Random Questions

[Benedict]

These came up throughout today.

1- Is "alleluia" the highest form of praise? (There is no further context available. Take it as you will.)

2- Is St. John explicitly identified as the beloved disciple in the Bible?

3- Can the Church Suffering offers prayers for itself or is that solely the domain of the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant?

4- How would you show someone that Michael the Archangel is not actually Jesus, the "Chief Messenger" (Arch-angel) of God?

I am actually working on the 4th. I attended a praise and worship party held by the Seekers Christian Fellowship at my school. After their new president backed off with the typical "have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior ... not of works ... confess with thy mouth ...", I got to speak with my friend for an hour or two about the Bible and some Biblical proofs.

Funny enough, the guy was sounding quite Catholic. "Jesus is biologically Mary's son" (contra a poster on my boards who insists Jesus's humanity was conceived solely of the Holy Spirit and Mary was only His mother by birth). "Jesus is God" (contra an old Christadelphian poster). "Our salvation will be judged by our good works" (contra Evangelical Protestantism).

Until we got to Michael in the Old Testament being a "title" for Jesus. Specifically, he brought up the time when an angel was supposed to deliver a message to Daniel in the lion's den but a demon (he says it was Satan) held him off. Then Michael came and blocked the demon so the angel could get by. Only Christ could defeat Satan, so Michael must be Jesus.

He also brought up Michael being called a/the Son of God in the Old Testament. I mentioned that all angels are so called in the OT but we did not have enough time to get into that fully.

[StColette]

1- Is "alleluia" the highest form of praise? (There is no further context available. Take it as you will.)

The word alleluia means “Praise, You, the LORD” in Hebrew and communicates the highest form of earthly praise.

Found that on www.stchris.info/worship/alleluiaburial.pdf

2- Is St. John explicitly identified as the beloved disciple in the Bible?

Jn:19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (DRV)


Now this disciple who was at the cross with Mary would have to have been a male of course, I've seen many people try to say that this was Mary Magdalen

And I thought this was interesting to add:

In Search of the Beloved Disciple

The author of John provides key details in chapter 21 to help us narrow the field of candidates for the Beloved Disciple. The author writes that he is the Beloved Disciple (Jn. 21:20-24). In this passage, he also notes that Peter is not the Beloved Disciple, and that the Beloved Disciple “had lain close to his breast at the [Last] supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’” (Jn. 21:20; cf. 13:23-25; 20:2). From this account, we know that the Beloved Disciple was at the Last Supper.

From the Gospels of Mark (14:17-26) and Matthew (26:20-30), we learn that only the 12 Apostles were with Jesus at the Last Supper. Even Luke 22:14 notes that it was just “the apostles” who gathered with Jesus for the Last Supper, as opposed to other disciples as well.

With the field narrowed to the apostles, we know we can immediately eliminate not only Peter but also Judas. We could also reasonably conclude that the Beloved Disciple would have a qualitatively different relationship with Jesus than most of the other disciples; i.e., we would expect closer collaboration between him and the Lord. In this light, we discover that three apostles¾Peter, John and his brother James¾spent more time with Christ than did the others. Jesus singles out this trio to accompany Him to the healing of Jairus’ daughter (Mk. 5:22-24; 35-43); the mount of Transfiguration (Mk. 9:2-10); and the Garden of Gethsemane on Holy Thursday evening (Mk. 14:32-33). In addition, in John 1:14, the Gospel author notes that “we have beheld his glory,” a reference perhaps not just to having seen the resurrected Christ, but also to having witnessed His glorious Transfiguration, something only Peter, James and John beheld.

James or John?

Because Peter is distinguished from the Beloved Disciple, we therefore narrow the field to the “Sons of Thunder” (Mk. 3:17), James and John. Biblical scholars date the writing of John anywhere from the late 60s to the first decade of the second century. Any year in that time period would necessarily exclude James, whom Herod Agrippa killed (Acts 12:2) during his reign in the early 40s.

