Differences Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches?

Q - Can you point out the major differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches?

A – Thanks for your question!

Before we get to the differences, let us affirm what we have in common. While language is different, we both share valid Sacraments. We both hold the Saints and Mary in esteem. We both have authority that comes from the Apostles. We both recognize at least some of the Ecumenical Councils as authoritative. We both center our belief on the Eucharist. We both believe in basic creedal Christianity. Both are legitimate “churches”.

Now, some Orthodox do not like Catholics at all and others are much more open. But, the Catholic Church views the Orthodox as a “sister” Church and we should remember this. Pope John Paul II said that he looked forward to the day when the “Church can breathe with both lungs”, in referring to the Catholic and Orthodox uniting again.

The differences between Orthodox and Catholic start and end with authority. The Orthodox do not believe that the Pope has any special authority over the other Patriarchs and (leaders of the Orthodox churches) Bishops. He is merely another Bishop with the same authority as the rest.

Other issues include:

• The Orthodox (for the most part) reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
• There is a slight difference, although many believe it to be blown out of proportion (including me), about the spiration of the Holy Spirit. Was it from both Father and Son or the Father alone?
• The liturgies (worship) are different in style and somewhat in emphasis.
• Orthodox allow contraceptive use in marriage.
• Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage.

For more on the divide, you can read this.

Pray for Christian Unity!

Fr. Barron on The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

What About the Bad Popes?

So, does a bad Pope disprove Catholic teaching?

How God Uses Our Suffering

Are Humans Inherently Bad?

Two Reasons Same-Sex Marriage Is Gaining Ground

Catholics have not done a good (or even adequate) job of addressing the attacks on marriage. These attacks continue to grow stronger and without an understanding of how to defend marriage and the reasons behind the break-down of marriage, we will continue to see our culture slide into the anti-marriage mentality. Before I get into the reasons why same-sex marriage is gaining ground we need to explore some of the fundamental reasons why same-sex "marriages" are not good for those in them or society.

WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
Marriage is the basic cultural building block of society. One man, one woman, and their children unite as a family - every bit of evidence shows that families thrive in monogamous and stable homes with two biological parents of opposite sexes who remain married. This means that there is less poverty, crime, strife, etc. in homes where marriages do well. This is because the mother and father of children cannot be replaced. Two fathers or two mothers cannot provide what one mother and one father can. The role of the father can't be replaced by a woman and the role of the mother can't be replaced by a man. Studies back up this claim. Thus, same-sex couples can never provide all that children need to thrive. When families suffer the rest of our culture suffers.

Furthermore, same-sex relationships are not the same as male-female ones. While a same-sex couple might have strong affectionate feelings for one another, nature shows us they cannot bond as a married couple can. They cannot procreate and their bodies are not made to compliment one another. Think of this - a male or female by themselves is incapable of creating human life. They need the other. Thus, our bodies are incomplete without the opposite sex.

NOT ABOUT LOVE.
True love is to choose what is best for the other regardless of the cost to myself. This means same-sex relationships can never have loving sexual relationships. This is because the true act of sex is about giving yourself away, but in same-sex relationships you can't do this because the body isn't made to be given to someone of the same sex. A married couple can say, with their bodies, I want to create life and bond with you. I want to be one with you. This is impossible with same-sex couples, because while the body might still be saying this, the act itself is ordered toward selfish pleasure - not creating life or bonding the couple as one flesh.

NOT ABOUT EQUALITY.
Many people say that same-sex couples "deserve" the "right" to marry and that those that oppose them are merely bigots who want stamp out the rights of others. This isn't the case. The Catholic Church consistently teaches the respect of others, regardless of sexual orientation. It also teaches us to love and serve all. But, we must also work for truth and the common good. This means while we fight against same-sex marriage, we do not fight against individuals.

That being said, marriage laws are by definition discriminatory. They discriminate FOR families (not against non-married persons) in order to build up what is good for society. Where do children thrive? In the traditional family. If we tear that down, then society will suffer. Thus, the government needs to help support this building up of what is good for society.

Thus, marriage is about more than two people who have good feelings for one another. It is about the good of society - which is why the government got involved in it in the first place.

