 |
 |
 |
 |
 Articles Dialogs Q&A Science |
 Books Tapes Conferences |
 Consulting Bible Study Greek Study Seminars |
 Staff Employment Links |
|
 |
 Divine Comedy Quotable Quotes |
|
Q & A July-Sept 2007 Question *
- Q&A Question * - Q&A R. Sungenis: Dear Patrons, Forgive me, but I am way behind in my answering of your questions. Rest assured, I want to get to them as soon as possible. I have over 100 questions from all of you waiting in my email box that I have been saving for when I get time to answer them. Hopefully this month I can get to them. For now, I am posting this notice just to let you know that I am thinking of you. In the meantime, please pray that God gives me the time to keep up with the work load I have. I want CAI to be the best apologetics information center for your needs. God be with you. Robert Sungenis Webmaster adds: Due to the high volume of apologetics questions in recent months, and the amount of work Dr. Sungenis must do to complete his books, he will no longer be able to offer the Q and A service for free, as he once did. Note from Robert:
If you have an apologetics question you would like to ask Dr. Sungenis, please write the question in the "comments box" provided in the Paypal transaction process. Ask a Question... 
$3.00
Question 15 - Question about Dignitatis humanae 3 Stefano: Ok, so your points are: 1) people do not have a moral right to preach a false religion or to make a public display to a false god, but they DO have a civil right to do so, unless in doing so they cause civil unrest 2) the civil government can coerce or punish somebody professing a false religion only on a civil basis, i.e. when it can be shown that their public profession of faith (or atheism) causes civil unrest 3) therefore, liberty of worship should be granted to everybody as a civil right and its exercise can be restricted by the civil power only when it disturbs the peace But, as far as I know, I don't think any Church document, before Dignitatis humanae, has ever taught that liberty of worship is a civil right that is to be explicitly included in the constitution of the states. R. Sungenis: Vatican II also didn’t teach that it was a civil right to worship in any religion. Vatican II taught that it was wrong for both the Church and the State to coerce people into one religion or another, and that it was wrong to enact civil laws to punish them on that basis. END Stefano: On the contrary, the Church has always taught that the ideal State is the Catholic State, which recognizes the Catholic religion as the only religion professed by the State, all other forms of worship being forbidden by law or, at most, tolerated if particular circumstances suggest this attitude be more prudent to pursue a greater good. This has been the case for all (formerly) Catholic European States, like France and Spain (as recently as 1953, all public forms of worship except that of the Catholic religion were banned in Spain). R. Sungenis: Yes, the ideal is a Catholic State, and we would hope the State would profess the Catholic religion, since they too have a moral obligation to do so. But if the State chooses not to profess the Catholic religion, there is nothing the Catholic Church can do about it, since the Church does not carry the sword, the civil government does (Romans 13:1-7). Again, we do not live in a theocratic society as they did in Israel. END Stefano: Let me qoute Leo XIII, Libertas: "[..] first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none." "But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. [...] And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin." Until now he has spoken of the liberty of worship from a moral perspective, but now he comes to considering that liberty in relation to the State (in the civil domain): "This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded." To grant liberty of worship as a civil right, namely that citizens may publicly worship whatever false god they believe in, as long as they don't disturb peace or violate the civil law, to me sounds exactly like "treating the various religions alike"... R. Sungenis: Encouraging the State to adopt Catholicism because it is the right thing to do is one matter; forcing the State or an individual to adopt Catholicism under penalty of law is quite another. Leo is only speaking about the former, not the latter. Stefano: Let me quote Pius IX now (Quanta cura): 'For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition"' Here, from what I understand of the passage, Pius IX and Gregory XVI (quoted by Pius), are explicitly affirming that liberty of worship is neither a moral nor a civl right: to me, it sounds like Pius IX is stating that, in the civil society, the duty of restraining by enacted penalties offenders against the Catholic religion, even when public peace is not disturbed, is recognized as attached to the civil power. Gregory XVI explicitly denies that liberty of worship should be legally proclaimed and asserted in the Constitution of every just State. R. Sungenis: First, Pius IX is referring to those who want “absolute liberty” wherein they are “restrained by no authority,” including the Catholic Church. In other words, they don’t want the Church telling them anything about religion. That is wrong. Being a civil society does not make it immune from morality, since they are ultimately under God’s law and judgment for their actions. Second, Pius IX can preach against civil society’s wish to rid themselves of religion, and he is right in doing so, but he cannot coerce the civil society to accept religion. This is important, because it is only coercion that Dignitatis Humanae forbids, not the teaching of religion and morality to the civil society. Conversely, in the theocracy of Israel in the Old Testament, the populace could be coerced into following the law, else they would be stoned to death. That is not the case in the New Testament. We do not kill people for not following the Church. The Church can only preach, not enforce the civil law. The closest thing the Church can do in regard to punishment is give spiritual disciplines and sanctions, and ultimately excommunication. It cannot coerce or enforce coercion on anyone. END Stefano: Furthermore, the Syllabus of errors of Pius IX condemns the following three propositions: 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855. 