Q&A's September 2004

Q&A's September 2004

Question 1 - How Do We Understand the Pope's Supreme Jurisdiction?

Question 2 - Antichrist and Peleg's Days

Question 3 - Is the War in Iraq Just?

Question 4 - Did Mary Die before her Assumption?

Question 5 - What is the Gospel of the Holy Twelve?

Question 6 - How Should We Understand Romans 7 and the Struggle Against Sin?

Question 7 - Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar Series

Question 8 - Question on NFP (Natural Family Planning)

Question 9 - Pre-publication manuscript of "Galileo Was Wrong"

Question 10 - The CASB and Divorce and Remarriage

Question 11 - Archdiocese of NY seminary

Question 12 - Would Catholics Agree with the Five Points of Arminianism?

Question 13 - Is a 4-point Calvinist a Contradiction?

Question 14 - Is Lev. 17 a Prophecy of the Eucharist?

Question 15 - What is the Best Argument for God's Existence?

Question 16 - Yoga and Hinduism

Question 17 - How Fast Does the Universe Rotate?

Question 18 - Are There Contradictions Between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Question 19 - Geocentricism and precession?

Question 20 - How Do We Understand the Pope's Supreme Jurisdiction? Part 2

Question 21 - Did Jesus carry our sicknesses on the cross, Part 2?

Question 22 - James Akin and the Douay Rheims

Question 23 - Is it ok to pray at a Mosque or visit a hindu temple?

Question 24 - Does God really send us sickness today?

Question 25 - Why Post the Issue about Deal Hudson?

Question 26 - How Do We Understand Rom. 3:25?

Question 27 - How Would Order the Sequence of Events for the End of Time?

Question 28 - Does Isaiah 2 Promote Zionism?

Question 29 - Is There Anything Wrong with Hindus and Buddhists Praying at Lourdes?

Question 30 - How Do We Understand Pope Leo's Comments about Interpretation and Science?

Question 31 - Who Are you Going to Vote For?

Question 32 - Trent, Vatican 2 and the Vulgar Tongue

Question 33 - Aquinas on Actual Faith and Baptism

Question 34 - What about Garabandal?

Question 35 - Are the Crusades Against Isaiah 2:4?

Question 36 - The Remnant article on Iraq

Question 37 - Reconciling Luke-Acts

Question 38 - Why Isn't There a Continual Breeze if the Earth is Rotating? Pt2

Question 39 - Why Doesn't the DR or Vulgate translate the Urim and Thummim Correctly?

Question 40 - Did the Lutherans Take Catholic Communion?

Question 41 - Does the KJV quote the Deuterocanonical books?

Question 42 - Did God Require Christ to Suffer?

Question 43 - "Back the Attack" CAI Ad

Question 44 - "Back the Attack" CAI Ad 2

Question 45 - "Back the Attack" CAI Ad 3

Question 46 - Eating Jesus

Question 47 - A Visit to the Planetarium

Question 48 - Ferrara's Deal Hudson Piece

Question 49 - Catholic Scripture Commentaries and Luke 14:28-33

Question 50 - Ronald Knox's translation of the Scripture

Question 51 - Regarding Dr. Hovind

Question 52 - (Anglican)Anglo-Catholic vs Roman Catholicism

Question 53 - Why Couldn't Catholics Drink from the Chalice? Why do Priests Face the People?

Question 54 - Cremation

Question 55 - Is Gaudium et Spes in Error? Is Trent Infallible Regarding the Mass?

Question 56 - Is God Impassible? Does the Church Say the Evangelists wrote the Gospels?

Question 57 - Can One Get a Blessing through Television?

Question 58 - Lucifer in Heaven

Question 59 - The Pope's Heretical Statement

Question 60 - Geocentrism

Question 61 - Geocentrism 2

Question 62 - Creation vs Evolution

Question 63 - "What Would Happen if Earth Didn't Rotate"?

Question 64 - Did Vatican II make the Eucharist Symbolic?

Question 65 - Question on the Eucharist in Luke 22:19

Question 66 - Why did Mary come to Fatima, of all places?

Question 67 - Cremation Concerns

Question 68 - Who Was the Beloved Disciple?

Question 69 - How do we Explain Romans 3:23 to Protestants?

Question 70 - Would a Person Weigh More on one Side of the Earth?

Question 71 - Can We Receive Sacraments from the SSPX, Part II?

Question 72 - Can We Make Vows or Promises?

Question 73 - Are Paradise and Heaven the Same Thing?

Question 74 - Can We Receive Sacraments from the SSPX, Part III?

Question 75 - How Shall We Bring up Our Children?

Question 76 - Can We Receive Sacraments from the SSPX, Part IV?

Question 77 - Does Psalm 68:9 [69:8] Upset Mary's Virginity?

Question 78 - Why Do Catholic Apologists Argue with One Another?

Question 79 - Fr. Ronald Knox Commentaries Any Good?

Question 80 - Why Did You Turn Traditional?

Question 81 - How Do We Defend Peter as the Rock of Matthew 16:18?

Question 82 - Your SSPX Discussions

Question 83 - How Can "All" Replacing "Many" be Defended in the Consecration?

Question 84 - What is the Alexandrian Text?

Question 85 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification?

Question 86 - Why Did the Council of Nicea Mandate Standing on Sunday?

Question 87 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part II?

Question 88 - Why Did You Turn Traditional, Part II?

Question 89 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part III?

Question 90 - Theological/Political Question

Question 91 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part IV?

Question 92 - The papal oath and the Tridentine Mass

Question 1- How Do We Understand the Pope's Supreme Jurisdiction?

"According to Vatican I, no decision of a pope in
regards to a disciplinary matter can be contravened,
even by a council, let alone a single archbishop,
regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with that
papal decision. Vatican I further states that there is
no recourse once the pope makes his decision. It is
about as final as it can be."

So you wrote in a dialog with some SSPX supporter.

I quibble over the word "contravened".

The Pope possesses supreme, ordinary, episcopal
jurisdiction over the whole church, over each and all
of the particular churches (dioceses), over each bishop
and all the bishop, etc., etc.

But he is not infallible in the exercise of this
jurisdiction, but "only" (Catechism of St. Pius X, who
should know) when in matters of faith and morals, etc.,
etc., etc. he fulfills *all* the conditions of Vatican I.

So it could happen that a pope might order me to do
something wrong in which case I would have to obey
divine law rather than human law.

I am a diocesan priest and not a member of the SSPX. I
do not agree with their establishment of altars against
the altars of the Catholic Church.

But our argument must be accurate.

I hope and pray for the blessing of the Sacred Heart on
your apostolate.

Fr. Paul J. McDonald,
Parish Priest of Niagara-on-the-Lake

R. Sungenis: The pope's decision in juridical matters does not have to be infallible in order to require our obedience. This is precisely why Vatican I made the specific stipulation of the pope's supreme authority in juridical matters, since they knew infallibility only applied to faith and morals. When the pope makes it clear that he is issuing a supreme juridical decision, we must obey. Those occasions are rare, however. The issue with archbishop Lefebvre was one such occasion. I and many other Catholics realize that an unfortunate failing of this pontificate is that it has more or less refused to use its juridical powers . This explains in large part why heretics and homosexuals roam the earth today as never before. Even the Pope himself has publicly suggested he knows this has been one of his failings. I wish he would be as prudential about other issues that scream for his supreme jurisdiction as he was with Lefebvre. We all ought to pray for him as his life on earth winds down and also pray that our next Pope is strong in these areas.

God be with you.

Robert Sungenis

Question 2- Antichrist and Peleg's Days

JMJ
Hi Robert,
I'd like to ask two quick questions.

First, do the Fathers have anything to say about the length of time intervening between the demise of antichrist and the return of Christ for judgment. Shall a long or brief time intervene?

Secondly, in Genesis 11:16-19 we hear about the birth of Peleg, about whom it says, "in his days the earth was divided." What could this possibly mean do you think? How was the earth divided?

Thanks and God Bless, (and please hurry with Galileo Was Wrong)
Gerald DeNoble

R. Sungenis:From all I see in Scripture, the return of Christ will occur immediately after Satan's loosening is complete. As for the reference to Peleg, this refers to the splitting of the continents, which occurred around 3000 BC. Interestingly enough, the Mayans begin their calendar at this date, and speak of a worldwide cataclysm that initiated their calendar (but not a flood). As for Galileo Was Wrong, I'm peddling as fast as I can.... :)

Question 3- Is the War in Iraq Just?

Mr Sungenis,

I just had a look at the traditioninaction.com web site and found that it supports the war in Iraq. I was brought up with a post concilliar mind set, so the thoughts of a war always seem wrong to me. But this web site, which is traditional Catholic, gives the impression that traditional Catholics should naturally be in favor of the war in Iraq - as a just war. Is this the standard position of traditional Catholics? Thank you,

Damien

R. Sungenis: Not at all, Damien. I do not consider this war to be just at all. I believe it is the product of the Evangelical/Jewish alliance that is trying to secure the Middle East for Zionism, and to control the world's oil supply. In the process, they are emptying Iraq and the Middle East of Catholics. I'll refer you to Christopher Ferrara for even more detail and references.

Question 4- Did Mary Die before her Assumption?

Hey Robert,
I was looking through the Catholic Encyclopedia and New Advent and read that Mary died and was probably placed in a tomb before her bodily assumption into heaven. Before this I thought her assumption was like Elijah and others. What is the apostolic tradition and what does the Church teach on the question if she died before she was assumed?
God Bless,
Michael.