Some may argue that a same-sex couple should be able to do things such as share property rights, visit in the hospital, etc. But, all of these legal hurdles can already be overcome with current laws and a few documents.

So, what they are really looking for is social acceptance of their behavior. This is why the Catholic Church is enemy #1 for advocates of same-sex marriage. They cast us as homophobic, archaic, and mean-spirited. Which is not the truth.

Catholics need to fight such lies. But, to do so we need to know where it all comes from.
----
My thesis is that there are two main cultural culprits that have gotten us to where we are today:

1. Contraception
2. Pornography

REASON #1 - CONTRACEPTION - THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE:

Contraception has caused a number of cultural issues, not the least of is the fundamental re-orienting of the purpose of sex for the majority of people. What is the purpose of sex to modern man? Pleasure. This contraceptive mentality has changed us as a people. Sex is for pleasure however we can get it and is what we wish it to be. Sex is not for making babies or for bringing two spouses together. It is purely a selfish act of fulfilling a 'need', not a giving of self to another.

Contraception makes us turn inward, rather than outward - it perpetuates this selfishness on our part. It also sees marriage as an optional social construct (an attitude which harms women and children most of all)

This mentality is tearing apart our culture. I have seen it time and time again. It happens when sex between two people becomes about me rather than you. Thus the fruits of contraception include:

• Divorce rate doubled between 1965-1975 from 25% to 50%
• One demographer has shown that access to the pill paralleled the increase to the divorce rate
• 41% of births are to unwed mothers in 2008 (72% of black babies)
• 41% of pregnancies end in abortion in New York City
• 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Now pick one of these that is good for our culture.

When sex isn't about babies or bonding, then it becomes selfish. Once this happens, the family breaks down. Once the family breaks down, society breaks down.

REASON #2 - PORNOGRAPHY - THE DEATH OF MARRIAGE:

If contraception weakened marriage, pornography is killing it. More and more marriages are being ravaged by pornography and the trend will not slow down anytime soon. With 80% of young men and 33% of young women regularly using porn, more people will be unable to really love another person. Why? Take a look at this:

• Shown to devalue the other person and sex within marriage.
• Porn creates fantasies that real persons can't live up to.
• Porn sets up sexual habits or addictions that create "boredom" with only one other person.
• Porn creates distrust within marriage and is cheating on your spouse.
• Sexual satisfaction is decreased significantly.
• Porn strips sex of love and makes it about using others and objectifying them.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. It gets much worse when you really crack open the stats.

Suffice it to say, porn kills marriages. Thus, it is destroying our culture. But, at the root of porn is the contraceptive mentality that sex is about ME.

HOW CONTRACEPTION AND PORN LEAD TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:

How does it all fit together? Well, it is quite simple.

1. Contraception strips sex of it's intended purpose - babies and bonding.
2. Pornography re-defines sex into pleasure alone.
3. Thus, once someone has bought into contraception and pornography, they won't be able to argue that same-sex relationships are wrong, because there is nothing left to argue about. Who are they to tell someone what they are doing is wrong? Who are they to say someone shouldn't have pleasure when having sex?

We have given away too much. The stakes are too high. So, what do we do?

THE GOOD NEWS

The good news is that there is THE Good News - the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christ CAN restores hearts.
Christ CAN forgive sin.
Christ CAN change our culture.

But, we have to do our part. This is the action plan.

• We have to pray for our culture and for all people.
• We can't see anyone as the "enemy".
• We have to educate ourselves.
• We have to speak up and fight back.
• We have to vote our morals and faith.
• We have to evangelize others so God can change their hearts.

This battle for our culture is not lost yet.

Further reading:
**What is Wrong With Porn?
**Contraception - What the Church Teaches.
**"Same Sex Marriage: Why Not?"
**The Debate about "Same-Sex Marriage"
**Special Report on Gay Marriage

What Do Catholics Believe About Salvation

Fr. Barron on Why the Ascension of the Lord Matters

Good stuff, as always, from Fr. Barron:

Can a Non-Catholic Go To Confession?

Q - Why do you have to be Catholic to be absolved from sin in confession?

A - Thanks for the question. There are only two Sacraments of the Catholic Church that, under normal circumstances, are validly received by non-Catholics.