78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. In particular, proposition 79 clearly implies that the civil liberty of every form of worship in itself does deteriorate society, since it fosters the pest of indifferentism. I'm sorry, but I still see a contradiction between Dignitatis humanae and previous irreformable teachings of the Church. Is it just me who is uncapable of reconciling the two? I'm sorry I keep bothering you with my questions, but I want my faith to be rock solid and it can't be if my reason keeps telling me that there is something illogic going on... :( Thanks for all your help! Stefano R. Sungenis: It’s not impossible to reconcile the two. In fact, it is very easy. Read Dignitatis Humanae again and note how coercion is the theme running through it, not that the State has the right to practice any religion it wants or to dispense with religion altogether. Question 14 - Question about Dignitatis humanae 2
Dear Robert,
R. Sungenis:
Once the civil government is instructed by the Church what true
religion is, they must also ask the Church if it is permissible, by
the decrees of true religion, to force someone to believe a certain
religion or punish those who don’t believe a certain religion. If
the civil authorities, indeed, ask this question of the Church, the
Church will tell them that the civil government has no authority to
do either. END
R. Sungenis:
But you are failing to make the proper distinction here. When you
say “No one can claim the right to teach people a false notion of
God,” do you mean this morally or civily? From the moral perspective
the Church agrees. No one has the moral right to preach a
false religion. No one has the moral right to make a public
display to a false god. But civil coercion and civil punishment is
quite another story. The Church has said that the only time the
civil government can intrude is when one’s religion causes civil
unrest. This only makes sense, since it is the civil government’s
job to maintain civility so we can have peace. It is not the civil
government’s job to monitor personal religious beliefs. That is an
area in which it has no competence, and will actually make matters
worse than better. In fact, if the civil government had the
authority to decide which religion was true as well as enforce that
religion, they could then determine that the Catholic Church is
false and punish anyone who practices it. Dignitatis Humanae saw
this eventuality, and thus decreed that the civil government has no
such authority. Hence, Dignitatis Humanae is designed to protect the
Catholic Church, not allow false religion to spread. END R. Sungenis: I see where you are going but I think it needs to be tweaked a little so that you don’t tread over the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae. In this case, the “within due limits” clause of Dignitatis Humanae is very important. For example, if it is determined by the Church and agreed upon by the civil authorities that the preaching of atheism causes civil crime or unrest, then a case could be made for curtailing the preaching of atheism. If, for example, it could be shown that a belief in atheism leads people into all kinds of public immorality and thus causes a deterioration of the society, then, since the civil authorities have a vested interest in keeping order, they could prohibit the preaching of atheism on a purely civil basis, just as they would prohibit someone from preaching that its ok to steal from the government by not paying taxes. But the enforcement from civil authorities must always be based on the civil ramifications of one’s beliefs, not on the religious foundations of those beliefs. To the civil government, the reason why you don’t pay taxes doesn’t make any difference. One’s refusal to pay taxes could be based on a religious reason or a political reason. But the civil government has no authority to say that your politics is wrong, or say that your false religion is the reason why you think you don’t have to pay your taxes. The civil government can only judge you for not paying your taxes (since that leads to civil unrest), not judge you for why you don’t pay your taxes. The civil government is not interested in your religion. It is only interested in what will make the society work well. However, the civil government, as you say, gets its principles for proper living from the religious institution. And if that religious institution tells the civil government that it has no authority to coerce or punish people for their personal religious beliefs unless those beliefs, “within due limits,” lead to civil unrest, than that is a divine mandate that the civil authorities must hold to, else they themselves will be judged by God. Question 13 - Question about Dignitatis humanae Dear Dr. Sungenis,
I'm a 27-year old Italian PhD student, I was born and raised