PS Could you please tell me the name of the Thomist book that you thought was better than Predestination by Lagrange.

R. Sungenis: We have no solid information on whether Mary died prior to her Assumption. This is precisely why Pius XII did not refer to a death of Mary when he dogmatized her Assumption in 1950. Liberals would be more inclined to say she did die, and that may be the slant of the new Catholic Encyclopedia.

As for the book on Predestination, it is "Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-theological study of Luther's Major Work, The Bondage of the Will (New York: Newman Press, 1968, c1969). Also "Erasmus versus Luther -- Compounding the Reformation Tragedy" (Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther, ed., Jared Wicks (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970).

Question 5- What is the Gospel of the Holy Twelve?

Mr. Sungenis,
Can you tell me anything at all about the so called "Gospel of the Holy
Twelve" aka "Gospel of Perfect Light" or "Nazarene Gospel"? I was very
troubled when I read it. The people who display it claim that it is an
Aramaic original of the first Gospel, one given by the Essenes to Buddhist
monks to protect while, according to these sources, the Gospel was made into
four and "perverted" by the Church Fathers. The gospel seems to contain
material from all four, including the infancy narrative in Luke, but it has
many troubling differences such as a command to keep the Sabbath on the
seventh day, a command to abstain from all meats, and a claim that Jesus was
the biological son of both Mary and Joseph.

Sincerely,
Joshua Vargas

R. Sungenis: Joshua, it is a pseudepigraphal work, not worth the paper it is written on. Don't pay any attention to it.

Question 6- How Should We Understand Romans 7 and the Struggle Against Sin?

Hi Doc

It has been a while … but I am back with another question. What is the view of the Catholic Church (or if varied … yourself) on the last part of Romans 7? When Paul is discussing his internal struggle (what he does he does not want to do and what he wants to do, he doesn’t do). Was he a Christian at the time of the struggle? Or he is referring to Christians? Or does the struggle only exist as from a non-christian state of mind?

I’ve always seen it as the Christian struggling.

Any help would be appreciated. Or commentaries. If I remember you even had a Romans study on line. Hope all is going well.

Thanks
Greg

R. Sungenis: Greg, instead of giving you an answer here, I'm going to direct you to our Internet Bible Study on this passage of Scripture. Normally we charge for this service, but I will allow you to access one of our studies for this occasion. You can find it at:

Lesson 10

Let me know if it helps you.

Question 7- Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar Series

Mr. Sungenis,

Laudetur Iesus Christus! Do you recommend Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar Series?

Yours respectfully in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,

John

R. Sungenis:John, yes, I think it can be very beneficial. However, just look out for the anti-Catholic strains from any of these Protestant creationists.

Question 8- Question on NFP (Natural Family Planning)

Hello Mr. Sungenis,

Where does the Church specifically teach that Natural Family Planning (NFP) is permissible? According to arguments used by Frs. Rumble and Carty in Radio Replies NFP should not be practiced due the fact that it directly avoids the primary purpose of sexual relations that being procreation and bonding. Yes, NFP leaves procreation open but the mentality and direct purpose of it is to avoid it thus giving the couple a contraceptive mentality. The late Father Malachi Martin basically said the same thing and he said that NFP was evil and wrong in his opinion and that it was only the liberal theologians in the Church that have made it as an accepted practice. I can see how you could interpret Vatican II documents as saying such, however, as you say, the interpretation should follow the long tradition of the Church morally and dogmatically. I have not seen the pope ever officially saying that this method is OK. Lastly, my wife and I both believe it to be wrong because it just seems to go against the natural law of God. I must say that our informed Catholic conscience tells us this. Are we wrong?

Thank you and God Bless!
steve

R. Sungenis: Steve, NFP, if it is used, should only be used in "grave" or "serious" circumstances, according to Humanae Vitae (e.g., when the health of the mother is involved, etc). Unfortunately, NFP has been promoted as a method to control and prohibit pregnancy, at the whim of the parents, and it is promoted as such today by the liberals and modernists of the Church. This is an abomination in the sight of God.

Question 9- Pre-publication manuscript of "Galileo Was Wrong"

Robert, HOW EXCITING! Just reading the Table of Contents is enough to entice me to get a copy. Count me in for purchase of an early copy, HOT off the press. I am also looking forward to your "Not by Science Alone" (or does the current work on Galileo replace that endeavor?), and your future Apologetics Bible Commentary on Romans/Galatians. I have your Matthew volume as well as the other "Not by.." titles, including Faith, Scripture and Bread.

Mark Stevens

R. Sungenis: Mark, yes, Galileo Was Wrong will replace Not By Science Alone, since I am only going to concentrate on the geocentric issue. Thanks for the encouragement!

Question 10- The CASB and Divorce and Remarriage

Hello Robert! How have you been. I recently was in a discussion with a customer of the company I work for and the discussion came to divorce and remarriage. He, as a Protestant, said that with the exception clause in Matthew, that our Lord allows divorce and remarriage and I told him that traditional Catholic belief is that, NO, that is not what our Lord was teaching and that if a man and woman are validly married, that divorce is allowed but not remarriage and that only death of the other spouse, can the other party remarry. I went back to re-read your CASB and the commentary on Mt. 19:9. Wow! Your explanation was awesome on what our Lord meant by the exception clause the non-Catholics like to use for allowing remarriage. Thank you, Robert.

R. Sungenis: Thank you, Anthony. Let's hope many people will be moved by it as you were. I put a lot of work into that section since there was so much confusion circulating about it. That section is a product of over 30 years of work on that particular topic.

Question 11- Archdiocese of NY seminary

Dear Bob,

I just read your posted question concerning attendance at today’s seminaries. Are you familiar with the NY Archdiocese and do you think the seminary is a good or bad place to attend?

Thanks

Robert D

R. Sungenis: Robert, sorry, I don't have any information on it. I wish I could be more helpful.

Question 12- Would Catholics Agree with the Five Points of Arminianism?

I’ve read you excellent material showing the differences between Catholic beliefs and TULIP. However, could you please send me a quick summary of where Catholics differ from the 5 Remonstrations of Arminians? You alluded to this when you said we hold to a combination of predestination with free will.

Second, if a 4 point Calvanist denied limited atonement, would he also have to say that Christ didn’t suffer the eternal hell punishment for our sins? If he accepts that Jesus suffered the eternal hell punishment for all of our sins, and he denies limited atonement, doesn’t he find himself a de facto universal Salvationist?

Yours in Christ,

James DePrisco

R. Sungenis: James, for those who are not familiar with the 5 remonstrant articles, I will list them here and comment:

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

R. Sungenis: We would agree partly, but disagree with the attempt to exclude God's pre-ordained choice of the elect out of the matter entirely.

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

R. Sungenis: No disagreement here.

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

R. Sungenis: We would disagree to the extent that the Council of Trent said man had "natural powers," that is, power to will apart from God's movement in his soul to do good. The Church also speaks of "Actual Grace" which gives man the power to do good acts, but this is separate from his natural powers. The acts done through the natural powers, however, are not salvific, although they may put one in the "way of grace," as Trent taught in Chapters 4-5.

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.

R. Sungenis: See above comments. We would agree to the extent that, in respect of salvation, man can do nothing that would merit him salvation (in the sense of being owed salvation for work done).

Article 5

That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

R. Sungenis: They are admitting they do not have an answer for preserverance, which shows somewhat of a flaw in their whole approach. The Catholic Church says that perserverance is dependent both on God's predestination and man's free will.

Question 13- Is a 4-point Calvinist a Contradiction?

Second, if a 4 point Calvanist denied limited atonement, would he also have to say that Christ didn’t suffer the eternal hell punishment for our sins? If he accepts that Jesus suffered the eternal hell punishment for all of our sins, and he denies limited atonement, doesn’t he find himself a de facto universal Salvationist?

R. Sungenis: Yes, a 4-point Calvinist is a contradiction in terms, since Calvin taught that the atonement is limited because Christ only suffered the legal punishment for a select few. If the punishment is legally administered in accord with the exact amount required for the victims, then it must necessarily be limited.

Question 14- Is Lev. 17 a Prophecy of the Eucharist?

Hello again,

Is it possible that Lev. 17 is a prophecy for the Eucharist? Since the blood contains the life, therefore if we consume the Blood of Jesus, is His life not now within us? What do you think?

Viva Christo Rey!

James DePrisco

R. Sungenis: It is not a "prophecy" but an Antitype, which has its fulfillment in the Type -- the Eucharist.

Question 15- What is the Best Argument for God's Existence?

Hello, God bless you and thank you in advance for answering.

What would you say is the most potent proof for the existence of God, and could you elaborate on that proof? Thanks again, and God bless again!

In Christ,
Louis

R. Sungenis: The most potent proof is the cosmos and its design, according to Romans 1:18-20. This is especially true in respect of the Earth being the center of the universe. Astronomers admit that if Earth is the center, then they are doomed as atheists.

Question 16- Yoga and Hinduism

Robert, just wanted to get your perspective on something... my future
mother-in-law is interested in taking yoga classes, I have strongly advised
against it because it is an ancient Hindu ritual. What are your thoughts?

R. Sungenis: Yoga is Eastern mysticism in disguise. Stay away from it.

Question 17- How Fast Does the Universe Rotate?

