Question of the Day for Friday, April 11, 2008

What Is the “Christian Church”?

Q. My friend, whom I have always known as a Catholic, informed me that she no longer believes in the teachings of the Catholic Church and is attending a “Christian Church.” What are the beliefs of a “Christian Church”?

J.G., via e-mail

A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:

I assume your friend is attending a congregation of the denomination known as “Disciples of Christ (Christian Church).” This denomination is the largest Christian denomination with origins in the United States. (The Mormons began in America and are more numerous, of course, but the Mormons are not a Christian denomination.)

Thomas and Alexander Campbell, former Presbyterians, founded the group in the early nineteenth century in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Campbell decried denominationalism and started the Disciples of Christ as a movement to bring unity to all (Protestant) Christians. Much to his regret, his movement quickly became just another denomination.

Each Disciples of Christ congregation is its own authority. Because of wide diversity among congregations, there is no statement of faith to which all subscribe. In general, the views of their congregations are much like those of other evangelical traditions. One distinguishing feature of the Disciples of Christ is that they celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday as a purely symbolic reminder of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The denomination’s official website can be found here.

Question of the Day for Thursday, April 10, 2008

Taking Bible Verses Personally?

Q. I’m currently reading a book with numerous references and quotes from the Bible, attempting to apply them to everyday life. But sometimes I wonder how relevant these passages actually are, and whether they’re meant to be applied to the everyday life of readers today in the way the author of this book claims.

Here’s my question: When God says something to a person we’re reading about in the Bible, are we to interpret that passage to mean that He is also speaking to us? If so, is this true in all cases, at all times?

 D. O., Savannah, Ga.

A. I know the kind of book you’re talking about, and the approach taken is certainly problematic.

Sometimes, yes, of course the words spoken by God to a person in the Bible are intended for us as well in a direct manner. As an Old Testament example, consider the Ten Commandments. When God told Moses and the ancient Israelites, “You shall not steal” (Ex 20:15), He was speaking to all people of all time. In the New Testament, when Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, told His listeners, “Love your enemies” (Mt 5:44), again, He was speaking to us all.

Nevertheless, we can’t simply assume that anything spoken by God to someone in Scripture is undoubtedly spoken directly to us as well. For example: God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice (see Gn 22:1-19); this was of course only a test of faith that He didn’t allow Abraham actually to carry out. Certainly we shouldn’t read this passage and take it to mean that God is asking us to kill our children and sacrifice them to Him.

At the same time, even a story like this can be read, if we do it carefully, in such a way that we learn a general principle behind what God was saying, which we then apply to our own lives. In the case of Abraham and Isaac, the obvious principle is that we must not value any attachment, even to our children, more than we value God. But even when attempting to discern principles, we must ask what differences in circumstances there may be between the scriptural situation and our own, which may determine the nature of our application. 

Catholic tradition teaches us that some things Jesus commanded as recorded in Scripture Gospels are for everyone who would embrace the gospel; these are called the evangelical precepts. Others, however, which are more difficult to obey, are directed to those who “would be perfect”; they are called the evangelical counsels, or counsels of perfection.

The precepts have to do with matters of spiritual and moral necessity: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:39).

The counsels are voluntarily accepted by those who seek to move as quickly as possible toward the final goal of perfection to which everyone is called: “If you would be perfect, go sell what you possess and give to the poor” (Mt 19:21, emphasis added). The Apostle Paul offered a similar counsel — celibacy — which he made clear was not a “command of the Lord” to be obeyed by all Christians (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).

For more on the evangelical counsels, see the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject (click here).

So how do we tell the difference between divine commands addressed only to someone in Scripture and those that are spoken to us directly as well? We need the interpretative tradition of the Church. That’s why we must read Scripture “with the mind of the Church.” The Bible alone isn’t sufficient; it needs an authoritative interpreter.

I recall a story that was told in evangelical Protestant circles some years ago, about a man in rural China who was able to obtain a contraband copy of the Scripture in his native language through the efforts of a “Bible smuggling” ministry. Though he could read the book, he had no one to help him interpret it. According to the account I received, he read the story of Abraham and Isaac and concluded that God was telling him to sacrifice his young son. But tragically, no angel showed up to keep him from completing the terrible deed.

The story may be apocryphal, but the point was well made, even among sola scriptura (“Bible only”) believers: When we read the Bible, we must depend on a trustworthy interpretive tradition.

I’m reminded of an old joke we used to tell in Pentecostal settings about what we called “push button guidance”:  the practice, common in some Christian circles, of seeking God’s will by opening the Bible randomly, placing a finger on the open page, reading the text under it, and taking it as a personal “word from the Lord.” 

One day a rather confused young man decided to obtain some “push button guidance.” He opened the Bible, placed his finger on a page, then read words from the verse that it indicated, Matthew 27:5: “He went and hanged himself.” Terrified, he tried again; this time his finger came to rest on Luke 10:37: “Go and do likewise.” Feeling desperate, he tried once more, and this time his finger landed on John 13:27: “What you are going to do, do quickly!”

He never again tried to get a personal “word from the Lord” in that way.

Question of the Day for Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Knights of Malta?

Q. I recently read that a Catholic order called “The Knights of Malta” elected a new grand master. Who exactly are the Knights of Malta?

 K.H., via email

A. I actually have several friends who are members of this noble order, whose official title is the “Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta.” The Knights are the most ancient religious order of chivalry, dedicated to works of charity throughout the world.

According to a TCA article from several years ago, written by Rita Reichardt:

The order traces its origin to Jerusalem around 1070. It was established to provide care for the sick and weary pilgrims in the Holy Land. When the Christian forces of the First Crusade defeated those of the Turks in 1099, many of the Crusaders joined the Knights, continuing the charitable work.

