Apologetics Session 10 - Some Common "Miscellaneous" Questions….

Challenge 1: The Bible. Why is the Catholic Bible different from the Protestant Bible? Where do those "extra books" come from?

Response 1: Catholic and Protestant Bibles do differ. Protestants took out of the Bible several Old Testament books that had been accepted by the Catholic Church. The Bible of course is not "a book" but a collection of many books, written by different human authors over many centuries. The Catholic Bible has 73 books; the Protestant, 66. The differences in the two Bibles are in the Old Testament (OT) - both New Testament (NT) collections (of 27 books) are the same.

The Catholic OT follows the Alexandrian canon, "the Septuagint," the OT that was translated into Greek around 250 B.C. The Protestant Reformers follows the Palestinian canon of Scripture, which was officially recognized by the Jews around 100 A.D.
The Catholic OT canon (the Septuagint, 46 books) includes the 7 books of the deuterocanonicals (the "second canon", or second list), which were written in Greek: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include additions to the Books of Esther and Daniel that are not found in Protestant Bibles. The Catholic Church considers these books to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Protestant churches reject these books.

Why this difference? Before and at the time of Jesus, there was no sharply defined Jewish canon of Scripture. Some groups of Jews used only the first five books of the OT (the Pentateuch); some used only the Palestinian canon (39 books); some used the Alexandrian canon (46 books), and some, like the Dead Sea community, used all these and more. The Palestinian and Alexandrian canons were the most accepted among orthodox Jews, but there was no universal agreement about the deuterocanonical books - the 7 in question.

The Apostles of Jesus, however, used the Septuagint, the Alexandrian canon, most of the time and must have accepted it. For example, 86 percent of OT quotes in the Greek New Testament come directly from the Septuagint, along with many linguistic references.

The Jews rejected the Septuagint around 100 AD, and Protestants in the 1500's rejected it also in favor of the Palestinian canon, but we must ask why. The early Church accepted the Septuagint, with its additional 7 books, but Jews rejected these books in part because of a bias against Christianity - a problematic Jewish heresy at the time! Why should Protestant Christians accept the authority of post-Church, non-Christian people over the authority of the Apostles of the Church that Christ founded? Would God found a Church and then let it fall into grave error concerning Scripture? Catholics certainly say "no."

Challenge 2: Communion. Why can't non-Catholics receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church?

Response 2: The Catechism states (# 1325), ""The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being." Very sadly, non-Catholics are not with us in that precious union that God desires for us, and that the sacrament both signifies and causes. To declare such a union, by having intercommunion, when no such union exists, would be a lie and would dishonor the Lord.

It is painful to have to say "no", to brothers and sisters in Christ who are not in full union with us, but who wish to share communion with us in the Sacrament. Yet that pain can work to good effect, if it encourages us to work and to pray all the more diligently for real union in Christ. A mere show, of a unity that does not exist in fact, would not help toward the real unity in Christ that must one day happen. Our concern must be real unity in truth, not just the appearance of unity.

The necessity of reserving Eucharist to those in union with the Church applies to Catholics as well, not only to non-Catholics! If a Catholic has fallen out of union with the Church, he or she is not to receive Holy Eucharist, until that true union is restored! Therefore a Catholic who has broken with the Church and married outside of the Sacrament, or is living conjugally outside of marriage, or is intentionally continuing in a life of mortal sin - these Catholics should not come forward for Eucharist, even though they are to participate in the Holy Mass in every other way.

Challenge 3: Divorce and Remarriage. You Catholics claim to not allow divorce and remarriage, but you make divorce "Christian" in your annulments. "Annulment" is just a Catholic divorce!

Response 3: To understand "annulments", we must first understand the nature of marriage as God created it. Jesus taught, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mt 19:6) For this reason, no man, no church and no government can undo a true marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, having the essential properties of unity and indissolubility. This covenant is entered only by true human consent - a personal act of the will. "Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept one another through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage." (canon 1057.2) For the baptized, Christ has raised this covenant to the level of a sacrament.

The word "annulment" is not the best word to use to describe what is in fact a judgment by the Church, following a careful study, that a true covenant of marriage was not in fact entered, and so a true marriage does not in fact exist. Each diocese has a special tribunal whose work is to study the marriage of a petitioner that has terminated civilly in divorce, to determine whether that marriage actually was a covenant as God intended when it was celebrated, or not. If the marriage is determined to have been not a true marriage, then a "declaration of nullity" is issued by the authority of the bishop. If the marriage is determined to have been a true marriage, then the marriage stands, and it stands "until death." A declaration of nullity declares that the marriage, which was a legitimate civil marriage, was not a union joined together by God from the beginning. For a Christian, this finding declares that the marriage was not a sacrament.

What would make the marriage of Christians not a sacrament, or of non-Christians, not a good natural marriage as God established it?

The consent given in the covenant of marriage carries the promise of mutual fidelity and self-gift of each to the other; it is irrevocable and is broken only at death, and it is open to fruitfulness concerning children.

A Christian is also bound to the form of the celebration of the sacrament that is set by the Church or the ecclesial communion to which he belongs. If a Catholic, for example, celebrates his marriage outside of the norms for the sacrament set by the Church, then the marriage is not a valid sacrament.

If any of the God-given meanings of marriage are denied or not met when the marriage was celebrated, then the gift was not exchanged and covenant was not entered, even though all the appearances may have been there. If the man, for example, had no intention to remain faithful to his wife when he married her, then he did not in fact marry her, except in the legal sense. If the woman had no intention to be open to bringing children into the world, then she did not in fact marry him, except in a legal sense. If the consent, the "yes", was not a free consent but was given under threat or great fear, then the marriage was not in fact entered. These are some examples that could lead a Tribunal to declare a nullity concerning a marriage.

Challenge 4: Birth Control. What's wrong with birth control? Catholics say "the rhythm method" is OK - why not the pill?

Response 4: This is an issue that touches on a most intimate and most holy of matters in marriage, the conjugal union of a man and a woman in Christ. Only within the covenant of marriage is such a union appropriate. The conjugal, sexual, union itself, within the covenant of marriage, must be consistent with the meaning of the covenant. Therefore the conjugal union must reflect the full gift of each to the other ("the two shall become one flesh", Gen 2:24; Mt 19:5), and it must reflect openness to children ("multiply and fill the earth", Gen 1:28). (Also see CCC 1643 ff.)

Every form of contraception places a barrier of some sort between the persons in the conjugal union, invalidating it as a full and complete gift of each to the other. The man, or the woman, is saying by the contraception, "I give myself to you that we may be one - but not completely. My potency, my fertility, I withhold from you." This denies the true meaning of the covenant of marriage, in refusing that self-gift.

Of course, contraception also denies the openness to children in the conjugal act. This separates the two meanings of the conjugal union - the meaning of mutual love and the meaning of procreation - and allows only one meaning to be expressed (and expressed not completely). This does violence to the conjugal union. God placed these two meanings together in one act, and man has no right to separate them for his own ends.

It is not wrong to want to be responsible in the bringing forth of children! It is not wrong to want to be responsible, and to plan carefully for the children that are brought forth. God has provided a way for us to do this, however, and to co-operate with Him in creation - in procreation. God has set fertility in the woman to be a cyclic thing, with definite and observable indicators that declare fertility or infertility. Thus a couple, using the natural method of family planning (NFP), can responsibly plan their family using the provisions that God has provided.

Many couples have testified to the great benefit of NFP in their marriages! A greater intimacy, a greater sense of loving and of being loved, and a greater confidence in the love of the other are some of the many blessing of conjugal love in marriage as God intends it.