Dear Sir,
Regarding the HC vs. the GS system could/would you be able to provide me with the angular velocity (measured from the earth's center) of the rotation of the earth, and of the moon's angular velocity measured from the center of the earth. If you could I would like this information in degrees, or minutes, or seconds per hour, the same measure for each the earth and moon please. I have asked several people and get no response. I would have thought this information would have been well known among those who deal with this question. Thank you, Ronald Knarr

R. Sungenis: Ronald, from the geocentric perspective, the universe rotates with an angular velocity of 3.6 x 10 ^-5 radians per second around the Earth

Question 18- Are There Contradictions Between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

I have been having a debate concerning the Genesis creation accounts. The person I have been debating states that the creation story of Genesis 1 contradicts Gen. 2. The person I am debating makes the statement:

Did God create man first or last? According to Gen 1:1-27 man was created last. But, according to Gen 2:4-9 God create man right after the earth (which seems to be in existence already) but before the trees. And, somehow, in the second version God doesn't remember to create any animals.

How does one respond to this above statement?

Thank you,

Darian Fisher

R. Sungenis: Darian, there are no contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Allow me to give you part of the material from Not By Science Alone that I wrote in 2001:

The Alleged Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

Common objections to a literal reading Genesis 1 is that it would conflict with a literal reading of Genesis 2. Events in Genesis 2, if taken literally, happen quite fast compared to the events in Genesis 1.

(1) For example, between the creation of man in Genesis 2:7 and the creation of woman in Genesis 2:18-25, God plants a garden in 2:8 and causes trees to grow in 2:9 (including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life). The objection claims that such a scenario would entail the rapid growth of the trees that would have to occur between the appearance of Adam and the appearance of Eve.

This objection holds little weight, first because it presumes to limit God's action to natural occurrences during an obviously miraculous creation week. Considering that Eve is said to be created miraculously from the side of Adam (as confirmed by Pope Leo XIII), it is quite apparent that miraculous ex nihilo activity is continuing to occur until the creation is complete on the seventh day.

(2) A second objection states that, according to Genesis 2:5, there were no plants prior to the creation of man, which conflicts with the account in Genesis 1:11-12 that the plants were made prior to man.

This objection can be answered by focusing on the particular words used in Genesis 2 that are not used in Genesis 1. Genesis 2:5 refers to the "shrub" (x;yfi) of the field, but this word does not appear in Genesis 1:11-12 or 1:29-30. Genesis 1:11-12 refers to the "herb" (bf,[e) and the "tree producing fruit" (yrIP. hf,[). Hence, the first distinction between Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 2:5 is that the former indicates only two kinds of vegetation, whereas Genesis 2:5 adds a third kind. Apparently, the two plants of Genesis 1:11-12 served as food for Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:29-30.

There is a second distinction. Genesis 2:5 specifies that "not every herb of the field had yet sprung up," which would mean there were some that had sprung up on the third day of creation, and some which sprung up on the after the sixth day of creation.

There is a third distinction. Genesis 2:5 says the "shrubs" and "herbs" had not yet produced tsemach (xm'c.yI), contrasting with dashah (av,D,) of Genesis 1:11-12. The former refers to a budding for the next generation, while the latter refers to an original sprouting of the first generation of fruits. Hence, Adam and Eve's food, on the first day of their creation, was the original fruit of the two plants in Genesis 1:11-12, while the "shrubs" and the budding plants would have to wait until the appropriate time.

(3) A third objection claims that, after the creation of the trees in Genesis 2:8-9, God then makes a river to flow out of Eden in Genesis 2:10, from which it is divided into four other rivers. This would involve even more time and more miraculous activity prior to the creation of the woman.

But this objection is easily answered, since Genesis 2:10 does not specifically say that God made the rivers at that time. It is more likely that the rivers may have been a product of the waters separated on day three of Genesis 1:9-13.

(4) A fourth objection submits that Genesis 2:18-20 indicates that the animals were created after man, whereas Genesis 1:24-26 indicates that the animals were created before man.
This objection can be answered in one of two ways. The Hebrew word yatsar (rc,YIw:) used in Genesis 2:19 ("and out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast...and every bird...and brought them to the man to see what he would call them") is a Hebrew imperfect tense, which, since Hebrew only has two tenses, past and future, can be understood as a pluperfect, which would then be understood as: "and out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast..." This explanation makes the most sense, since the quest given in Genesis 2:18 is to find a "suitable helper" for Adam. Since God knew the animals would not to be a suitable helper (i.e., a being with whom Adam could not communicate and procreate), then it would be rather aimless for Him to create the animals after He created Adam merely to see if a suitable helper could be found among them. It makes much more sense that, having previously created the animals, it was already known that none of them served as a suitable helper, and thus Eve's creation had already been anticipated. In this way, Genesis 2:18-20 serves as an alternate perspective on the chronology of Genesis 1:24-26 so as to set up the theological underpinnings of Eve's creation, a theology which will serve as the basis for Adam's headship over Eve (cf., 1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:5; Ephesians 5:22).

In the above scenario, the days of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 compare as follows:

Day One 1:1-5 2:4-7
Day Two 1:6-8 2:8
Day Three 1:9-13 2:9-14
Day Four 1:14-19 2:15
Day Five 1:20-23 2:16-17
Day Six 1:24-31 2:18-24

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
July 17, 2001

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; it is the glory of kings to search it out."
Proverbs 25:2

Question 19- Geocentricism and precession?

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

I was going over your web site and seeing if there was any response you have made concerning the notion of precession. Someone I know contends that this precession, or the earth wobbling on it's axis, occurs due to the spinning of the earth, and that a stationary earth would not evidence this. He also makes the point that if the earth is stationary then there is nothing to cause the entire universe to wobble -- there's no force to account for it. Thus, we arrive at a conundrum. Either the universe wobbles for no apparent reason, or the earth rotates and precession is natural because the gravitational forces of the sun, moon, planets and other bodies act upon it.

Have you treated this subject as of yet or if not, what is the response to this contention?

Thank you in advance,

Darian Fisher

R. Sungenis: Yes, we have dealt with it. The simple fact is that the matter distribution in space is anisotropic. If there is only a slight imbalance of that mass, it will result in a precession as the universe rotates. The center of mass only has to shift very slightly to create a precession, so slight that it could be contained within a few hundred miles between the ends of the earth's diameter, and thus allow the earth to remain in the center of the universe and remain its center of mass.

Question 20- How Do We Understand the Pope's Supreme Jurisdiction?
Part 2?

Dear R. Sungenis:

The Church has never said that the obedience due to the
Pope (or to any mortal human person: parent, general,
president, etc.) is "absolute".

So, although the authority of the Pope is supreme in
the Church on earth, it is not absolute.

That is, a command to do something wrong, something
contrary to divine law, even a command from the Pope,
must not be carried out.

And precisely because the Pope is not infallible in
merely disciplinary matters, it is not impossible that
he might command something wrong.

Could it ever happen that someone might have to justly
say "no" to the Pope?

A Catholic is permitted to to think that it is not
impossible.

Fr PJM

R. Sungenis: Of course. We do not have to obey the pope if he tells us to do something wrong, but unless it is something obviously wrong (for example, if he told us to murder someone), then the burden of proof is on us to prove the pope wrong. I for one do not agree with the Pope about Assisi I and II. But in the case of disciplinary decisions, as Vatican I stipulates, we have a different animal. This is out of the realm of faith and morals and is dealing strictly with how the pope is governing the church. The pope has the right to govern the church without his power being usurped by his underlings. If that is not the case, then he has no real authority. If we only obey when we think it convenient, we have no papal authority. Final disciplinary decisions are his sole prerogative. Vatican I and Canon Law make that very clear. If we think someone has been unjustly disciplined by the pope (e.g., Lefebvre) we can appeal to the pope and ask for a reprieve, but if he does not change his mind, we must accept what he has decreed. If he has made a mistake, then God will be his judge, as the papal oath states. We, however, are not the judge of the pope in such matters. If we think we are, then God will judge us. There are plenty of examples in Scripture to warn us of that.

Question 21- Did Jesus carry our sicknesses on the cross, Part 2?

Thanks for answering this Robert, but more specifically did Jesus bear our sicknesses on the cross? Matt 8:17 (NIV) says, "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases".

R. Sungenis: Yes, but He does so at His discretion, not ours. On the larger scale, if Jesus hadn't taken our infirmities on the cross, then we would all be dying of the slightest malady. As it stands now, God's grace, merited from the cross, allows us to heal from our diseases, as God sees fit.

Question 22- James Akin and the Douay Rheims

Dear Robert,

I came across an article by James Akin on the Douay Rheims which I have cut and pasted from. He seems to imply that Douay bibles today have been changed so much today that they are unlike the original and they are not a pure translation of it, that hardly any sense of the original remains.

I would like to ask you three questions in light of this. What do make of what James Akin says? Is your study bible you are selling a Douay Challoner version or the original? Where can I buy a good pure original Douay Rheims version or if they are not available anymore were can I buy a Challoner version in England, UK were I live?

Thanks

Tim.

....Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate. Challoner's revisions were extensive — more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they 'almost amounted to a new translation.' So also, Cardinal "Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 ed.,s.v., "Douay Bible").

R. Sungenis: Timothy, I don't know where you can buy an original DR. If you could even find one, it would be a collector's item, and thus very expensive. As for Akin's comments, yes, he is correct about the changes in the DR. The original DR used old English that you and I would hardly recognize today. On the other hand, he makes it sound as if we now have two different Bibles, and that is surely not the case. One can use a current Douay-Rheims and follow along in the original Latin Vulgate almost word for word. For that matter, even the Latin Vulgate has changed, since there is quite a variety of manuscript transmissions. All told, we have five different versions of the Latin Vulgate. This is an inevitable process for a translation. So it is no surprise to see the DR go through revisions. Our CASB uses something close to the 1899 edition of the DR, but we have made many changes.