The first is Baptism - anyone can validly baptize another person as long as it is with water and the Trinitarian formula of Baptism, as long as they believe in what they are doing.

The second is Matrimony - two baptized Christians confer the Sacrament upon one another. If one or both of the spouses is not baptized, then the marriage is still valid, but not a Sacrament.

Now, you have to be a baptized Catholic (with a few rare exceptions I talk about below) to be able to receive absolution in Confession. This is because Confession isn't just about an individual and God. It is also about our relationship with the rest of the Body of Christ - the Church. Thus, when we sin, we wound others as well. Confession (also called Reconciliation and Penance) is the ordinary way in which God forgives mortal sins AND heals the wounds caused to the Body of Christ - the Church. Thus, when we go to Reconciliation, we are healing our relationship with every other Christian, living and dead, as well as with God!

Furthermore, one must be able to say that they believe that a Catholic priest has the power to forgive sins.
If they do, then they must believe the priest was validly ordained.
If they do, then they must believe in the apostolic nature of the Bishops and in apostolic succession.
If they do, then they must believe in the power of the Sacraments, esp. the Eucharist.
If they do, then they need to be Catholic.

Therefore, only Catholics can go to Confession. But, it is for everyone, because everyone is called to join the Church.

This is why Confession is reserved for Catholics alone, except in rare circumstances, including the following outlined in the Catechism:

“When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.” -CCC 1401

Then there is also an exception given to baptized non-Catholics who are in RCIA and about to enter the Church. This is allowed in order to prepare the person spiritually before they receive Confirmation and the Eucharist.

I hope this helps.

Related Posts:
**Is Confession To a Catholic Priest Necessary or Can You Go Straight To God?
**What Does Being Contrite Mean?
**How Often Should I Go To Confession + Other Questions.
**A Guide To Confession.

Infant Baptism

Q - I was wondering if you could tell me if there is reference in Scripture to baptizing babies. Do we baptize babies because of tradition or are we following Scripture?

A - Thanks for the question. There is no contradiction between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, thus the teaching came from both. First we start with Scripture. In several places in the New Testament it speaks of baptizing families. One may assume that infants were a part of these families.

"After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation, "If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home," and she prevailed on us." - Acts 16:15

"He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once." - Acts 16:33

"I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" - 1 Cor 1:16

But, alone, this does not "prove" infant baptism. We also see that all are called to be baptized and there is no age restrictions. On the day of Pentecost we see the following after Peter preaches:

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?" Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." - Acts 2: 37-39

Notice that Christians are called to baptism and that the promise of the Holy Spirit given in baptism is for "you and to your children".

We can also see a fulfillment of the Jewish practice of circumcision from the old covenant in the new covenant practice of baptism. Paul makes this comparison explicit:

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. - Col 2: 11-12

So, we can see there is ample implicit Biblical evidence of infant baptism. Those that reject infant baptism are doing so on an argument from silence, that is they assume it is not valid, because it is not explicitly ordered in the Bible. Well, we also see that the early Christians practiced it and that they understood it to be perfectly consonant with Scripture. Thus, early Christians wrote:

"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." - Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140)

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." - Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21 (c. A.D. 215)

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" - Iranaeus, Fragment (A.D. 190).

There are many more references here. I hope this helps.

Two Videos from Fr. Barron

#1 - Fr. Barron on Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament:


#2 - Fr. Barron on Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris":

Presumption

Q - This is mainly in the context of a sin I repetitively fall back into. Very soon after falling, I want to go to Confession, but sometimes I feel like I fall into presuming I can easily get rid of the stain and use the sacrament to clean up soon after I get all dirty. Presumption is not good, obviously, but what's worse is when after I commit the sin, I have a hard time returning in a timely manner because the fact that I presumed I could quickly "confess it all away" makes me not want to make good on that. Like maybe if I waited a bit I would not be cashing in on my presumption. But If I need to go, I need to go ASAP. Or that is at least how I feel. Why remain removed from God's love any longer than necessary, right? So I want to confess soon after the sin has been committed. But I feel bad because I'm doing (presuming I can quickly "get rid" of the sin) exactly what Satan has tempted me into thinking I could do. And it struck me when I was thinking I should not go to confession because it wouldn't be right to. The fleeting thought that regaining God's love later would be better than doing it now is scary and dangerous. If I desire to be forgiven of my sins, and feel sorry for them shouldn't we do it asap?