Catholic and now I live in Rome, the heart of Christianity. First of
all I apologize for my bad English: please forgive me if my language
is somewhat imprecise, childish or even plainly incorrect. - as humans, we have the divine and human right not to be coerced into a religions belief
- Dignitatis Humanae does not teach that pagans have a moral right
to worship their false gods
- "no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own
beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in
association with others", "nor, on the other hand, is he to be
restrained from acting in
- "religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word"
- "it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious
communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show
the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the
organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human
activity"
According to traditional doctrine, public profession of a false
religion can never be considered a human right (because error has no
rights, only truth has), but can only be tolerated when one foresees
worse consequences from suppressing the false cult than from
tolerating it.
In Christ, R. Sungenis: Stefano, thanks for your question. Let me see if I can help. First of all, it is not the responsibility of the civil authorities to, as you say, “protect and favor the only true religion (Catholicism) and suppress all other false cults.” The civil government has no authority to determine what is true religion, and therefore they would logically have no authority to force a person to join one religion over another. Only the Catholic Church has the authority to determine true religion. As such, Dignitatis Humanae says the Catholic Church is the only true religion, and because of that truth each person has the moral responsibility to join the Catholic Church. By the same token, acting as the same religious authority, the Catholic Church says that no one can be coerced into joining the Catholic Church. Additionally, the Church also says that the civil authorities cannot coerce anyone into joining the Catholic Church, and likewise, the civil authorities have no power to enforce anything religious. The only power the civil authorities have in regards to religion is curtailing civil unrest among those who exercise their religious rights. So, according to the Catholic Church and Dignitatis Humanae, on the one hand, everyone has the MORAL responsibility of joining the Catholic Church and they are morally culpable before God if they choose not to join. On the other hand, the Church also says the individual cannot be punished by the CIVIL code if he chooses not to join, or forced by the CIVIL authorities to join. Even the Catholic Church cannot do so. They can only allow God to be his final judge, and if God finds him without excuse on Judgment Day, he will be sent to eternal damnation. Again, the individual can only be arrested and punished by the Civil authorities if his religion is causing civil unrest. Let’s say, for example, that a satanist is brainwashing people that it is ok to murder. In this case, the civil authorities can step in and enforce its will against the individual because murder is a crime. But the civil authorities cannot stop the person from being a satanist. Even if they were to bind and shackle him in prison, still, the individual will still be a satanist and worship Satan in his own mind. Religion is a belief of the mind; murder is an act of the body, and the civil authorities can only control the latter. Also, the Catholic Church does not want to force satanists to join the Catholic Church. If the person is going to remain a satanist in his heart, why would the Catholic Church want him as a member? He is only going to cause problems and perhaps convince others in the Church to become satanists. The Catholic Church only wants members who willingly and freely want to obey Christ and the Church. That is why membership is strictly voluntary. It protects the Church from harm, internally. It is the same reason why unrepentant sinners are excommunicated, since their continued presence in the Church would eventually harm the Church (e.g., 1 Cor 5:1-8). Also, it is important to remember that we do not live in the theocratic society of Old Testament Israel in which the civil and ecclesiastical authorities were combined into one authority. Those days are over, and they failed. No longer will God seek to establish a kingdom on earth as he did in Israel, a kingdom based on generational monarchy, divine land apportionment and ethnic tribalism. Beginning at the death and resurrection of Christ, the kingdom of God is based in heaven, and it is the very reason that Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. If it was of this world, he would have called for legions of angels to defeat the civil authorities and prepare his rightful throne on earth. The Kingship of Christ is not over this world, it is of the next world. All we have in this world is a Church, acting on the power of Christ that he maintains at the right hand of God in the next world, that, as his ambassador, seeks to persuade the world to obey Christ for the salvation of souls and a peaceful life on earth in order to be able to preach the Gospel freely. The power of the Church is not in legal enforcement or coercion but in the persuasion of men’s hearts by the Gospel. Those who believe that the Catholic Church is to force men to accept Christ and join the Catholic Church, as if this was the mandate of Pius X to attain the “Kingship of Christ,” are sadly mistaken. Question 12 - Should I Attend the Novus Ordo?