Question 23- Is it ok to pray at a Mosque or visit a hindu temple?

Dear Robert,

When I was at university my Catholic Chaplain priest said he wanted to provide a room outside the chapel for muslims to worship at the Catholic University, since they do believe in creator God like Catholics. Was he right to do this?

Also is ok to pray with muslims to creator God to bless us?

Also here in England, Catholics schools sometimes take their children to visit Hindu temples as part of Religious education. Is this wrong, as are they visiting a place of a false God? However is it ok to visit a mosque they worship creator God like we do?

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Tim

R. Sungenis: Tim, it's all an abomination. The Church today is being infiltrated by paganism and idolatry as never before. Stay as far away from it as you can.

Question 24- Does God really send us sickness today?

Hi Robert,

I was wondering if God gives us sickness today, how do we view this in terms of the character of God. Surely sickness in of itself is evil and a result of the fall. If God is intrinsically good why would he inflict sicknesses on us since it is of the fall and hence intrinsically evil, it seems out of character for God to give us sickness.

Why would Jesus commission his disciples to destroy the works of satan by rebuking demons and healing the sick, if he sent sickness?

It appears to be a contradiction to me.

Tim.

R. Sungenis: Tim, sickness is a result of the curse of sin and death given to the whole human race in the Garden of Eden. That curse will only be removed at the end of time. In the interim, God will use those sicknesses to punish man for his continual sin. As God punishes mankind, sometimes innocent people are also inflicted (e.g., a hurricane in Florida, a flood in China, an AIDS epidemic, an earthquake here or there, etc). But those innocent people will take the infliction as their due suffering in this world, and they will be strengthened in their walk with God.

Question 25- Why Post the Issue about Deal Hudson?

Why is CAI posting the National Catholic Register's article about Deal Hudson's sexual sins of the past. Hasn't he received absolution for those sins?

R. Sungenis: The problem is that it is one thing to receive absolution for your sins (which we all grant him) but it is quite another to then put yourself out there as a Catholic model and spokesman as if nothing happened in the past. Most guys in Hudson's position resign from their posts and you never hear from them again. And rightly so. It is only those with the big egos who think that they need not be punished for their misdeeds; who think they would cause no scandal if people found out about their sordid past, and that no one even has the right to know about their past simply because they deem themselves as indispensable to "the cause." Absolution is one thing, but to show remorse for his past, Hudson should not have then made himself a part of the Catholic limelight. He is showing the same type of hubris as the bishops are in the pedophile scandal. Not only has he become part of the limelight, but recently in his magazine he was touting himself as the Catholic par excellance for people to model, and according to the NOR, he was bucking to become the US envoy to the Vatican. Moreover, Hudson himself has seen the gravity of the exposure he has now had to endure under the microscope of the National Catholic Register since he removed himself (or was politely asked to leave) from the Bush advisory board. Unfortunately for him, when sexual scandals which have had the lid put on them for so many years finally come to the surface, it is just as if Hudson had committed those crimes yesterday, as opposed to ten years ago. At least that's the way the public will see it, and Hudson should be sensitive to this and remove himself from public venue and wear sackcloth as his garment, not a suit and tie in Washington DC. His sin is compounded by the fact that he tried to hide this for so long. I know that Brian St. Paul, his senior editor, did not know about it, and I'm sure the rest of his staff didn't either. As a result, Hudson has put all their jobs at risk because of the bad name Crisis magazine will now have.

Question 26- How Do We Understand Rom. 3:25?

Hello,

Romans 3 vs. 25 mentions that God passes over our “former” sins during justification. I have never read any Catholic apologists drawing attention to this key word “former”. Am I missing something? This seems like a big blow to the “P” in TULIP.

Yours in Christ,

James DePrisco

R. Sungenis: James, I deal with Romans 3:25 in my book Not By Faith Alone on pages 67, 104, 106, 113, 238, 353, 404. The verse is talking about the sins of all mankind that God had to forbear before Christ came to atone for them. In other words, God's "righteousness" would normally demand that man be damned for their sins immediately, but God could forbear them because He anticipated Christ's coming. Once Christ came, however, there was no more "forbearance" of sin. Each man was now responsible to repent for his sins.

Question 27- How Would Order the Sequence of Events for the End of Time?

JMJ
Hi Robert,
In reply to some questions, you suggest that you feel the time of the end is near. Can I ask you what major events you feel must yet occur before the end? I understand from our Lady of Fatima that a period of peace is yet to be given before the end. So, from my understanding, a possible sequence might be as follows:

a) the continuing apostasy of our day even in the Church

b) a short but very terrible chastisement

c) the victory of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (the victory of the Church)

d) the period of peace

e) the great apostasy of which St. Paul speaks (universal since the Faith is now universal)

f) the reign of antichrist

g) the death of antichrist as Christ returns for the Last Judgment

Would you agree with this sequence? If not, what changes would you make?
God Bless,
Gerald DeNoble ocds

R. Sungenis: If the words of Fatima can be applied, then either the scenario you have listed above is correct, or, the "terrible chastisement" is actually the apostasy within the Church followed by and including the reign of Antichrist, and the "victory of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" and the "time of peace" is the eternal state itself.

Question 28- Does Isaiah 2 Promote Zionism?

Mr. Sungenis,
1. In Isaiah chapter 2, we read about "the last days." Isaiah says that during "the last days" God will judge the Gentiles from Jerusalem and rebuke many people. As a result, many people will repent, causing peace on the earth (v.4):

IS 2:2 And in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.

IS 2:3 And many people shall go, and say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall come forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

IS 2:4 And he shall judge the Gentiles, and rebuke many people: and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they be exercised any more to war.

IS 2:5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.
My question is, what period is Isaiah talking about? He cannot be talking about the second coming of Jesus, because when Jesus comes, he will not be giving anyone a second chance, such as the Gentiles get in this passage. Similarly, Isaiah cannot be talking about any time during or after Jesus' first coming, for, since Jesus, there has never been a period in history when there was lasting world peace (nations not being exercised to war "any more").
I can see how easily this passage could be used by Zionists, since it could very well be used to support the idea of a divinely inspired Jewish nation state ruling the world some time in the future. However, I am finding it difficult to reconcile Is 2 with Catholic dogma. Could you please show how to correctly interpret/understand "the last days" in Is 2? Thank you,

Damien

R. Sungenis: Damien, there is only one age that Scripture assigns to the phrase "last days" and that is to the New Testament period. (Jr 23:20; Ez 38:16; Hs 3:5; Ac 2:17; Hb 1:2; 1 Cor 10:6,11). The "last days" could thus refer to the "last" period of time at the end of Israel's Old Testament reign and transitioning into the New Testament period. Since this is the time clue that Isaiah 2:1 gives us, then we must use it.

Hence, the "nations will stream to it" refers to Pentecost when members from 15 different nations assembled to hear the Gospel proclaimed from Jerusalem. The "rendering of decisions for many peoples" already started to take place in the book of Acts as Peter, at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, issued the first major doctrinal decree for the whole world to follow. In fact, Acts 15:16-18 speaks of this as the "rebuilding of the tabernacle of David" prophesied in the Old Testament.

According to Apocalypse 12:5 and Psalm 2:9, Christ was to "rule all nations with a rod of iron," and he accomplishes that rule here on Earth through His vicars, the popes. This is what Jesus told to Peter in John 21:16 when he said "Shepherd my sheep." The word "shepherd" is the Greek poimanao, which is the same word used in Apoc 12:5 for "rule." In other words, Peter is to rule. This is precisely what happened in the Holy Roman Empire. The nations were subdued to a great extent by the Pax Romana stemming from the Holy Roman Empire. Never before in history has such a thing occurred, wherein the Church was the supreme ruler of the nations.

What curtailed this rule, however, was apostasy within the Church itself, which ended up later as the Protestant Reformation when control of the nations, to a large extent, was forfeited to the nations themselves.

Some get confused by the clause "they will never learn war any more," thinking that this means there will never again be war, but the original Hebrew is not so superlative. They will not be "learning" war but will be learning the way of peace, for that is what the Church teaches -- peace. The "learning" is the focus of the verse, not war. That is, as long as the vicars and their underlings keep faithful to God, the nations will be subdued.

When the vicars faulter, then the nations will have uprisings, which the Church saw many times in the Middle Ages and beyond. As such, the situation will never be perfect, which is why the New Jerusalem comes, and which is said to be for the "healing of the nations." (Cf., Apoc 21:24; 22:2).

Question 29- Is There Anything Wrong with Hindus and Buddhists Praying at Lourdes?

Bob:
Do you see a problem with this?

Link

R. Sungenis: Tom, let us show what the "this" is to which you are referring, and I will comment after it:

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
LOURDES, France (Reuters) - In an unexpected twist of globalization, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and other pilgrims regularly worship at famous Roman Catholic shrines to the Virgin Mary such as Lourdes in France and Fatima in Portugal.

They drink the holy water, light votive candles and pray fervently to the Madonna for help with life's hardships. Many venerate her like one of their own goddesses, a view that would be a heresy if a Catholic theologian tried to defend it.

Rather than being turned away, the newcomers are free to join the crowds from Ireland, Italy, Spain and other traditionally Catholic countries who flock to Europe's most popular shrines.

In Fatima, the warm welcome they have received has caused an uproar among traditionalist Catholics.

No one can say how many non-Catholics worship at shrines where the Virgin is said to have appeared, but they have become a familiar minority there over the past five to 10 years.