A - Thanks for the question. I think you have the problem figured out already. Now, the question becomes - what do I do about it?

I want to tell you something clearly. God desires us to ask him for forgiveness. Again and again. No matter how many times it takes. He doesn't count the number, only we do.

Here are the facts:

• We all sin.
• We all need forgiveness.
• Only God can forgive sins.
• We need his forgiveness repeatedly.
• Our delay in seeking forgiveness harms us, not Him.

I have done the same thing you have. We all want to enjoy the sin, but then we regret our acts and yet are fearful of seeking forgiveness or just presume God's forgiveness without seeking it out. This act of presumption is sinning twice, because we presume that God is merciful and yet sin anyway knowing He will forgive.

From my own experience, I believe the problem arises from making God too small. I wanted God to be a neat and clean cosmic washing machine that would clean me from my sins anytime I needed him to. But, God is much more than that. God is God! God is Father! God wants a relationship and this means he wants me. That means I have to invest in this and not just use him for what I need.

You should not delay in going to confession. Run to it. Do whatever it takes. Then lay it all on the line in front of God. Confess your presumption and your delay in receiving the Sacrament. Pray for a desire to not commit the sin again. If you do, go back to confession without delay. Don't feel bad about being a burden on the priest - they would rather see you there being honest than not. Also, repeatedly telling the same priest a sin you are doing out of habit or vice is best, because they can help you with it as well as giving you an external reason to avoid the sin - having to tell someone over and over again the same sin.

My confessors have helped me break numerous bad habits and vices. But, we have to seek them out.

But, don't take my word for it - listen to your confessor.

St. Thomas and Conception

Q - I heard that St. Thomas said that human soul isn't present until 40 days after conception. What is that all about?

A - Thanks for the question. St. Thomas isn't the first or the last to teach that ensoulment doesn't happen for a certain amount of time after conception, usually cited as 40-80 days. The common scientific belief of ensoulment was based on the science at the time. The problem with the science is that it relied on Aristotelean biology. This was a belief that after intercourse the semen would mix with the woman's blood and then cause fertilization. This would then proceed through several steps of formation including the vegatative state - animal state - to the rational state. Then the body was properly "prepared" to receive the soul.

So, the problem was that the science at the time wasn't properly disposed to understand human formation and therefore the philosophy of the beginning of life also lagged behind.

We now know the stages of fertilization, implantation, and growth of a baby. At all stages, from conception until death, there is nothing else the life can be except a human being. So, St. Thomasn (and St. Augustine among others) didn't have enough information to make an informed decision about life because their scientific knowledge was limited and incorrect. So, when others cite their teachings about this issue, it is done to do one of three things:

1. Distract from the real issue at hand, or
2. To try and show the Church has "changed doctrine" and therefore is untrustworthy, or
3. Because of their own ignorance.

None are based in scientific reality.

I hope this helps.

Should I Give Money To The Homeless?

Q - After graduating from A&M last year, I took a job in Houston. On an average day I probably pass by 30-40 people who are homeless and holding up signs asking for money. At first I could just drive by, but as time passes, I start feeling guilty about not helping. If I gave only $1 to every homeless person I saw it would take more than $10,000 dollars a year. Is there anything wrong with not giving money to the homeless?


A - Thanks for the question.  Guilt can be a good thing or a bad thing, so sorting it out is necessary.  Guilt is good when it is proper - we have done something wrong (or not done something we should) and then we feel guilty.  This should lead to repentance.  But, sometimes our consciences can be faulty.  It can make us feel guilty when we ought not. This is self-condemnation that is not spiritually healthy and leads to scrupulosity - which is an overactive conscience.

With this being said, it isn't uncommon for someone to feel guilty about seeing someone who has so little on the streets while we have so much.  Yes, we have a lot.  We ought not compare our belongings to those who have more, when we live in the wealthiest country in the world for all of history.  So, a twinge of guilt is common and in some ways expected.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Our response, and our duty, is to always help those who are in need.