Robert,
R. Sungenis:
You should leave at the point where your conscience cannot tolerate
the abuses without you coming to the point of falling into sin.
R. Sungenis:
You could first attempt to find a respectable
Novus Ordo Mass
if that Mass is your preference. If you desire to attend a
Traditional Mass, the latest word we have from the Vatican is that
this move would be permissible on a temporary basis, provided you do
not become a member of the SSPX, at least until they are normalized
in the Church again.
R. Sungenis:
You can refuse to agree with any thing that is not a dogmatic or
authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, at the same time that you
give your due deference to the authorities in the Church that are
charged with the oversight of your soul. See
Canon 212, 2-3
for more information on this.
R. Sungenis:
You can do so by realizing that
Vatican II
does not contradict previous teaching on religious liberty or
ecumenism. Those who say differently are misinterpreting both
previous encyclicals and bulls, as well as misinterpreting
Vatican II.
Dignitatis Humanae is one of the clearest and more accurate
statements on the requirements and freedoms of the individual before
God.
R. Sungenis:
I was a member of Opus Dei a few years ago. In fact, I am personal
friends with the head of Opus Dei in the United States. On the
surface, their devotion to the Catholic Church seems well and good.
But, as any organization run by imperfect and sinful humans, it will
have its problems. There will be good and bad numeraries and
supernumeraries. As for giving all one’s money to it, it’s their
choice. There is certainly nothing immoral about giving one’s money
away to a Church-approved organization.
R. Sungenis:
Corporal mortification, in itself, is not wrong. It is good. If Opus
Dei is going to excess (which has been the case with other Catholic
organizations in history) then it would become a problem.
R. Sungenis:
The word “sacrifice” or its equivalents appear over 10 times in the
Novus Ordo. There is no “de-emphasis” on the sacrificial. That is a
myth propagated by various people with their own agenda. Don’t
believe everything you read. Check it out for yourself. The
Novus Ordo Mass
is a valid and legitimate Mass that confects the bread and wine into
the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and it is worthy of our
attendance. What is not worthy of our attendance is when today’s
liberals desecrate the Novus Ordo with all their worldly accretions.