"There are lots of them," Bishop Jacques Perrier of Lourdes told Reuters during Pope John Paul II's visit to the southwestern French "miracle shrine" on August 14-15.

"Their numbers may be small as a percentage of the 6 million pilgrims here each year, but they're big in absolute terms."

The sight of some south Asian women in splendid saris mingling with the European pilgrims is the first hint that reverence for Mary has crossed religious borders.

Standing near the grotto where she was said to have appeared in 1858, two women wearing the Hindu red dot or "bindi" on their foreheads said they prayed daily to the Madonna.

"I come here for peace of mind and heart," said Buvaneswary Palani, a Hindu from southeastern India who now lives in southern France.

"Gods are the same everywhere," explained her mother Darmavady. "She is like our mother goddess Mariamman."

Catholics revere Mary and believe she can intervene with Jesus to help them, but they do not consider her divine.

Hindu or Buddhist pilgrims could be forgiven for thinking she is, though, when they see the faithful kneeling in silent prayer before her statue or admire the huge mosaic of her that looms over the altar at the Lourdes basilica.

The Virgin also resembles goddesses they venerated back home before moving to Europe.

Tamils in southeastern India and northern Sri Lanka worship a goddess Mariamman who protects villages and wards off disease.

Among the Buddhists of China, Vietnam and other Asian states, the "compassionate Savioress" Kwan Yin offers the maternal love that Catholics find in Mary.

Although Islam teaches there is no god but Allah, folk traditions in some Muslim societies have smuggled in a devotion for saints much like that seen in other religions.

The Koran contains a whole chapter on Mary, far more than the Gospels have on her. In it, Maryam (her Arabic name) is a virgin and Jesus a great prophet but neither is divine.

With its mass pilgrimages, devotion to a mother figure and belief in water with miracle healing powers, Lourdes combines elements familiar to followers of several other faiths.

"In a globalized age, it's normal that Lourdes attracts them," said Patrick Theillier, a physician who heads the Medical Bureau which examines every claim of miracle healing at Lourdes. The bureau has certified only 66 healings as genuine miracles.

FATIMA UNDER FIRE

Perrier saw no theological problem with pilgrims of other faiths worshiping at a shrine central to Roman Catholicism.

"There are no religious services at the grotto," the bishop explained. "They have great respect for Mary. They come to drink the water and touch the rocks. But they don't attend mass here. That would have no meaning for them."

But the line between hospitality to outsiders and blurring of religious borders is close, as Portugal's Fatima shrine to the Virgin has learned.

Traditionalist Catholics are up in arms against the shrine's directors for allegedly being so open to Hindu pilgrims that they let them perform religious rites there.

"They have sinned against God and given scandal to the faithful," thundered the U.S. monthly Catholic Family News. "They allowed Mary to be worshiped as God by pagan apostates."

Fatima's director, Father Luciano Guerro, issued a statement in late June denying that a Hindu pilgrim group led by its own priest had somehow defiled the shrine during a visit in May.

"The priest sang a prayer which lasted a few minutes," he said. "No gesture was made, no rite was performed, on or off the altar." Guerro also denied charges that a new church now being built there would be open to rites from all faiths.

VATICAN CONCERN

The blurring of religious borders that globalization has brought to Marian shrines has also touched the higher levels of Catholic theology, causing deep concern at the Vatican.

Father Jacques Dupuis, an 80-year-old Belgian Jesuit who spent 20 years in India, has broken new ground in recent years by arguing that God works through many faiths to save all believers.

This contradicts the Catholic position that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and even other Christian churches are imperfect paths to that goal.

Challenging that view earned the respected theologian a secretive three-year investigation by the Vatican's stern doctrinal chief, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The issue calmed in 2001 when Dupuis, under heavy Vatican pressure, issued a statement saying his writings had contained some doctrinal ambiguities. But he has not changed his view.

"The Holy Spirit is present in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions," he said in a lecture in February. "The diverse paths are conducive to salvation because they have been placed by God Himself."

R. Sungenis: The last line says it all. This is an absolute outrage. The Holy Spirit is NOT in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions; never has been; never will be. Every Father, every medieval, every pope, every council, every saint, every doctor has said just the opposite. Jacques Dupuis is an apostate. Unfortunately, we only have John Paul II to thank for initiating the kind of talk that Fr. Dupuis is propagating, since it was he who prayed with African witch doctors in their homeland, and who invited the Hindus and Buddhists to come to Assisi to pray to their false gods for the same thing the Hindus and Buddhists are now coming to Lourdes. Ultimately, the responsibility is with the pope both in initiating it and not stopping it. I would hate to be him and have to face God's judgment seat. His own papal oath says that he will be judged in the strictest manner by God.

Question 30- How Do We Understand Pope Leo's Comments about Interpretation and Science?

Hi Robert.

1. To prove Scripture did not intend to teach us about the nature of the universe, heliocentrists rebut by pointing out Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus where he stated:

...first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science…

In support of the geocentric view, I understand what Trent taught about the consensus of the Fathers, and that Leo XIII also taught that we must interpret the Scriptures literally, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. I might also argue that Leo XIII's statement is somewhat neutral, since heliocentrists cannot therefore use the Scriptures to prove their positions either. But what is the most effective way to respond to this argument?

2. Please clarify something for me on the Atonement. You have said that God could have chosen any number of ways to redeem us. You have also said that Christ's sacrifice was the only way God could have been propitiated. But isn't it true that God had to be propitiated in order to redeem us? If so, how could God have chosen another way to redeem us?

God bless.

John

R. Sungenis: John, to answer the first question, I'll give you the portion of the recent dialogue I had with Mr. Gary Hoge:

Mr. Hoge: But even better, Pope Leo XIII himself tells us how we should interpret those passages of Scripture that describe the physical universe. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of Providentissimus Deus, the Pope specifically discussed the relationship between Scripture and the physical sciences, and he specifically rejected Mr. Sungenis’ implicit claim that the authors of Scripture intended to teach us about the nature of the visible universe. The Pope wrote:

“We must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.”

R. Sungenis: Unfortunately for Mr. Hoge, <I>Providentissimus Deus</I> does not teach what he thinks it is teaching. The mere fact that the “angelic doctor” was an avowed geocentrist, which he based on a literal reading of Scripture; and who was a six-day creationist, which he based on a literal reading of Scripture, does not bode well for Mr. Hoge’s interpretation of Leo XIII’s words. In fact, Leo himself took Scripture very literally, stating in the encyclical <I>Arcanum Divinae Sapientae </I>that Adam was made from the dust of the earth and Eve was taken from his side, even in the face of Darwin’s evolutionary theory which was written some twenty years earlier and which the whole world was imbibing as the latest “scientific truth.”

In the section of <I>Providentissimus Deus</I> that Mr. Hoge has cited, Leo is here quoting from St. Augustine when he says:

“We must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (De Gen. ad litt., ii., 9, 20).

The operative words here are “essential nature.” For example, Scripture does not go into a dissertation about the chemical makeup of the sun, stars or the Earth. It has no reason to get into atoms and molecules and the other constituent parts and forces of nature. It just plainly and simply tells us what God did, on the macro scale, when He created the universe. The fact is, on that macro scale, Scripture is very clear that the Earth was created first and that the sun and stars were centered around it, not vice-versa.

Now, if someone were inclined to challenge this language, then what does Pope Leo advise? Well, prior to the above quote from St. Augustine, he quotes another passage from Augustine, which says:

“If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so" (De Gen. ad litt., i., 21, 41).

So we are back to square one. According to Pope Leo, unless Mr. Hoge can prove that the earth goes around the sun, then he CANNOT interpret the language of Genesis 1 to say otherwise. Mr. Hoge has no proof. In fact, all he has are testimonies from modern science which itself, ironically, admits it has no proof.

And just to be on the safe side, you will notice that Pope Leo makes no specific reference to the issues of heliocentrism or geocentrism. His language is very general. And with him, any exegete worth his salt will admit that Moses did not write a scientific textbook about the “essential nature of the visible universe.” Rather, he painted with very big strokes, and that’s all that we would expect of him. But that gives no one the right to say that those “big strokes” don’t mean what they say they mean. It only means that we have to be very careful when we start interpreting with “little strokes” what the writers only put in “big strokes.”

In fact, one of the most audacious attempts at ignoring Pope Leo’s words occurs when theistic evolutionists try to read all kinds of “little strokes” into the “big strokes” of Genesis 1, claiming that they see the Big Bang in Genesis 1:1-3, and see evolutionary progression of species in the word “kinds” of Genesis 1:20-24, and many other such eisegetical attempts at interpreting Genesis 1. Geocentrists take Genesis 1 at face value, just like Augustine and Aquinas did. Augustine and Aquinas were both geocentrists, even in the face of many of the Greeks and Muslims who were touting heliocentrism as the correct view. At the least then, Mr. Hoge’s appeal to Augustine and Aquinas via Pope Leo is counterproductive to his whole argument.