This leaves us with John the Apostle as the only plausible choice as the Beloved Disciple. The Bible does not indicate anyone else and the Early Church only proposes John as the Gospel author and thus the Beloved Disciple. For example, in Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus writes about the authors of the various Gospels, noting that after Luke wrote his Gospel, “John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia”[5]

Finally, in a May 1907 response, the Pontifical Biblical Council (PBC) made a declaration on the matter, affirming that “prescinding from theological proof, it is demonstrated by such strong historical proof that John the Apostle and no other is to be recognized as the author of the fourth Gospel, that the reasons adduced by critics in opposition by no means weakens this tradition.”[6] It is important to note that the PBC still had Magisterial status[7] at the time of its 1907 response. By affirming the Beloved Disciple’s eyewitness authorship of the fourth Gospel (Jn. 19:35), Pope Benedict implicitly supports the PBC’s 1907 affirmation of John as the Beloved Disciple and the author of the fourth Gospel.

Some biblical scholars still say that the beloved disciple could not be John because of the prophecy foretold in Zecariah. 13:7: “Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered. . . .” Following the Last Supper, Jesus told His disciples that this prophecy would be fulfilled that same Holy Thursday evening: “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee” (Mt. 26:31-32; cf. Mk. 14:27-28; Jn. 16:32).

Some scholars argue that, if all the apostles fell away or abandoned Jesus to fulfill Zechariah 13:7 (Mt. 26:56), none of them could have been around to stand by Our Lord at the foot of His cross. However, the disciples’ scattering does not preclude that some of them could have come back later. Peter is later described as following Christ “at a distance” (Mk. 14:54). In addition, John 18:15 identifies another disciple near Christ after the scattering, one “known to the high priest,” who “entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside the door.” This other disciple was likely the Apostle John. In his Ecclesiastical History, eminent early Church historian Eusebius noted that John came from a priestly family. In addition, the author of the fourth Gospel demonstrates an extensive knowledge of Jewish liturgy and Jerusalem, the city in which Jewish liturgy (i.e., the sacrificial aspects) took place.[8] Finally, as we have learned from previous analysis of the Gospels, the beloved disciple was not only at the cross but also had to be one of the 12 Apostles.

Conclusion

When the Bible itself or its particular books and passage are called into question, we turn to the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ founded (Mt. 16:18). He commissioned the Church to teach everything that Christ had commanded (Mt. 28:20). He established the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). It is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, who alone have been given authority to authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written down in Scripture or handed down via Tradition (Catechism, no. 85). In submitting to the Church, we demonstrate faithfulness to Christ (cf. Lk. 10:16), Who promised to be with His Church until the end of time (Mt. 28:20; cf. Jn. 16:13).

The Church clearly teaches that the Gospels are historically true and that the Beloved Disciple was really at the foot of the cross during Christ’s crucifixion. We should not be surprised that such a Beloved Disciple would be with Christ in His time of greatest trial. Such is the nature of true love (1 Cor. 13:4-13).

[url="http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=84"]http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=84[/url]

___________________________

beloved disciple

Question from on 11-25-2003:

how do we know that john is the beloved disciple? some people object by saying he would have included the transfiguration scene in his gospel since he was there, so there is no way he could have written the gospel of john. But then again if he was not the beloved disciple who is. What would it mean for certain religios orders that are named after St. John? Thanks

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 11-25-2003:

The association of the "Beloved Disciple" of the Gospel of Saint John has a VERY STRONG ancient tradition to support it, and also is consistent with details in the Gospel itself, most especially the close association of this figure with Saint Peter in the Gospel, which two figures are often linked in the Lukan writings as well. The absence of a particular event in a Gospel in no way argues against such an identification, for the Evangelist himself concludes his Gospel that it contains only a small part of all that our Lord said and did--the whole of it could not be contained by all the books in the world.

Thanks, John

Father Echert

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=384016&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=beloved+disciple&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=2&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]Beloved Disciple[/url]
___________________________

Is Lazarus the Beloved Disciple

Question from on 04-02-2003:

Dear Father, thank you so very much for your ministry on EWTN. May God Bless your work and reward you for your charity.

I was at a Bible seminar a month ago, the priest told us that the Beloved Disciple mentioned in St. John's gospel is not St John himself, but rather Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. He directed us to the gospel verse saying that Jesus wept for Lazarus because He loved him and Lazarus' sisters called him Jesus' beloved also.

