I Have a Question - Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C.

Where's That Other Catholic Church
What did the Temple curtain being torn in two mean? And other questions from our readers.

Q My friend told me that when the early Christians talked about the "catholic" Church, they were referring to the universal Church made up of all Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church. Is this true?

A Thanks for the question, pondering it actually made me refine my thinking on this matter. My first instinct was to respond that they were referring to both, because there was no distinction. But actually the earliest uses of the term, embracing the beginning and the end of the second century, reveal that the truth is closer to the opposite of what your friend supposes.

The first recorded use of the word "catholic" or "universal," as applied to the Church, is in the writings of the great St. Ignatius (d. A.D. 118). Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, where the disciples of the Lord were first called "Christians": their leader, their great example of passionate love for Christ, one of the great martyrs. He may be the prime specimen of the animal known as "early Christian." Isn't it interesting that the bishop of the first followers of Christ to be called "Christians" is the first to call them "catholic"? In his letter to the Christians of Smyrna (8:1-2) he wrote: "Wherever the bishop is, there let the people be, for there is the catholic church." Clearly, then, anyone who was not in communion with the bishop — anyone who was a member of a separate group of Christians — was separate from the 'catholic Church'. So not just any Christian was included when this quintessential "early Christian" spoke of the "catholic church."

But there's more. I admit to being personally quite amazed to find that as early as that same second century, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, was using the term "Catholic" in a very specific and technical sense: it indicates the Church in which every (particular) Church agrees with "the Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" (Against Heresies 3:3.5; cf. 3:4). Now, that sounds awfully like the 'Roman Catholic Church'. And it sounds frightfully unlike "all Christians" including those who specifically repudiate what "the Church founded at Rome" believes and teaches.

Actually, these Apostolic Fathers — the earliest Christians we have a record of outside the New Testament — consider that anyone who doesn't qualify as "Catholic" doesn't make the cut as "Christian" either. In that sense, if we change a couple of words in your friend's formulation, we can get a true statement: "When the early Christians talked about the "Catholic" Church, they were referring to the universal Church made up of all Christians, [which looked rather shockingly like] the Roman Catholic Church." It was the discovery of this fact that made converts of people like John Henry Newman. When they read the early Fathers of the Church, they were nonplussed (stunned, dismayed, appalled, aghast? — but eventually, of course, liberated and overjoyed) to discover that, right from the beginning, Christianity had always been Catholic, and even looked Catholic. Roman Catholic, if you must.

Q Is it true that Catholics profess that people who commit suicide go to hell, "no questions asked"?

A No, it's not. Certainly, given that suicide is a grievous offence against God, until fairly recently people tended to have difficulty figuring out how persons committing suicide could be saved. However, the Church never taught that they were beyond salvation. Thanks to twentieth-century psychology (hey, nothing can be all bad!) we have a better understanding of the minds of suicidal persons. Very frequently they are in the throes of depression or some other psychological disturbance which greatly diminishes their responsibility (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2282). In any case, the Catechism teaches (2283), we "should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to Him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.

Q I just learned that I'm in charge of teaching the 13-to-15 year-olds an apologetics course at our parish. My (huge) goals are: (1) that these kids will embrace the Church as their own, not just Mom & Dad's, and become much more than church-pew zombies, (2) I want them to recognize the falsehood of "it doesn't really matter which church you go to, as long as you love Jesus", and (3) I want them to know enough about the Catechism and the Bible so they can use them. Any suggestions for a course outline, and sources?

A First, I really like your goals. You deserve to succeed! As to your course outline, the truth is, there could be many different approaches, but here's one possibility:

1. God — some light proofs that He exists (from nature, especially). Just take care to show that you don't "prove" God as if He were a laboratory experiment. Just as you don't "prove" the existence of George Washington or your mother's love for you via the methodology of the experimental sciences — and yet these realities are far more sure than any scientific conclusion you care to name. Then, His love for all, and the fact that He created each of the teens for a specific mission. This last part is vitally important, because it emphasizes their part in salvation history. Keep hammering home to them the fact that each of them has a unique function that God has set out for them. Repeat this fact every class.