Mr. Hoge: The Pope also wrote, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines.” When Mr. Sungenis tries to use the Bible as an astronomy textbook, he is not keeping “within his own lines” as a theologian, but has crossed over into the realm of the physicist and is using the Bible improperly. Scripture does not intend to teach us about astronomy, orbital mechanics, zoology, or the other physical sciences. Therefore, when Mr. Sungenis defends geocentrism by saying, “I also have on my side the testimony of Scripture,”10 he’s wrong. Scripture neither teaches geocentrism, nor teaches against it. Scripture simply wasn’t written to answer that kind of question. As Cardinal Baronius famously observed, the Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

R. Sungenis: Here we have the word of God that, instead of opening itself up with a grand description of God and all his wonderful attributes; instead of giving us a description of how to get to heaven and all its wonderment, gives us a detailed description of the creation of the earth and all the things that adorn it. In fact, except for a few lines in Genesis 3:15, the Bible doesn’t mention the topic of “how to get to heaven” until we perhaps get to the prophets, and even then it is somewhat obscure and lacking detail, until we come to the New Testament. Perhaps Mr. Hoge runs his life by listening to rhyming cliches from Cardinals, but I don’t. When Scripture opens its pages with a detailed description of the Earth and its adornment, not about "how to get to heaven," there is a reason for it. It is saying, “pay attention: these issues about the Earth and its placement in the universe are important.”

The Fathers of the Church, and the Medievals, at least up until Darwin and Einstein, saw the cosmological description in the opening pages of Genesis as very important. And why would it be important? Because if the Earth is indeed in the center of the cosmos (as astronomy is just now beginning to discover and astrophysicists have already admitted, and which are fully documented in my new book), then it means that a Creator had to place it there; that we ARE indeed special to God, and not just some speck of dust whirling around in a vast and dark universe by mere chance. Here is another excerpt from my book concerning the famous astronomer <B>Edwin Hubble’s</B> discovery that Earth was the center of the cosmos:

After Einstein, men began to look deeper and deeper into the starry cosmos. Evidence that, indeed, Earth was in the center of the universe was discovered by one of the world’s most famous astronomers, Edwin Hubble, the man after whom the Hubble Space Telescope is named. So shocked was Hubble when he examined the redshift of starlight that the only thing he could offer to refute and Earth-centered cosmos was to say:

"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome....the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs....such a favored position is intolerable" (<I>The Observational Approach to Cosmology</I>, pp. 50-55).

Mr. Hoge insists that the Bible has no interest in giving us any specific description of the cosmos, yet Scripture says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament his handiwork.” In fact, as we see above from <B>Edwin Hubble</B>, the mere thought that the Earth was the center of the universe made him shake in his boots. It is “intolerable” to him. Why? Because Hubble was a thinking man just like you and me. He realized that if Earth was in the center, then there is a God, and Hubble was responsible to Him, and there was no escape. Perhaps that is why Scripture continually tells us hundreds of times that the sun moves; that the moon moves; that the planets move; but it never tells us that the Earth moves (not once), yet Mr. Hoge stubbornly insists that none of that language is trying to tell us anything special. If Mr. Hoge would only listen to Scripture instead of trying to dismiss it, he would see that the description of the cosmos is one of the most salient features of biblical revelation given to us so that men will recognize that there is indeed a God and a heaven. When men think that the earth is just some speck of dust whirling around, by chance, in a vast and dark universe, they have every reason to deny God’s existence and not give a hoot about heaven, and that is exactly what Hawking, Sagan and Gould say is their primary motivation for their agnosticism or atheism. If Earth is in the center, then they have no escape, since common sense tells them it could not be there unless a God put it there. How’s that for “telling us how to go to heaven” Mr. Hoge? Open your eyes and stop following the blind leaders of the blind.

Question 31- : Who Are you Going to Vote For?

Mr. S,
Will you state who you will vote in this coming presidential election either in a response to me or on your web site. Would appreciate it.
LAS

R. Sungenis: Dear LAS, I won't be voting for either John Kerry or George Bush. I make it a practice not to vote for Skull and Bones society members who, as one of their initiatory rites, desecrate a picture of the pope. Unfortunately, those who are capable of running the country are those smart enough not to get into politics. If I do anything, I'll make a write in vote for Jeb Bush, who appears to be a true and practicing Catholic, or perhaps Alan Keys.

Question 32- Trent, Vatican 2 and the Vulgar Tongue

Can we find anywhere in the Vatican 2 documents any claim that the vulgar tongue may be used exclusively? It seems that the Church has denied use of the Latin except in rare cases and not at all until Pope John Paul II allowed it to return under an Indult Mass, but if Trent is correct, and IF Vat. 2 did NOT determine that only the vulgar tongue may be used, did Pope Paul VI allow this when the Novus Ordo Mass was constructed under his eyes?

Question 2: so many of my traditionalist friends tout the Council of Trent to be THE Council to end all Councils; so can we apply that found at the Council to be applied today?

peace

anne

R. Sungenis: Anne, there is no place in Vatican II where either Latin was disapproved or the vulgar tongue exclusively approved. This is another instance in which the liberal interpretation of Vatican II has far outstripped the actual teaching of Vatican II. As for Trent, we covered this in our July QA, I believe. As Pope, Paul VI had the right to put the Mass in the vernacular, but the question is not whether he had the authority, but whether it was a wise decision. As I stated in one of our earlier QA's, I believe a proper mixture of the vernacular and Latin is appropriate. The Latin should be used for the most important parts, the vernacular for the less important.

As for the Council of Trent, it was indeed the Church's greatest dogmatic council, since it covered so much theological territory, and tied up a lot of loose ends that had been dangling since the Council of Nicea. As an infallible dogmatic council, its teachings will never change and they are still applicable to today. Anyone who transgresses them will have the anathema of the Council applied to them. Any present council (e.g., Vatican II) must be interpreted in light of the Council of Trent (and all our councils and papal declarations).

Question 33- Aquinas on Actual Faith and Baptism

Dear Mr. Sungenis,
I'm not sure that I understand your reason for why Catholics should not inquire into such issues, unless you think it merely a matter of prudence (not one of discipline).

However, I looked up the passage in Denzinger from Pius IX and I think it says something considerably different from what I have understood you to say.
# 1646 [discusses the error of Catholics "who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ.]
#1647
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [I John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is
"one God, on faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

It appears to me that Pius IX is saying we should not inquire further into what constitutes "invincible ignorance." This would seem to be a wholly sensible recommendation considering "the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and so many other things." However, it is not the same as asking whether an invincibly ignorant person must, nevertheless, have actual faith in order to be saved. Pius IX comments that God will not hold it against the invincibly ignorant that they have failed to join the Catholic Church. However, that is merely to say that they will not be punished in Hell for their failure to join the Church, not that they will achieve the beatific vision. As Innoncent III wrote, "The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell" (Denzinger # 410). Thus, the invincibly ignorant (who have followed God's law to the extent they knew it) do not deserve the torments of everlasting hell, but that is not to say that they will achieve the beatific vision, unless, as St. Thomas wrote, they come to actual faith in the true God before death and (presumably) therefore have an actual desire for baptism. Having read the comments by Pius IX, I do not see how he is forbidding the sort of inquiry St. Thomas engaged in and Dominus Iesus recommended. If anything, it is the universalists that seem to fall into the trap of trying to evaluate who is invincibly ignorant. To the best of my knowledge, St. Thomas never actually comments on the likelihood that someone is or is not invincibly ignorant.

Sincerely,
Josh Skinner

R. Sungenis: Josh, you must understand that all of what you write above is merely your pious opinion. Until if and when the Church settles the issue by dogmatizing what you wrote above or by rejecting what you wrote above, we don't have an answer to the question, either of what constitutes an invincibly ignorant person, or whether an invincibly ignorant person can enjoy the beatific vision. Pius IX's statement, in my opinion, addresses both questions, and to both, I believe he is teaching there is no further inquiry, at least until the Church herself addresses these issues.

Question 34- Did Gregory the Great Advocate a Future Mass Conversion of Jews?

Mr. Sungenis,

Gregory the Great wrote the following in his exposition of Job:

X. 20. After the loss of Job's possessions, after all his bereavements, after all the suffering of his wounds, after all his angry debates, it is good that he is consoled by twofold repayment. In just this way does the holy church, while it is still in this world, receive twofold reward for the trials it sustains, when all the gentile nations have been brought into its midst, at the end of time, and the church converts even the hearts of the Jews to its cause. Thus it is written, "Until the fullness of nations enters and so all Israel is saved."

In this translation, we read "and so all Israel is saved." Since Gregory does not use the words "WILL be saved," he does not seem to be advocating a future mass conversion of the Jews. Instead, he seems to be spelling out HOW all Israel will be saved, that is, all Israel will be saved by having both Jew and Gentile believers. However, his use of "at the end of time" calls this to question. It seems as though he could have done without saying it. But the fact is that he did say it. Why does Gregory include the words "at the end of time"? Is he advocating a future mass conversion of the Jews "at the end of time"? Thank you,

Damien

R. Sungenis: Damien, yes, I believe that Gregory is advocating a conversion of the Jews at the end of time. Whether it is a "mass" conversion or not, he does not specify, and this is one of the problems with some of the early interpretations of Romans 11:25-26, that is, the Fathers shift back and forth between a small and large conversion, since Scripture is not definitive on either one, if any. I don't think the use of "is" by Gregory is significant, since the present tense could be understood as referring to the future. If, rather, he is referring to the present, then Gregory is following the understanding of Augustine and the remainder of the Church that God has already fulfilled his promise to the Jews, since He allowed them to become saved even in the New Testament period after their Old Testament reign was over. So together, Jews and Gentiles are being saved throughout the New Testament period, in fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies (Ezk 36-37; Jer 23; Is 44-49).

Question 35- Are the Crusades Against Isaiah 2:4?

