Q&A's October 2004

Question 1 - Does the Catholic Church Believe in a Substitutionary Atonement?

Question 2 - Is homosexuality a chemical imbalance?

Question 3 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part V?

Question 4 - Adam was duped?

Question 5 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VI?

Question 6 - How Should We Understand Transubstantiation?

Question 7 - Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar Series

Question 8 - What Makes the Sun Revolve?

Question 9 - Predestination

Question 10 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VII?

Question 11 - SSPX and the scapular

Question 12 - What if Siri ruled as Pope?

Question 13 - Ott's Fundamentals & Evolution

Question 14 - Book on Geocentrism

Question 15 - Follow-up question on "for many" vs. "for all"

Question 16 - The Use of "Many" or "All"

Question 17 - John 3:16 versus Appeasement

Question 18 - The CASB and Chilton's Commentary on the Apocalypse

Question 19 - Canonization and JPII PontMax?

Question 20 - Traditionalists versus Jim Gorham

Question 21 - Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Question 22 - Dummying Down the Douay?

Question 23 - IRegarding Fatima.....what is this?

Question 24 - Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass, Part II?

Question 25 - Hahn on Ham and Maternal Incest

Question 26 - Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay?

Question 27 - How Does the Just War Doctrine Apply to Nuclear War?

Question 28 - Dave Hunt Debate and the CASB, Vol. 2

Question 29 - Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay, Part II?

Question 30 - Would You Recommend Scott Hahn's Tape Series on Romans?

Question 31 - Pope's Right to Forbid the Latin Mass; SSPX actually not in schism, Part II?

Question 32 - Jesus, Peter and the Keys; Scott Hahn's Tapes; the Substituionary Atonement

Question 33 - What Made You Convert to the Catholic Church Considering its Problems?

Question 34 - Justification, Part VIII

Question 35 - Justification, Part IX

Question 36 - Justification, Part X

Question 37 - Questions on the Hoge/Sungenis debate

Question 38 - Justification, Part XI

Question 39 - Justification, Part XII

Question 40 - Karl Keating

Question 41 - Justification, Part XIII

Question 42 - Geocentrism According to the Fathers

Question 43 - Interpretation of 'nakedness of your father' in Gen. 9:22

Question 44 - Pre-Resurrection Baptisms

Question 45 - Can Catholics Vote for Bush?

Question 46 - Jim McCarthy and the "Catholicism In Crisis" Video

Question 47 - Is it infallible when a pope declares someone a saint?

Question 48 - Rosary at Mass and Youth 2000

Question 49 - Sola Eclesia and James White

Question 50 - Ronald Knox's translation of the Scripture

Question 51 - Voting for a Mason?

Question 52 - Eric Svendsen and Who is my mother?

Question 53 - What is the Difference btw Baptism of Desire and Universal Salvation?

Question 54 - Alpha Course

Question 55 - Douay Rheims Updated

Question 56 - Pre-Resurrection Baptisms, Part 2

Question 57 - The Devil and the NAB

Question 58 - Mane Nobiscum Domine

Question 59 - A Question Concerning the Center of Mass Argument

Question 60 - Was Alexander VII's Decree Against Copernicus Infallible?

Question 61 - Voting for a Mason? Pt 2

Question 62 - Voting for a Mason? Pt 3

Question 63 - Voting for a Mason? Pt 4

Question 64 - Books on Creationism vs Evolution?

Question 65 - Words of Consecration

Question 66 - What if Abraham and Mary had not said Yes?

Question 67 - Truth about Homosexuality Section

Question 68 - Which Early Church Fathers Volumes Should We Have?

Question 69 - Assisting Conversion

Question 70 - Father Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate

Question 71 - Gary Hoge on Geocentrism

Question 72 - Justifying the Ungodly?

Question 73 - All Have Sinned?

Question 74 - Acts 2:38

Question 75 - John Paul II: What's a Catholic to do?

Question 76 - Douay Confraternity Version

Question 78 - CD & CASB

Question 79 - The Lord's Anointed

Question 80 - Does Pius XII's 1951 Speech Support the Big Bang?

Question 81 - Thank You For Your Work

Question 1- Does the Catholic Church Believe in a Substitutionary Atonement?

Dear CAI,
Art Sippo says in one of his articles:

Please understand that substitutionary atonement is a Catholic doctrine. We do not deny substitution.

Is this true? Is substitutionary atonement Catholic? And if so what extent does the Church believe this.

Thanks

Tim

R. Sungenis: Sippo should know better. There is no place that Catholic dogma supports a "substitionary atonement." In fact, it repudiates the idea, since it stems from Luther's and Calvin's understanding of the atonement. If Sippo thinks otherwise, then it is incumbent on him to show us where in Catholic dogma it is so stated. Until then, please consult my book Not By Bread Alone, Appendices 5 and 2.

Top

Question 2- Is homosexuality a chemical imbalance?