In 1113, the order was approved by Pope Paschal II. A large hospital was founded in Jerusalem, and later guesthouses and hospices appeared along the important pilgrimage routes of Europe and the Middle East. The original ideal was to further the crusading goal by combining spirituality with the martial arts of knighthood and chivalry. Men who entered the order at that time took vows of chastity and obedience, but they were also professional soldiers, willing to spend long periods in the East.

The Knights attracted men of wealth as the crusading movement became part of the politics of Western Europe. Chapters were established as recruiting bases and the means to funnel money to the East. Knights built and fortified great castles and sat on councils of princes.

The organization became one of the most advanced fighting forces in the world. Their battles defending Rhodes and Malta are legendary, and their history is one of spectacular but stubborn retreat as they were forced farther and farther from Jerusalem by their enemies. Leaving the Holy Land, the Knights established themselves in Cyprus, Rhodes and, finally, Malta.

For 200 years their naval power kept the Ottoman Turks out of much of Europe. It was in one of their galleys that Pope Gregory XI returned to Rome from Avignon in 1377, ending the 68-year “Babylonian Captivity” of the papacy in France.

Travelers in the Middle Ages were treated royally in the hospitals of the Knights. The sick were cared for with nursing and medical skills unusual for the time, but also with respect and courtesy. It is said that ill persons often dined on silver and gold plates, and the Knights ate only after the sick had been served.

In 1530, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V granted the island of Malta to the Knights. The order ruled there until the 19th century. They fortified the capital city of Valletta so strongly that it became one of the greatest of Mediterranean strongholds.

In 1798, however, their rule of the island came to an end with the invasion of Napoleon as part of his Egyptian campaign. The Maltese appealed to Britain, and the following year Lord Horatio Nelson besieged Valletta, forcing the French to withdraw. In 1814, Malta became a part of the British Empire, and the rule of the Knights there ended.

The headquarters of the Order of Malta is now in Rome, governed by the Sovereign Council, which is presided over by the Grand Master, who is elected for life. There are approximately 12,000 members in 37 countries. The composition of the membership changed after the departure from Malta so that now the majority of members are lay people who do not take religious vows, although there are priest chaplains. Women enter the order with the title of “Dame.”

In the United States there are three National Associations with some 3,200 members. Headquarters are in New York, Washington and San Francisco, with smaller groups scattered throughout the country. The order operates and supports numerous hospitals and clinics as well as short- and long-term disaster relief worldwide. Large amounts of food, medicines, medical supplies, clothing and other goods are provided to those in need.
As a sovereign entity the order exchanges ambassadors with 90 sovereign states, issues postage stamps and coins money. In recognition of its long-established international presence and work, the Order of Malta was admitted to the United Nations as a permanent observer in 1994.

For more information, go to the order’s website here.

 

Question of the Day for Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Hosts for Celiac Sufferers?

Q. People who suffer from celiac disease are unable to consume gluten, a composite of proteins that is found, joined with starch, in some grass-related grains, such as wheat, rye and barley. Gluten consumption can make them violently ill. What can people with this disease do about receiving Communion?

 K.N., via email

A.  In recent years the Church has studied how to care for Catholics who suffer from this disease while maintaining the clear requirements for the matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The U.S.C.C.B. website provides an explanation of how pastors are to approach this difficult situation (click here). 

 To summarize the relevant passages in that document: 

The Catholic doctrine of concomitance teaches that under either species of the Eucharist (the Host or the Chalice), the whole of Christ is received (see General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no.282; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.1390; Council of Trent, session 21). So celiac disease sufferers can arrange with their priest to receive the Blood of Our Lord without the Host.

Though bread completely free of gluten is invalid as matter for the celebration of the Eucharist, hosts with almost imperceptible levels of gluten are increasingly available. Though some celiac sufferers are unable to tolerate even a miniscule amount of gluten, others are able to use these special hosts safely.

After ten years of experimentation, Sisters Jane Heschmeyer and Lynn Marie D’Souza of the Benedictine convent in Clyde, Missouri, developed a Communion wafer with a gluten content of only 0.01 percent. According to the U.S.C.C.B. website, “this product is the only true, low-gluten altar bread known to the Secretariat and approved for use at Mass in the United States.” To order these hosts, see the contact information on the U.S.C.C.B. website linked above.

Question of the Day for Monday, April 7, 2008

Communion in a Protestant Church?

Q. While visiting in Arizona I attended a baptism in a Methodist church (which was more edifying than some I have seen in our church). My problem: During the service the pastor asked all who wished to come forward and receive communion. My daughter started up, but I said, “No. It would send a wrong message.” She said, “Our bishop allows it; he even receives himself [in non-Catholic services].” How can that be? Did the Catholic Church relax this rule?

Name withheld by request

A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.:

It can’t be. There must be some mistake. You were correct in telling your daughter that receiving communion in a Methodist church would send the wrong message. It would proclaim one is in “communion” with that denomination and its teachings, and therefore not in “communion” with the Catholic Church.

Moreover, communion for Protestants is not what it is for Catholics. We believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity), and He really is present because bishops who enjoy an unbroken continuity with the original apostles ordained by Christ have validly ordained our priests. Protestants, on the other hand, do not have the Real Presence, nor do most of them even believe in the Real Presence in Communion.

The only time that a Catholic may licitly receive the Eucharist in a non-Catholic Church is spelled out clearly in Canon 844.2:

“Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”

It is commonly understood that these sacraments are valid in the Orthodox churches, as well as the Assyrian Church of the East and the Polish National Catholic Church. But we do not consider them valid in the Protestant churches.