2. Jesus — go over Christ's life. Since the kids will be pre-disposed to see Catholicism as their parents' religion (insert groans and rolling eyes), you have to counteract this. Show Jesus as the rebellious, counter-cultural figure that He was. Emphasize His stance against the excesses of His day. At the same time, don't let Him appear as a mere social activist. An emphasis on the reality of His miracles and resurrection is absolutely necessary

3. The Church — present the Church as Christ's gift to us. A special emphasis on the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is a must. If they can learn to treat Jesus in the tabernacle as their best friend, the one they always talk things over with, it will truly guarantee their perseverance. Also, as in #2, present the Church as counter-cultural — standing against the cacophony of the secular world.

4. Scripture and Tradition — emphasize that the Bible is "the book of the Church" and can only be understood with the help of the Apostles' original understanding passed down to us through the Church. Give them a sense of how reliably Scripture has been transmitted to us — it far surpasses any other text from antiquity (for this, if you can, get a hold of a previously owned copy of Domenico Grasso's book The Problem of Christ). And show them that Sacred Scripture is concerned with the truth necessary for our salvation — not science, or secular history, even when it uses popular science of the day to pass on its message.

Throughout the program, remember to focus on God's mission for each of them, God's love for each of them, the reality of good and evil, and the fact that they are wanted in the Catholic Church. Don't be afraid to present the hard truths, but don't make them harder by feeding misconceptions: they need to understand hell, for example, not as a place God made or sends sinners to, but as a personal, chosen inability to enjoy eternal joy with God that is a real possibility. Lastly, speak to them as to equals; teens can smell patronizing adults a mile away. If they sense this in the class, their ears will turn off in short order.

As for resources, Matt Pinto's book Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons? (which you have) is an excellent one. And don't forget the Grasso book mentioned above.

Q Is a Mass offered by a priest at an outdoor site considered a valid Mass? Our parish will be having its annual "Mass on the Grass" at a local garden park and we are unsure if it is appropriate for our family to attend.

A According to the Code of Canon Law (932, 1), "the Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in which case the celebration must be in a fitting place." The "necessity" is not obvious in the case you cite, but there could be reasons that would justify it. If, for example, it were considered pastorally convenient to have a Mass that the entire parish could attend, having it in an outdoor location might become necessary (since everyone could not be accommodated indoors). At any rate, your local bishop is the one who would normally be the judge of this. Unless it was known to you that he opposed it, it would not be wrong to take part in this parish celebration. In general, we should judge things in the best possible light, and certainly in a "one off" situation like this, I believe that to do otherwise would be unfair. The Mass in question is valid whatever the case; it would be unlawful to celebrate it in an inappropriate place, but not invalid.

Q The Bible teacher at my (Baptist) school says that the curtain of the Temple being torn in two when Christ died (Luke 23:45) meant that priests were no longer needed. I have thought about ways to try and explain how priests are needed, but have had no luck. Please help me with an answer.

A The tearing of the temple curtain does indeed mean that the Old Covenant priesthood is no longer needed, for Jesus has taken that role once and for all. Hebrews 7:27 says, "[Jesus] has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself."

So, does that mean your pastor is out of a job? No way. Precisely because Christ remains forever our High Priest, He must reach each one of us today, everywhere. How is He the Priest for you and me, not just for the men and women who lived in first-century Palestine? Through the men whom he has called to "do this in memory of me," to forgive sins and preach the Good News "in His Name." They are priests only because they act "in persona Christi" — it is really Christ who is acting through them.

When Jesus said, "Do this . . . " (cf. Luke 22:14-20), He was gathered with the twelve Apostles. Only. The same was true when "He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23). He asked a small number (not all) among his followers to, as it were, "lend Him" their humanity, so that He could continue exercising powers that were His alone to discharge. In other words, we are talking about delegated power, or better, a delegated mission: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21).

Now, someone might say, "All right, but when the Apostles died, it ended there." Well, that wouldn't make a lot of sense, would it, if Jesus is our eternal High Priest? What's the point of continuing his priesthood for a few decades after his death, and then discontinuing it for the rest of history? Besides, and more importantly, it's not what the Apostles themselves understood.

We see from Acts 1:15-26 that they felt compelled to replace Judas. Further, they left bishops and elders (priests) in every city they evangelized (take a look at Titus 1:5), to continue their ministry. Those bishops ordained other priests and bishops who ordained others . . . on and on until today. Without them, there would be no Eucharist or forgiveness of sins, and we wouldn't be able to faithfully carry out Christ's command. So you see why the priesthood is necessary. True followers of Christ can't live without it!



Have a question you'd like answered? Send it to Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C., "I Have a Question," 1453 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106. Or send e-mail to frwilson@ samilink.com.