Mr. Sungenis,

Thanks for the reply. I learned a lot from your email. I couldn't help but be reminded about the crusades however. These wars were promoted by the "house of God" in order to stop the spread of Islam. So, considering the crusades alone, couldn't we say that even in the Christian era, the nations are, in fact, taught to war? If the crusades demonstrate an instance where the house of God promotes war, then Isaiah's prophesy about the nations not being exercised to war "any more," cannot be dealing with the Christian era. Is there any way around this? Do you see the crusades being a problem with the interpretation you set forth? Thank you,

Damien

R. Sungenis: Damien, learning the art of war as a daily practice is quite different than using force to defend oneself when it is needed. You and I would defend our home by fighting or shooting an uninvited intruder, but we don't make a practice of fighting as a way of life.

Question 36- The Remnant article on Iraq

>>Yes, Saddam and his thugs were evil men who killed thousands of innocent people. But they posed no threat to the national security of the United States, or even their neighbors in the region. They were, as Gen. Zinni remarked, "contained." And they were not involved in 9/11, as the Bush administration finally confessed publicly several months ago. The U.S. war was unjust, and the Vatican said so… just as did Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X.<<

Mr. Sungenis, I'm not sure I quite agree with this paragraph in its entirety. First and foremost, whether or not Iraq actually or potentially posed a threat to the national security of the United States or their neighbors in the region is debatable. And whether or not Iraq was involved, directly or indirectly, in the 9/11 attacks is debatable, too. But what is not debatable is this: Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant that needed to be ousted.

We read in the scriptures, "You cannot stand by idly while your neighbor's life is at stake." Sometimes we need to place Christian principles and morals above national interests. This war clearly was a case of morality over national interests. Was it morally permissible for the United States, the sole global superpower, to stand by idly and watch Mr. Hussein ruthlessly murder his own people? If anything, I criticize the United States for not having acted *sooner* in liberating Iraq from such a tyrant.

It's easy for Americans to not -- put bluntly -- give a damn about people in other countries. We live in the best country in the world. We don't suffer from government oppression, we don't fear being shot for criticizing Bush, we don't fear many things the Iraqis had to fear under Saddam Hussein. We had the capability, the power, the will, AND the moral obligation to oust Hussein. And we did, thank God.

I find it interesting Mr. Cooper would cite the Vatican's opposition to the war. Erm, yes, well, this same Vatican sanctioned the gathering of pagans to pray to their false gods on Catholic grounds. Is Mr. Cooper an opportunist? Also, Mr. Sungenis, this same Vatican today vociferously opposes the death penalty... I do believe most, if not all, Traditionalists are staunchly pro-death penalty.

The U.S. war was just and morally permissible. I support this war, and support even more. I support the ousting of every tyrant, given that the benefits of such an ousting would outweigh the negative consequences. An example: China. China has an oppressive government, and tyrannical leaders. The ousting, however, of Chinese tyrants would be too costly, and too bloody. In Iraq, however, I do believe 800 or so American lives lost were worth it. And I believe American soldiers that have died in Iraq would roll in their graves if you were to tell them they died in vain.

This is what makes America so great. We are willing to shed our own blood to come to the aid of an oppressed people. Sure, you may argue that I'm not in the front-lines of battle, but neither are you living under the ruthless dictatorship of a tyrant. Place me on the front-lines of battle, and I'll place you under a dictatorship similar to that of Hussein's. I believe being in the former position is better and by far more honorable, Mr. Sungenis.

In spite of this disagreement, I still love your apologetics. Keep up the great work, and God bless.

-- Edgar Corral

R. Sungenis: Edgar, the issue with Iraq is certainly a difficult one. But I think it should be stated that Bush's motivation to attack Iraq was not for the purpose of freeing an oppressed people, that is, the Iraqi people. His primary motivation was in lessening the threat against Israel. In other words, Bush's motives were selfish, nationalistic motives, not altruistic. If Iraq was so closely situated near Israel, Bush and company wouldn't care enough to send troops. Bush has made it clear in his speeches that his primary motivation is "our national interest," that is, anything he deems as a threat to our global expansion. In other words, money is the primary motivation.

Freedom is a funny word. According to the Bush, any country that doesn't have Protestant democracy has not reached an adequate level of freedom. That is a false notion. Democracy is not freedom. Freedom occurs when people are protected from evil. Unfortunately, the "democracy" of the United States has allowed evil to proliferate, for democracy, in itself, never knows when to say NO. That is why we have abortion, homosexuality, drugs, divorce, pornography, political and corporate corruption, etc, at all-time highs. In short, the only thing democracy has done is given Americans the freedom to sin unrestrained, except, of course, where it infringes on "our national interest."

Question 37- Reconciling Luke-Acts

Mr. Sungenis,

How can we reconcile the accounts in Luke and Acts of Christ's ascension? Luke seems to place it on Easter Sunday whereas Acts places it 40 days after. I know that some Mss. do not contain the phrase "and was carried up to heaven" in Luke 24:51, and that if this is the genuine reading then there is no problem. But St. Jerome, or at least the Douay which is a translation of his vulgate has it. Any ideas?

JMJ,
Ben Douglass

R. Sungenis: First, Lk 24:50 is the beginning of a new paragraph in the Greek, since it is marked off by the conjunction "de," and thus it is a new event. The confusion occurs because some translations will begin the verse with "Then he led them out," implying that the events are coincident, but the verse actually says "He led them out." With the presence of "de" to set verse 50 off from verse 49, it actually means, "And after these things, he led them out." We don't have such a single word in English.

The Greek, for example, can use the two simple words "men...de" in a sentence to equal what we say in English by "On the one hand...on the other hand." Or the Greek will use "de" and "gar" to set off one sentence from another. The Greeks did so because they did not have the punctuation we have in English, so they often punctuated by their word choice.

As for the manuscript evidence, the only ones which omit reference to the Ascension are the original hand of Codex Aleph and Codex Beza, so the evidence that reference to the Ascension belongs in the verse is overwhelming, with even Papyrus 75 testifying to its presence.

Second, Luke's purpose in mentioning the Ascension is to set up the fuller description of the event in Acts. We could say that Luke is merely mentioning the Ascension in Luke 24 for good measure, since all the other gospels stop at the Resurrection. Luke know he will be giving the details beyond the Resurrection in Acts, so he decides to give a few lines of what initiates this sequence of events in Luke 24.

This is not to be unexpected, since the Ascension is not just an after-thought, but an integral part of the exaltation of Christ (cf., Dan 7:14; Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; Ac 2:33-34; Hb 1:13; 6:19-20; 9:24; Rm 8:34; Ep 2:6; , and this is why it is so prominent in Catholic theology (as opposed to Protestantism).

Question 38- Why Isn't There a Continual Breeze if the Earth is Rotating, Part 2?

Thanks Robert for your reply.
I still don't understand why there isn't a continuous breeze at ground level where I can feel it, IF the planet is spinning on
it's axis at over 1,000 mph.
Best,
Donald

R. Sungenis: Donald, there wouldn't be a continual 1,000 mph breeze with a rotating earth for the same reason that if you spin a bucket with water, although initially the bucket will outpace the water, eventually the water will catch up to the bucket and both will spin at the same speed. The same thing is true with the atmosphere of the earth. Although it would be true that when the earth first started spinning the atmosphere lagged behind, eventually, by the force of gravity, the atmosphere would catch up and both would spin in unison. This is due to the principle of inertia, which applies to gases like our atmosphere as it does to solids. Actually, our atmosphere is relatively heavy, since at sea level there is 15 pounds per square inch of pressure. That's like having a 15 pound ball on the surface of the earth. What will the ball do if the earth rotates? Although it may roll backward a little when the earth begins its rotation, eventually the ball will be in synch with the earth.

We must also remember that, in the geocentric system, it is the force associated with the mass and rotation of the stars around the earth that is the same as, and replaces, the forces associated with the rotation and mass of the earth in the heliocentric system. The two systems would be precisely equal. Thus, whatever holds the atmosphere to the earth in the heliocentric system, will have an equal and opposite force holding it to earth in the geocentric system.

Robert Sungenis

Question 39- Why Doesn't the DR or Vulgate translate the Urim and Thummim Correctly?

Mr. Sungenis,
I was reading Lev. 8:8 in the Douay version (which I have enjoyed reading)
and the words used are Doctrine and Truth where in other versions the words
are Urim and Thummim. The Douay is an exact translation of the latin words
as I looked at the latin. How has it come to be Urim and Thummim (sacred
lots used for casting). Urim and Thummim seems to fit the passage better in
that they are physical items to be be placed in something. What say you?
Thank you.
LS

R. Sungenis: The words Urim and Thummim are exact transliterations of the original Hebrew words. In other words, the Hebrew is pronounced "urim" and "thummim." The Latin Vulgate does not transliterate them. The Latin of Leviticus 8:8 is "quod adstringens cingulo aptavit rationali in quo erat doctrina et veritas." As to the reason why Jerome chose to say "doctrine and truth" rather than Urim and Thummim, I don't know. Perhaps he wanted to show that the Urim and Thummim were the source of divine revelation. The other uses of Urim and Thummim that Jerome does not translate as a proper noun are Ex 28:30 ("doctrine and truth"); Nm 27:21 (here Jerome doesn't even translate the Hebrew); Dt 33:8 "perfection and doctrine"); 1Sm 28:6 ("priests"); Ez 2:63 ("learned and perfect"); Nh 7:65 ("learned and skillful"); Sr 33:3; 45:10 ("ephod"). It appears that Jerome simply considered the Hebrew words nouns or adjectives rather than proper nouns. I think he was wrong, but no one ever said Jerome had a perfect translation.

Question 40- Did the Lutherans Take Catholic Communion?