Catholic Social Teaching has what is commonly referred to as the "preferential option for the poor".  When you feel that twinge of guilt, it is because you feel a solidarity with your fellow human being.  Vatican II put it this way:

The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. - GS, 1

Remember that Christ had a special love for the poor and even chose to be born into poverty.  As followers of Christ, we are called to imitate his love for others.

So, does this mean that you have to give money to every homeless person you meet?  No.  That isn't necessarily your job, nor is it necessarily good stewardship of the resources you have been entrusted with by God.  Many homeless are addicts or mentally ill.  They don't need to have money that might feed their addiction.  Rather, it is a good idea to hand them food or give the money to a local charity that can assist them in ways they need.  A shelter, soup kitchen, skills training center, etc. is a better option to give your money to.

Yes, all Christians are obligated to help and assist the poor.  But not all of us are called to do as Mother Teresa did when she would work hands-on by getting the poor off the streets.  Some are called to volunteer time and talent.  Some are called to give money to charities.  Some are called to give their entire life.  What is your call?  That is for you and God to talk about - for you to discern.

I hope this helps.

New Clip from Fr. Barron's CATHOLICISM Series

Every time I see another new clip from Fr. Barron's Catholicism series, I can't wait for it to come out. Especially since it was announced that PBS would be carrying it.

Here is another new clip:


Tip o' the hat to Matt Warner.

Catholics, Truth, and Other Religions.

Q - How can the Catholic Church proclaim that we know the truth, and that we know so much about God and religion and what to do here on earth much better than other religions? When people of other "faiths" pray, aren't they praying to the same God as us? If there is only one God, how could they be praying to anyone else? I know that part of being explicitly "Christian" means believing in the divinity of Christ, but in many cultures, the perception of a human also being God is much less reasonable to grasp. I know from learning a second language based within a culture entirely different from my own that meaning can get "lost in translation," causing severe misconceptions between cultures. Couldn't it be that really many religions believe in the same God, the one faith, but in different ways, and the reason we see them as different faiths is because our cultural perceptions are just different? I just don't see how you can put God in a box, and say that this one thing is concretely, absolutely true but this other thing is not. God didn't give us that power.

A - Thanks for the question. As you said further in your email - "it is a huge question" and I agree. This is one of those big questions that seem to poke up at us at one time or another. I hope I can do justice in my answer to the seriousness of your question.

What I might do first is to assure you that it isn't an impossible task that God has set before us - to know about Him, His creation and His revelation to us. Otherwise, God has created us to be uncertain of His plans for us. But, before I go on I want to state a few things:

1 - Humans make mistakes, God does not.
2 - Human knowledge is limited, God's knowledge is not.
3 - Human faith is imperfect and is made unnecessary once we reach heaven and see God face-to-face.
4 - To believe in God, as revealed through Christ, is rational.
5 - Our understanding of God is limited and imperfect - but this does not mean we cannot know what He has revealed to us - otherwise He is a bad teacher.

I would like to also affirm that you are correct in saying that if a person worships and believes in the one God, then they are (in some imperfect way) worshiping and believing the one true God. This is why the Catechism says:

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. (CCC 841)

They may not understand the nature of God correctly, but they still adore Him. In fact, the Church acknowledges and lifts up the truths that are found in other religions:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.(CCC 843)

Now, this does not mean that all religions are the same or that we are incapable of knowing truth. To say this is a relativistic outlook. Relativism is the philosophical belief that truth cannot be known objectively because it is relative to a person, place, time, situation, etc. But, this is a contradiction in and of itself - because we cannot reject objective truth by stating an objective truth.

Is Christianity true? Well, first we have to define what we mean by "true". Truth is that which corresponds to reality. So, we would say that other religions are partly true, but not fully so. Only Christianity has the Truth of the nature of God - found in the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. Where contradictory truths are taught (e.g., Jesus is God vs. Jesus is not God) then both cannot be true.

The claims of Christianity are exclusive:

• Either Jesus is God or He isn't.
• Either God revealed Himself to us through the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition or He didn't.
• Either God gave real authority to the Catholic Church or He didn't.

There are many more claims, but these will suffice for our answer here. Are these claims true? Well, I can prove them partly - in that I can show they are rational and believable. Whether or not an individual decides to accept these propositions is an act of faith - not just intellect.