Then he continued to correct us on what we had held to be true. Since Lazarus is the Beloved disciple who was present at the Last Supper, so other people, in addition to the 12 apotles were there. According to Jewish tradition, a widow mother would eat the Passover meal with her eldest son; so naturally the Blessed Mother had to be there. So, we have at least 14 people there with Jesus at the Last Supper. He just short of telling us that Jesus ordained the Blessed Mother and Lazarus with the 12 apotles. To my mind, this is serious interpretation.

Who is the Beloved Disciple in St. John's gospel? Do we have an official interpretation from the Church on this question?

Thank You,
Mary

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 04-03-2003:

Based upon both the external evidence (written testimony from the early Church) and based upon internal evidence (the Scriptures themselves) there is compelling reason to identify the Beloved Disciple who is the witness behind the Fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. There is a strong chain of connection in this regard which is based upon the testimony of St. Irenaeus (180 AD) who provided written testimony based upon what he learned directly from St. Polycarp (155 AD) who was himself a friend and follower of John the Apostle. The chain of connection looks like this:

Jesus----John----Polycarp----Irenaeus

And here is what St. Irenaeus wrote about the authorship of the 4th Gospel:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia”

He learned this from Polycarp, about which experience he wrote:

“I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycar sat as he spoke, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his conversations with John and with others who had seen the Lord.”

This is solid testimony and a strong chain of connection. Of course, skeptics for the past couple hundred years have attacked this, primarily by suggesting that Irenaeus was young and may not have remembered things well. I respond to this that it is clear from Irenaeus’ own testimony that he had a vivid recollection, and that the association of St. John with this Gospel is not entirely dependent upon only this particular piece of testimony; it just so happens that this is an early piece that has survived to the present. Everything else from the early Church supports Johannine authorship, from the association of the name with the Gospel to what has been written about the Gospel by others.

And not only does external testimony support John as author, but internal evidence based upon the text corroborates this. Namely, in the Gospel of John, the figure of the Beloved Disciple (the unnamed author) is quite often associated with Peter. If we examine the other Gospels and Acts, we discover that the apostle most often associated with Peter is none other than John.

For those who are not prepared to entirely dismiss Johannine authorship, they sometimes propose that St. John may have been a distant figure behind the text but was not the actual author. They suggest a Johannine school or disciples later wrote the Gospel. This theory was put forward by Fr. Raymond Brown in his later works, though in his Anchor Bible Commentary of the ‘60’s he argued for the ancient tradition of St. John as author.

Another candidate that has been proposed as the Beloved Disciple is Lazarus, in light of the fact that it is said that Jesus loved Lazarus, as well as his sisters, Martha and Mary. A couple of things that would argue against this is that it would be inconsistent for the Gospel to refer to this anonymous figure as the disciple whom Jesus loved, but then also identify him by name. Secondly, there is no basis in ancient tradition for this association, which is significant in determining such matters. Finally, Lazarus was not an apostle and neither would there be reason to associate him so closely with Saint Peter, which can properly be said of Saint John the Apostle. The closest we come to an official position of the Church is the strong and ancient tradition.

Thanks, Mary
Father Echert

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=290675&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=beloved+disciple&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=15&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]Beloved Disciple[/url]
___________________________

John as Beloved Disciple

Question from on 01-21-2002:

I was discussing with someone recently the identity of the beloved disciple of John's Gospel. Could you provide me with the complete answer as to why it is that the identity of the beloved disciple is St. John? This individual has been bouncing around lately between churches (ie. Anglican etc.) and seems to trying to answer his questions/difficulties about the Catholic Church. Thanks.

Answer by Catholic Answers on 01-22-2002:

The identification of John as the beloved disciple is based on two factors:

1) The early Church Fathers consistently attribute the authorship of the Gospel of John to John.

It therefore appears that he humbly adopted the term "the beloved disciple" when referring to himself in his narrative rather than making himself sound more important by using his own name. He keeps reminding himself of the importance of Jesus' love rather than his own importance.