If your wife wants to go to the Novus Ordo, I suggest that you find
a good one in your area that pleases you both, since peace in your
family is a top priority. R. Sungenis: Again, there is nothing objectively wrong with the Novus Ordo. Those who say it is sacrilegious and blasphemous are themselves blaspheming a Mass that God has allowed to be practiced in the Church by dogmatic order of the supreme pontiff. If you compare the Traditional Mass with the Novus Ordo, side by side, except for a few places, they are almost the same. I’ve done the study on this and can confirm its accuracy. It is not the Mass that is the problem. It is the people who are the problem. It is people who abuse the Novus Ordo, and until the Vatican puts the clamps on these renegades, we will continue to have the same problems. The Catholic Church, for the last 40 years, has been very lax in disciplining its wayward members. Until that happens, no change will occur. Question 11 - Video on Mitochondria DNA from Neanderthal Man Del Sydebothom: Message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKsMsz6dBac Can you tell me what you think of this video, Robert? R. Sungenis: Without reading the AIG site that he referenced (“What about the Neandertal DNA?”), I can easily posit sustainable objections to this video. Let me say first of all, Chadagg had the typical know-it-all type attitude you find in most evolutionist lectures on such topics. His bias and prejudice against creationism certainly didn’t lend any objectivity to his analysis. It made me look even closer into the possible ways he was distorting the evidence. His basic argument is that contamination of mitochondrial DNA is not a factor because two scientists, one from Munich and one from Pennsylvania, both found 379 base pairs of DNA from Neanderthal mitochondria. That’s what he calls science – two tests. That’s a farce. It won’t meet the standard measure of science until the test can be repeated over and over again, and even then we can make no definitive conclusions. The only thing it proves is that two scientists were able to extract 379 base pairs. He doesn’t even tell us whether they worked from the same Neanderthal specimen. One thing it might prove is that each scientist witnessed the same contamination rate, but it doesn’t prove or even give evidence of evolution. His argument is further weakened when he mentions that the 379 pairs, when matched against 986 pairs from known humans, show a 5% difference in DNA structure. But the 986 pairs were from known uncontaminated human DNA that was very young, over against his 379 base pairs that he says were at least 500,000 years old. Not a very good comparison. Second, he doesn’t tell us what constitutes the 5% difference. If it was hair color, eye color, foot length or strength of tooth enamel, the 5% doesn’t mean anything. The reason monkeys and humans differ so much even though their DNA is very similar is because the monkeys have DNA differences in very crucial areas. Even if there were such differences, the Bible speaks about humans that were different from one another. For example, the Nephalim were giants compared to normal humans. As such, they would have had to have DNA corresponding to whatever made them giants. This would require longer bones, larger organs, larger muscles, more blood, more hair, more cartilage, and whatever else would be required to maintain such a large physique, each difference corresponding to a change in the DNA structure. In other words, their DNA would be different then normal human DNA. An evolutionist would look at this evidence and see evolution, since he is brainwashed to see evolution in the slightest differences. A creationist looks at it and sees merely the variation that God instilled in the complex DNA structure of our first parents. Third, he then talks about a 38,000 year old specimen as his final proof because it supplies 1,000,000 base pairs to analyze. Yet he just told us that he was basing his conclusion on the fact that two scientists separated 379 base pairs. So how significant can 379 base pairs be if we have Neanderthal fossils that have 1,000,000 base pairs to study? Not very significant at all. Moreover, did he tell us of any studies on these 1,000,000 pairs of Neanderthal DNA to show us how close or how far they were from human DNA? No, yet he makes it sound as if he and his colleagues are going to find so much new evidence on their side. He also says that “other” studies yielded the same results, yet he doesn’t show us these results. Don’t you think that if other pairs of scientists had found the same amount of base pairs (e.g., 379) he would have been shouting this from the housetops? Lastly, let’s say, for the sake of argument, say that Chadagg was on the right track. Still, none of his evidence would offer proof for evolution. It would only offer proof that there were human and sub-human species on earth. How they got there is anyone’s guess. Chadagg thinks he’s going to win the argument by discounting Creationism as the vehicle, but this doesn’t help his case because even if Creationism had a hard time explaining the evidence, the evidence doesn’t prove that the only other way it could have happened is evolution. For all Chadagg knows, a Neanderthal species could have been created just as a human species could have been created. In short, the mitochondria DNA proves nothing for him. It only shows how desperate the evolutionists are to prop up the slightest anomalies as evidence for their case. Some science. I wish they had been as astute when we discovered soft tissue in a supposed 70 million year old T-Rex just last year. All we got from them were excuses as to why tissue could have remained soft for so long, and none of it was reasonable, much less convincing. Question 10 - Paragraph 390 of the Catholic Catechism