I disagree with you on one point. God did give us the power to know Him personally by revealing Himself to us.

• He reveals Himself to us in several different ways and on different levels. He reveals his existence to us through creation. Aristotle believed in a creator - yet he didn't have any kind of special revelation given to him.
• He reveals Himself to us through our consciences. We know that we are supposed to do good and avoid evil. This is the voice of God within.
• He reveals Himself to us through others. Have you held a baby in your hands or had a person comfort you? This is God's work.
• He most explicitly and especially reveals Himself to us in the extraordinary way of giving us Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

This isn't putting God "in a box" but rather stating that God isn't a liar and that according to the nature of truth, He truly reveals Himself to us. If we get specific, we can see this is true. So, answer these questions:

1. -Did Jesus exist? No historian worth his salt denies this.
2. -Did the apostles die for their belief in Him? Again, yes.
3. -Did they die for the truth that He was God or a lie? The logical answer is that it is for truth.

I myself have experienced Christ and I know Him personally, so the truth of my faith does nothing that is contrary to reason, but goes beyond the limits of reason. Being a Christian isn't about us searching for God, it is about God searching for us.

It isn't about being triumphalistic, exclusive or arrogant about truth. Christ claimed He was God, He can't both be God and not be God. I choose to believe, by the weight of evidence and guided by faith. But, remember that we are not saved because of our knowledge of God, but our faith in God. Thus, the Catholic Church, while it claims to have the fullness of the means to grace and truth - does not claim that you have to be (explicitly) united to the Catholic Church for salvation.

As for cultural perceptions changing truth - this boils down to cultural relativism - as if truth were subject to cultures. The Church does teach that the means in which we speak about God might change somewhat from culture to culture - but the underlying truth is the same. For instance, Catholics in Africa frequently dance to praise God. But, because of the implications of what dancing means in our western culture, we do not have liturgical dancing here. This is an application of the same truth - that we worship with both body and soul. But, the truth isn't different because of cultures. If that were the case, then once again, God is a bad teacher.

There are many good books that answer, in more depth than I did here, these questions. I will recommend two to you:
1 - Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
2 - Handbook of Christian Apologetics - Kreeft and Tacelli

I hope this helps in some small way.

The Rapture and the Catholic Church

Q - What is said about the rapture in the Catholic faith? I have read part of the Left Behind series and I heard a lot about the group that was thinking the rapture was supposed to happen this weekend - so I wanted to know how much it is like Catholic beliefs.

A - Thanks for the question. I know that this can be quite a confusing issue for many Catholics. The Catholic Church does not believe in the rapture theory.


Let us look for a bit at the rapture and where it came from. It started in a dispensationalist movement within Protestantism. Dispensationalism was created in the late 1800s and popularized in the early 1900s by the Scofield Reference Bible. It divides the times through the Bible, into the present, and the future as periods of history (called dispensations) where God has a different kind of relationship with His people in each period. Thus, it has a heavy emphasis on trying to study what will happen in the future.


A dispensationalist view of Scripture is literal, as in word-for-word. The current dispensation started at Pentecost and will continue until the rapture, where Jesus will come secretly and take up all the "saved" into heaven with Him.


After the Rapture, all those left on the earth will face a time of tribulation and then a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth in Jerusalem. This comes from a certain reading of the book of Revelation. This literal reading makes for a kind of third coming, because Jesus comes for a second time in the rapture then again to set up his earthly kingdom.


The Catholic Church teaches that Christ came first 2,000 years ago and will come only once at the end of the world to conquer evil and end time on earth as we know it. There is no rapture. This theory was started by a Scottish visionary and has no basis in Scripture or Tradition.


When will this happen? Nobody knows and if they think they do they are fooling themselves:
**“But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day” (3:8).


**“You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?” (Lk 12:20)


Here is what the Catechism says:

674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".

^{And more:}

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

^Finally,

678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching.Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light.Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God's grace as nothing be condemned.Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love.On the Last Day Jesus will say: "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

Peace.

Concerning times and seasons, brothers, you have no need for anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief at night. - 1Thes 5:1-2

I think that says it all.
For more on this I recommend the following books:
Will Catholics be Left Behind? - Carl Olson
The Rapture Trap - Paul Thigpen