2) In addition to the "external" tradition of authorship, there's also an internal set of considerations that lead to the conclusion that John is the one intended. It is clear that the beloved disciple is one of Jesus' closest associates among the apostles, which we know from the other gospels to be Peter, Andrew, James, and John.

However, Andrew and Peter are both named in the gospel, meaning that they aren't the one referred to as "the beloved disciple." We also know that James was killed by Herod Agrippa I in the early years of the Church (see Acts 8), before the gospel was written (it appears to have been written by an old man if you consider the implications of John 21:20-24). This leaves us with only John among the Lord's closest disciples as a plausible candidate.

James Akin

Catholic Answers

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=324597&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=beloved+disciple&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=30&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_"]Beloved Disciple[/url]
___________________________

3- Can the Church Suffering offers prayers for itself or is that solely the domain of the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant?

No the Holy Souls in Purgatory, the Church Suffering, can not pray for themselves. That's why it is stressed so much that the Church Militant and Church Triumphant, of course, to pray for those Holy Souls.

The Holy Souls of Purgatory can pray for the Church Militant though. So as we pray for their sufferings we should also pray for their intercession, because we all make up the Communion of Saints.

As Father John A. Hardon, S.J. states:

Devotion to the Poor Souls has two sides: our side and the side of the souls in purgatory.

On their side, the Poor Souls are united with us in the one Kingdom of Christ. They can pray and obtain blessings for us here on earth. They are united, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, with the pilgrim Church in the Communion of Saints. We are therefore encouraged to invoke their aid, with a confidence of being heard by those who understand our needs. They know from their own experience what it means to carry the cross here on earth.

On our side we are to do everything we can to help the Poor Souls in the Church Suffering. The sufferings in purgatory are not the same for all. They depend on each person's degree of sinfulness. St. Thomas Aquinas held that the least pain in purgatory is greater than the worst pain in this life. St. Bonaventure held that the worst suffering after death was greater than the worst suffering on earth, but the same could not be said regarding the least pain in purgatory. In general, however, we should say that the pains of purgatory are greater than those on earth.

[url="http://www.therealpresence.org/chapel/poorsoul.htm"]http://www.therealpresence.org/chapel/poorsoul.htm[/url]

4- How would you show someone that Michael the Archangel is not actually Jesus, the "Chief Messenger" (Arch-angel) of God?

The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 and Jude 9. In Matthew 4:10, Jesus rebukes Satan. In Jude 9, Michael the Archangel calls on the Lord to rebuke Satan.

Also nowhere in the Bible does God identify Michael as His Son. The Angels are called the Sons of God but Jesus is called the Son of God.

If we're going just by the name Arch-angel, Arch can mean either chief or principal. we would also have to say that Gabriel, the Archangel, is also the "Chief Messenger".

Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews indicated that God commanded all angels to worship Jesus (1:6; cf. Revelation 5:11-13; Philippians 2:10). Yet, if Jesus were an angel, how could He accept the worship of other “lesser” angels when, according to Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, angels do not accept worship, but rather preach the worship of God, and no other?

[Benedict]

[quote]If we're going just by the name Arch-angel, Arch can mean either chief or principal. we would also have to say that Gabriel, the Archangel, is also the "Chief Messenger". [/quote]
He does. Both Michael and Gabriel are, to him, titles of Christ.

[StColette]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Oct 28 2005, 02:55 PM']He does.  Both Michael and Gabriel are, to him, titles of Christ.
[right][snapback]773021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Use the other examples then

The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 and Jude 9. In Matthew 4:10, Jesus rebukes Satan. In Jude 9, Michael the Archangel calls on the Lord to rebuke Satan.

Also nowhere in the Bible does God identify Michael as His Son. The Angels are called the Sons of God but Jesus is called the Son of God.

Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews indicated that God commanded all angels to worship Jesus (1:6; cf. Revelation 5:11-13; Philippians 2:10). Yet, if Jesus were an angel, how could He accept the worship of other “lesser” angels when, according to Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, angels do not accept worship, but rather preach the worship of God, and no other?

[Benedict]

Jude 9 should be a slam-dunk once I explain that the Greek does not say, "[[b]I[/b]], the Lord, rebuke thee" but "[[b]I ask[/b]] the Lord [to] rebuke thee."