies dogmas. They are not true because they were proclaimed, rather they were proclaimed because they represent the truth. We need them so that we, as one body, can unequivocally acknowledge the truth of faith. Dogmas hold to the truth beyond themselves that God is the almighty Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. Everything depends on this truth (abbreviated from Catholic Adult Catechism, Vol. 1, pp. 54-58).
Question 134: Isn’t the belief that Mary, who says “I am the handmaid of the Lord”, was assumed into heaven and calling her Queen an idolatrous cult? (TR)
Answer: Refer to the answer on page 8 to questions 71 and 72 regarding Catholic doctrine on Mary. Particularly the statement there: “That Mary has been assumed into heaven, body and soul, is a consequence of her incomparably close bond with Christ. What we will all receive at the end of time, the 'resurrection of the body', has already happened to her because she is His mother. This doctrine is especially important in our time in which the body is being so dreadfully debased by wars, by drugs, by pornography – when it is meant for the glory of God. In Mary, we always see our own dignity and hope. In her we recognize the greatness God wants to achieve with us. Once you have understood this you will never cease to revere Mary.”
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary was formally declared as dogma by Pope Pius XII in 1950: “[W]e pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (DS 3903; No 487).
This dogma does not concern the historical tradition regarding the time, place and circumstances of Mary’s return to God (Jerusalem or Ephesus?). We have no reliable information concerning such historical details. It purely concerns a tradition of faith. Unlike Jesus Christ’s resurrection and rising up (Ascension), which was witnessed by the appearance of the resurrected one, there are no witnesses to Mary’s heavenly Assumption. It is an event brought about by God, but not an occurrence that can be dated. Unlike the raising of Jesus Christ and His Ascension into heaven, Mary’s Assumption is not the reason for the hope in our own raising up, but is the fruit of that hope and therefore an affirmation of our own hope.
We can mention particularly two aspects as the rationale for this belief. Firstly, we can refer to Mary’s particularly close bond to Jesus Christ, her son, and with His path. Community with Christ is community with the cross and resurrection. In principle, all Christians are called to this. Because of her unique bond with Jesus Christ, we anticipate in Mary what we are all called to: the resurrection of the body. The second aspect sees Mary as Eve, the new mother of life. She gave birth to the creator of life and through her “Yes” she made special contribution to the triumph of life over death. We can already say of her: “Death has been swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15:54). Thus Mary’s glorification is a light that “ shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God” (Lumen Gentium 68).
What does this dogma mean for us? In a situation where the flesh is worshipped by some as a tin god and hated by others because people feel hopelessly imprisoned in today’s structures and systems, little would be achieved if the Church proclaimed only programmes, principles and appeals. In Mary the Church gives us a shining prefiguration of genuine Christian hope. It is a hope for all humankind. The flesh will also be saved. However, it is a hope borne not out sensualisation from below and to below, but from the transfiguration and glorification from above and to above. This hope holds because Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. He is the beginning and the permanent cause for our hope. In Mary we see that this hope bears fruit for us all and that this hope includes the perfection of all humankind. Thus Mary is the prefiguration of the hope of all Christians (Slightly abbreviated from Catholic Adult Catechism. The Creed of the Church. 1985. pp. 180-82).
Question 135: How can you describe something that contains alcohol as the blood of God? Does God make drunk? (TR)
Answer: In the Bible wine appears as the image of the joy of life and as a blessing; God Himself gives the wine that gladdens the heart of men (cf. Ps 104:15; Gen 27:28; Am 9:13). However, its dangers are also pointed out (Gen 9:21; Proverbs 20:1; 23:20; 31:4ff; Isa 5:11; 28:7; Hos 4:11). Priests were forbidden to drink wine while carrying out their duties. John the Baptist avoided wine (Lk 1:15), whereas Jesus drank wine (Mt 11:29) and in Cana He changed water into wine (Jn 2:1ff.). Wine and vine become Messianic symbols (Gen 49:11; Mk 14:25). At the last meal before His death (the Last Supper) Jesus said, while handing the cup to His disciples: “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26:27f.). Since in biblical understanding body and blood are understood as the extremities of sacrifice, bringing together bread and wine at the celebration of the Eucharist truly and potently symbolises Christ’s sacrificial death. This symbolism is further underscored by the expression “sacrificed” when offering the bread and “poured out” when offering the wine. All of this displays the Eucharistic celebration as a cultic sacrifice in which Christ gives Himself back to the Father and, at the same time, talks to His disciples in the Holy Spirit. This meal in the form of bread and wine is also the seal of the new covenant.
Paul advised Timothy to drink a little wine for health reasons (1 Tim 5:23), but warned the bishops and deacons against excessive wine consumption (1 Tim 3:3.8; Tit 1:17). Also other references in the New Testament warn against the dangers of unrestrained wine consumption (Eph 5:18; 1 Pet 4:3; Tit 2:3).
|