Hi, Robert: I found the following on SeattleCatholic.com It seems that we are 'dialoguing' again! You can read the whole report at the following url BUT what concerns me is the celebration daily of the Eucharist, alternating between Lutheran and Roman rites. Does that mean that Lutherans attending the Eucharist when celebrated via the Roman rites were allowed to receive our Lord? O God, I pray not!

Robert, I am soon to be 71 years old.....I am so tired of the scandal, heresies, etc. in the modern neo-catholic church. It breaks my heart! have you read the latest edition of THE REMNANT which I received today? After reading about Somerville and his ongoing defense against his suspension, about the newest wrinkles in the Catholic-Jewish dialogue and the article on the Worst pontificate in History, I cry. I know you have said the N.O. Mass is valid or we would have to say that the gates of hell have prevailed........BUT it seems that if one continues to attend such they will eventually become like them.

take care, Robert......let us continue to pray for another.

peace

anne ward

http://www.lutheranworld.org/News/LWI/EN/1495.EN.html

30.08.2004 Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity Meets in Baltimore, USA Discussion on Apostolicity of the Church, New Testament Foundations

Discussions focused on the "Apostolicity of the Church - New Testament Foundations;" the Apostolic Gospel and the Apostolicity of the Church;" "Apostolic Succession and the Ordained Ministry," and "Church Teaching which Remains in the Truth."

The conclusion of the work is expected in 2005, and the report is scheduled for publication in 2006.

During the meeting, the Eucharist was celebrated each day, alternating between Roman Catholic and Lutheran rite.

R. Sungenis: Anne, I don't think this means that the Lutherans received the Catholic Eucharist, rather, the Lutherans had Lutheran communion and the Catholic had the Catholic Eucharist. Even the ecumenical Church of John Paul II isn't ready for a sharing of each other's communion.

As for "the gates of hell will not prevail," the operative word here is "prevail" as in totally take over; as in totally destroy the Church. That hasn't happened, and if Christ is true to His word, as He certainly is, then it will never happen.

But that doesn't mean the Church cannot be infiltrated by the gates of hell, and to a very large degree, so much so that we begin to ask questions as you asked above.

Imagine what it was like in the 1300s and beyond when three "popes" were reigning at the same time, and the only reason one pope succumbed to another pope was when the army of the former pope was bigger than the army of the latter pope and thus ran him out of town!

Imagine what it was like when, at the same period of history, the Black Death was wiping out over a third of the population of Europe, and people understood this as a judgment from God for their sins.

Imagine what it was like when Pope Alexander, around this same time, lived with concubines and had ten illegitimate children, some of whom he gave red hats! I'm sure the people of those days wondered whether the gates of hell had prevailed.

But those days passed, and the Church reformed, at least well enough to await the next scandal that would rock her very foundations. We are living in one of those "rocky" times right now. But in a few years, this too will pass. And if Christ should tarry, then the Church will reform, and I expect it will be under the auspices of a pope who finally obeys God and consecrates Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart and brings us back to our Catholic traditions and posterity.

You can rest assured that it will not happen under this pontificate, and may not occur even under the next, but sooner or later, it will happen. By that time, of course, you will be in heaven praying for me! God be with you.

Question 41- Does the KJV quote the Deuterocanonical books?

Hi, Robert,

Years ago, I asked you whether I should write an article to prove that the Protestant rejection of the deuterocanon was logically inconsistent. You replied that wouldn't be a good idea.

Well, maybe you're right. But something surprised me just now when I visited the "King James Version" page at http://www.CatholicApologetics.net. That site includes scanned the images of passages from the KJV's 1625 edition. Beside each New Testament passage that quotes a deuterocanonical book, you'll see marginalia showing the chapter and verse numbers of the deuterocanonical
passages.

If the images and the marginalia are genuine, KJV-onlyists have a problem. KJV-onlyists deny that the deuterocanon is canonical. But since some deuterocanonical passages appear in at least one edition of the KJV, the KJV-onlyists need to admit that some deuterocanonical passages are canonical, or that some editions of the KJV contain some errors. But what KJV-onlyist would do that? The KJV-onlyists contradict themselves, if they say that although no part of the deuterocanon is canonical, some parts of the deuterocanon are canonical.

Maybe my idea about an article wasn't so bad after all.

Pax Christi,
Bill

R. Sungenis: Bill, I don't remember discussing this issue with you. Perhaps my memory is failing me. In any case, let me make a few comments. First, the NT does not "quote" the deuterocanonical books. The closest thing to a "quote" are passage in the NT that seem to make some allusion or knowledge of a deuterocanonical incident. If the NT had ever actually quoted from a deuterocanonical book, the debate about the canonicity of the deuteros would have been over a long time ago.

As for the issue of the 1625 edition of the King James Bible containing the deuteros, that has been known for some time, but I don't know what "CatholicApologetics.net" is trying to make of it. The fact that the deuteros were only in one version of the KJV and deleted from the dozens of other revisions proves that the King James revisionists did their best to excise those books from the King James, and they were successful. Moreover, what was done 400 years ago had little relevance to what King James users believe today, or must defend. These facts, in any case, have little to do with the "King James Only" debate, which concerns whether Protetestants should use the King James or a more modern version for their personal study.

Question 42- Did God Require Christ to Suffer?

Robert, please clarify something for me on the Atonement. You have said that God could have chosen any number of ways to redeem us. You have also said that Christ's sacrifice was the only way God could have been propitiated. But isn't it true that God had to be propitiated in order to redeem us? If so, how could God have chosen another way to redeem us?

John

R. Sungenis: John, I don't know where you are getting the information that I said "God could have chosen any number of ways to redeem us." I have said precisely the opposite. This information is in our QA board. I have said that the "nominalists" claimed that God could have chosen any number of ways to redeem us, including using a donkey.

John: Ah, Robert, I stand corrected. I misread what you wrote (which is obviously why I could not reconcile the nominalist statement with the fact that God had to be propitiated in order to redeem us). We both agree.

An EWTN theologian, addressing the same question and our conclusions, wrote the following to me:

Actually, that is only one theory of the why of the redemption and not even the only historically Catholic one. Theologians have been in general agreement that God could have chosen another way, but freely choose this wisest and most fitting (according to His nature, Love, and our need) – and say this to avoid seeming to constrain either the omnipotence or freedom of God. In the same way we say a virtuous person acts so and so because the habit of virtue inclines him to it, but yet freely. In a similar way we can say this was the wisest, and best, and most fitting, but yet freely chosen.

I disagree with this conclusion because the omnipotence and immutability of God is not at all harmed by the fact that God could only be propitiated by Christ's sacrifice. It is God's very nature to be offended by sin, which angers Him and requires Him to be appeased. Omnipotence and immutability regard God's nature, not any restriction on His freedom. This theologian also does not cite any authority for his conclusions.

Query whether Christ could have suffered "less" but still have propitiated God? I invite your comments.

John

R. Sungenis: John, I agree with you. There is no infringement on God's freedom. EWTN's answer is precisely what the nominalists were saying. The fact remains that anything other than a propitiation would be akin to a lie, since obviously a non-propitiation would not have satisfied God's honor nor appease His wrath, which is what Scripture posits as God's sole motivation.

As for whether Christ could have suffered less, we must remember that the main suffering of Christ was death. There is nothing less than death as a propitiation, since one could easily recover from wounds if that is all they were to receive.

This reminds me to alert people to the fact that Anne Catherine Emmerich's writings of the passion are highly exaggerated accounts of which there is very little, if any, precedence. The Gospels are virtually silent on the details of the physical sufferings of Christ. Emmerich, or her translator, has been known to not only embellish biblical accounts, but to posit events that actually contradict Scripture (e.g., claiming that there were more people on Noah's ark than the eight that the Bible testifies to, three times).

Question 43- "Back the Attack" CAI Ad

I am a Jewish man who likes to keep up on other faiths, in
particular the activities of the RCC. I stumbled upon your
WWW site and "Back the Attack" ad. Are you serious about
using a military theme? Especially in light of the struggles
going on in Iraq, and now Russia? Is your faith something
you must kill for? The inquisition not withstanding. Are
you becoming muslim in your campaigns?

Phil

R. Sungenis: Come on, Phil, get a grip. It is precisely because of interpretations like yours that the world is in the situation it is. You keep looking at the worldly scene. We are looking at the spiritual, where the real battle is going on. In our New Testament it states in Ephesians 6:

12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.
13 Therefore, take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day and to stand in all things perfect.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth and having on the breastplate of justice:
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
16 In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one.
17 And take unto you the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God).

Question 44- "Back the Attack" CAI Ad Part 2

Thanks for the reply. I'll share it with my Catholic
friends and get their take on it. I have held to the
believe that it is not by might, nor power that we overcome
evil. I am not familiar with the Christian scriptures, but
if others interpret them the way you do, that would explain
many deaths of those who do not follow in your faith. Scenes
of troops dropping in with guns, in the name of religion, is
offensive.

I defend your right to your faith. Don't kill me, or my
family, because of mine.

Phil

R. Sungenis: Phil, we surely won't "kill" you or or family, since our battle is spiritual. The people that want to kill you are the Muslims, and they want to kill us, too. That's because their false religion says that God will reward them for doing so. By the same token, however, our mission is to persuade people to forsake their false religions, and, sorry to say, that includes Judaism. For if it is true, that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and salvation, and it is the devil with whom we are in mortal combat who tries to persuade people otherwise, then we would be doing a disservice to you if we did not tell you. God be with you.

Robert

Question 45- "Back the Attack" CAI Ad Part 3

I just reread your scriptures and am even more confused.

You wrote:

12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but
against principalities and powers, against the rulers