Robert, R. Sungenis: Andrew, this is one of those infamous ambiguous statements for which the modern church has become famous. It gets people like you wondering if all of Genesis 3 is figurative, and it gets many people actually concluding that all of Genesis 3 is figurative, and that is the way the liberals have planned it. They make such statements ambiguous knowing that a lot of people will be led to make non-traditional conclusions. On their side, of course, is the fact that if there is just one figurative statement in Genesis 3, then paragraph 390 is correct in saying: “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language…” We could say the same thing about Jesus’ teaching. We could say that his teachings “use figurative language,” since they often do. This just begs the question, however, since we would want to know WHAT teachings of Jesus are figurative, since that makes all the difference in the world as to how we are going to understand what he taught. The same is true for Genesis 3. For example, Genesis 3:8 says that the Lord God “walked” in the garden. For all intents and purposes, this is a figurative statement, since God does not have legs that walk. Hence, someone could then claim that Genesis 3 “uses figurative language” just from this one instance of God “walking.” If this same person had an agenda to make you believe (but without actually saying it) that most or all of Genesis 3 was figurative, he would say something akin to what paragraph 390 says. You will find many of these kinds of statements in the catechism, especially when it deals with Genesis 1-11. But there is not enough in paragraph 390 to say that the catechism is in error. The catechism is making a truthful statement that there exists figurative language in Genesis 3. But the catechism is woefully inadequate in not telling us what parts of Genesis 3 are figurative, but that is its precise intention. Astute Catholics need to know these things, otherwise they will go off on the wrong track. Question 9 - Is God "Present" in Hell? The Catechism of the Council of Trent quotes a passage from the Psalms which says that God is “present” in Hell, or as the Greek says “Sheol”… My understanding is that the 2 pains of Hell are: (1) Pain of Loss, God is not there and we know it, and (2) Pain of sense, the fires of Hell. Now, I’m thinking, based on a presentation I heard from Dr. Scott Hahn, “sheol” he presented, was referring to Purgatory as a term. This was from his series: Answering Common Objections, I downloaded from EWTN. Is God “present” in Hell? Or even in Purgatory? Psalms 139:7-10 DRB Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? (8) If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present. (9) If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: (10) Even there also shall thy hand lead me: and thy right hand shall hold me. God Bless, Laurence Gonzaga R. Sungenis: God is everywhere, even in Hell, in his omnipresence. But he is only there in his divine being, not his divine care. When we speak about the "absence" of God we are speaking about the absence of his divine care. God does not care any longer for the souls in hell. Question 8 - Modernist and Traditionalist Interpretations of Vatican II Bob, I want to congratulate you on the following words. How very true. ---Steve As it stands, Marcin's thesis is totally flawed. It is a recipe for even more disaster than what Marcin envisions from his own prognostications. Marcin and his followers need to stop blaming Vatican Council II for the Church's problems. Councils don�t sin, people do. Council documents are inanimate objects. It is the interpreters of those documents that can either do good or evil with what they read, just as Adam and Eve were able to do when they received God's commandment. But traditionalists and modernists alike do the same thing to Vatican II�s words as that Eve did to God�s words. They are twisted and distorted. The traditionalist says that Vatican II�s words contradict all previous council's words. The modernist says that Vatican II�s words are the pinnacle of Catholic truth and all other councils are either irrelevant or superseded. Both extremes are erroneous. There is only one truth, and that truth requires that Vatican Council II is a legitimate ecumenical council of the Catholic Church that was protected from errors in faith and morals by the Holy Spirit, and thereby the Church remains indefectible. This means that all its teachings are to be interpreted in the light of the Church�s dogmatic tradition, and the final decision on how to interpret it is not to be left to lay theologians and individual clerics who spout diverse opinions about its contents, but by the magisterium of the Catholic Church, if and when she so chooses to interpret and apply its teachings.
Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. Well said! RS: Thank you Steve. I believe only in this way can we have continued faith in the Catholic Church, for it is the only way of truth. Robert Question 7 - Receiving "Communion" at Protestant Services I attended a Protestant funeral recently which was standing room only. I heard the next day that one of the deacons from our Catholic Church was there also with his wife and they both received the bread and wine from that church. I was totally shocked!
Would like to know how they could do this. R. Sungenis: Linda, what they did was wrong. The Catholic Church, according to everything I have been able to discern, does not allow such actions. There are a number of canons that speak to this issue. First, Canon 837 gives the general outlay of Catholic protocol in regards to liturgy: “Liturgical actions are not private actions but celebrations of the Church itself which is the sacrament of unity, that is, a holy people gathered and ordered under the bishops. Liturgical actions therefore belong to the whole body of the Church and manifest and affect it…” Here we see that the liturgy is not a private action, that is, it is not something that can be established outside the domain of the Catholic Church and be legitimate. Otherwise, anyone could make a liturgy and call themselves a Church. Canon 838 is more specific and says that the liturgy is to be directed by the Holy See or the local bishop. Canon 838 says: “The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.” Canon 841 addresses the sacraments specifically: “Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity.” It then adds that it is only for the Church to… “decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.” Hence, the deacons in your question had no right to take it upon themselves to judge the liturgy or sacraments of another institution as worthy of their reception as Catholics. Only a special dispensation from the Church would allow such an action, and I can’t imagine any bishop allowing it for any legitimate reason. Canon 844 is even more specific: “Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone…” This makes it clear that we can only receive the sacraments from the Catholic clergy, not from Protestants. According to Canon law 844.2, the only exception regarding a Catholic receiving the sacraments from a non-Catholic minister is when it is impossible for the Catholic to find a Catholic priest AND the non-Catholic to whom they seek the sacrament is an institution “in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.” This means that, unless the non-Catholic institution believes that the “bread and wine” become the body and blood of Christ (such as the Eastern Orthodox), the Catholic cannot receive their bread and wine. The only other exception, according to Canon law 933, is when a Catholic priest celebrates the Eucharist in a non-Catholic institution. He can so do, provided there is no scandal, and distribute communion to Catholics only.
Hi Robert, R. Sungenis: Tom, Got your questions. On the electric universe, we do address that issue in GWWCWR and hold it out as a possibility. We even connect it to Hildegard's vision in which she saw the sun getting its energy from another sourse, which is the same thing the electric universe people are saying -- that there is no nuclear fusion in the sun. As to the mass of the sun, actually, it makes no difference what the mass of the sun is. It could be bigger or smaller than the Earth, but still be made to go around the Earth. It depends on what body is the center of mass. All objects will go around the center of mass. Those who claim that the stars are too far away to matter are out of the mainstream. All reputable scientists have recognized that the mass of stars that circle our system do, indeed, have a great effect on us, including centrifugal force, Coriolis force, center of mass calculations, etc. We cover this issue in GWWCWR. Here is an excerpt for you: Doesn’t the Smaller Body Always Revolve Around the Larger Body? One of the more common objections to geocentrism is the claim that Isaac Newton’s laws of motion prove that the Earth, because it is smaller, must revolve around the sun, which is larger. In reality, Newton proved no such thing. A close examination of his laws reveals that he merely stated, of two or more bodies in a rotating system, all bodies will revolve around the center of mass. As Newton himself put it: “That the center of the system of the world is immovable. This is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center.”[1][1] Granted, in a closed system where the only two bodies existent are a massive sun and a small Earth, the center of mass will be much closer to the sun than the Earth, and thus, in that system the Earth would, indeed, revolve around the sun. But this is precisely the problem with the appeal to Newtonian mechanics: the appeal invariably limits the system to two bodies, the sun and the Earth, while it ignores the rest of the universe. When the rest of the universe is incorporated into the system, we now have a center of mass that is dependent on far more than the local forces we experience in our tiny solar system. On that basis, as we shall see, even Newton could not object to the Earth being the center of mass for the universe. The grand summation of his three laws of motion (namely, in a closed system the acceleration of the center of mass equals zero), will allow an immobile Earth to be the center, that is, if the universe is included in Newton’s integral calculus. As the eminent cosmologist Fred Hoyle admitted about those who quickly run to Newton to defend heliocentrism:
Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of calculation by including mutual gravitational interactions between planets, we find – again in order to calculate correctly – that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the “center of mass,” which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square rule, it could be essential to use a “center of mass” which included the star. The “center” in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the “center” to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole. If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes.[2][2]
As we can see from Hoyle’s account, even if there is only one star to take into account, its mass and gravitational force must be added into the formula for determining the universe’s center of mass (or barycenter). In short, our sun, Earth and planets are not an isolated system. Advocates of heliocentrism can mount no opposition to this logic since they believe that our solar system is revolving around the Milky Way, which, of course, it cannot do unless it is experiencing a strong gravitational attraction from the center of the Milky Way. Using that same principle, when we add to our galaxy the billions of other galaxies present in the universe, we can certainly conclude that they will have a substantial effect on determining the universe’s barycenter. As all modern physicists agree (even if they don’t prefer the geocentric model): “Mass there governs inertia here.”[3][3] These distinguished authors are referring to the total mass of the galaxies and other objects in the universe that have a direct effect on the inertia we experience on Earth. Inertia is a force, and therefore, according to modern physics, the stars transmit an inertial force to the Earth. Moreover, modern physics also says that inertial force is intimately related to and indistinguishable from gravitational force. If that is the case, then certainly the total mass of the universe is an integral factor in determining both the inertial and gravitational forces that affect the Earth, as well as the forces that create the barycenter of the universe. Certainly no one can object, then, if God had decided long ago to put the Earth in that very barycenter. Some object that, although it may be true that the Earth can serve as the barycenter of the universe, we do not see any cases in the rest of the cosmos of a larger object revolving around a smaller object. This is true, of course. The reason we do not see any such phenomena is that there is only one place where it could be true – at the center of the universe. [1][1] Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I. The Latin original is: Centrum systematis mundane quiescere. Hoc ab omnibus consessum est, dum aliqui terram, alii solem in centro systematis quiescere contendant. Videamus quid inde sequatur.” In Proposition XI, Theorema XI, Newton adds: “That the common center of gravity of the Earth, the sun, and all the planets, is immovable. For that center either is at rest or moves uniformly forwards in a right line; but if that center moved, the center of the world would move also, against the Hypothesis.” Original Latin is: Commune centrum gravitates terræ, solis & planetarum omnium quiescere. Nam centrum illud (per legum corol. iv) vel quiescent vel progredietur uniformiter in directum. Sed centro illo semper progrediente centrum mundi quoque movebitur contra hypothesin. [2][2] Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p. 85.
[3][3] Misner, Charles W., Kip S. Thorne and John A. Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973, pp. 543, 546-47, 549. Question 5 - The Pope, Evolution and Children
I will soon be teaching the Old Testament to gradeschool students. I
am concerned about teaching Special Creation in light of the Pope's
recent comments concerning evolution as well as a lack of total
unanimity among the Church Fathers concerning Creation (Origen and
Augustine). What do you suggest I do in this situation--I'm looking
for unassailable support from the Church but I don't see it out
there. Thanks for your insight. R. Sungenis: First of all, there is no need to worry about Origen and Augustine. Origen was not one of the major Fathers and he was even cited for heresy at one time. Also, he had a penchant for allegorizing Scripture, a method he learned from the Greek Philo. He was not a major player at all. As for Augustine, the only thing about which he debated was whether world was created in six days or one day. He had no discussion about evolution or anything beyond a six-da |