Mr. Sungenis,

What would you say to someone who claimed that homosexuality is the result of a chemical imbalance, much like bi-polarity or depression? Do you buy that argument? Thanks,

Damien

R. Sungenis: If I did buy that argument I would buy it as much as I buy the argument that a man's desire for his neighbor's wife was caused by a "chemical imbalance," and his actual fornication with her is also caused by the same imbalance. Certainly it can be argued that we are a combination of soul and body, and that our body sometimes has "imbalances." But whatever these "imbalances" produce in our bodies, we are guaranteed by God that we have the conscience, free will, and power of His grace to overcome any sinful tendencies these "imbalances" may produce. He guarantees this so much that He will hold us responsible for every single decision we make with our free will in the face of any "imbalances" we may have.

Top

Question 3- Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part V?

Todd: I agree that work can be viewed in two different ways. Works being the fruit of a righteousness already given--namely Christ, and works done to obtain self-righteousness (Romans 10:3). The pool analogy has a few flaws, namely we bring the love and honor to the table first, then we are rewarded with the gift. The gospel, however, gives us the gift first, and then we bring the love and honor to the table out of gratitude in fact, grace itself means unmerited favor. you cannot merit it in a personal or legal relationship. But this all a sidetrack.

R. Sungenis: No, it's not "sidetrack" at all. It is the very analogy St. Paul uses in Romans 4:3-4, the issue of debt versus grace. It is the principle paradigm in all his writings, and the sine qua non of St. Paul's whole theology. The Jews were doing "works of the law" (Rom 3:28) and they were trying to put God in "debt" to pay them with salvation (Rom 4:3-4).

As for "flaws" in the pool analogy, the only flaw is that you are mixing up your presuppositions into the analogy. The gospel does not give us a "gift first." It comes to us OFFERING the gift of salvation. It is not given to us until we make the effort to restore our relationship to the Father by the means he has given us to do so -- his grace, not our debt. Once He offers it to you, then you accept His offer by trusting in Him that He is true to His word and then you start building the pool.

As for your statement "you cannot merit it in a personal or legal relationship," shows why you cannot understand the issues. Everyone knows that he who works gets paid. That abiding principle is precisely why St. Paul used the "debt versus grace" analogy in Romans 4. The pay is his legal "merit" for doing the work. You can call it whatever you wish (e.g., pay, merit, remuneration, wages, what is owed, what is deserved, etc) its all the same thing. A person is legally owed a compensation for the work done, regardless whether he or his employer have a good relationship or bad. The employer, whether he likes it or not, is legally bound to pay the worker. If not he will be put in jail.

Grace, however, is unmerited. It is not owed, it is not paid, it is not earned in any way. Grace is given simply from the benevolence of the giver. He is not obligated to give it to anyone. He only gives it because of his kindness, not because a law is telling him he is obligated to give. That being the case, before he gives his gift, he can determine whether the recipient really wants it and really cares about the giver. He does so by asking the recipient to have a personal relationship with him, by putting his trust in him and doing acts of love which show that the recipient is not merely seeking material reward but really wants to know the God behind the gift. This is precisely why God put Abraham through such excruciating tests before he finally gave him His blessings.

Todd: let me ask you this again: When Paul says we are justified by faith apart from works of the law is he including love, hope, obedience, and charity with faith? If he is, then how do you explain Romans 2 where Paul says it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who will be justified? Paul clearly places love, hope, obedience, and charity on the law side, so how can anything else be added to faith?

R. Sungenis: I already explained this, but I'll try again. "Works of the Law" in Romans 3:28 refers to any work done on a legal basis that demands pay for the work. If we come to God demanding pay for our work, for our love, for our obedience or for whatever, then God will turn us away because He simply owes nothing to no one. That is why St. Paul says in Romans 11:35: "Who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again?"

Hence, it all depends on the relationship we have with God that will determine how he views our works. If we have come to him in faith and repentance, acknowledging to Him that He owes us nothing for our work, then God, being the kind and benevolent God He is, will accept our humility. In turn, He will then reward us for our work from His grace, not because He owes us anything.

As for Romans 2:13, those who are "justified by the law" are those who, according to Romans 2:4, have already been given the "kindness, forbearance and patience" of God that "led them to repentance," and in verse 7 are those who "seek for glory and honor and immortality." In other words, their obedience to the law has already been placed in the category of God's grace because they had established the proper relationship with Him.

They are the opposite of the Jews described in 2:5 who are "stubborn and unrepentant" and in verse 8 are "selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth," who are constantly demanding pay from God for their works. Not only that, they don't even do the kinds of works that please God, since they are continually committing "stealing, adulterating and worshiping idols" (verse 21-24).

Top

Question 4- Adam was duped?

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Your article " "Do the Fathers Support Scott Hahn's "Dragon" Theory?" (published in "The Remnant" Sept 30th 04) was very well written. I am not a biblical scholar, but you said in that article "The simple fact is that Adam was duped into thinking that he could be as great as or greater then God." But in 1Tim 2,14 It says "And Adam was not seduced." It has always been my understanding that Adam was not seduced, meaning that he didn't believe that he would "be as gods" or as you say "as great as or greater then God." But Adam ate of the fruit simply to please his wife Eve. This is what it says in an old catechism book I happen to have. (Religion: Doctrine and Practice. Cassilly - Loyola University Press 1942 Imprimi Potest: Charles H. Cloud S.J. Provincial of the Chicago Province. Imprimatur: George Cardinal Mundelein Archbishop of Chicago April 10 1934) Page 383 "Adam was not moved by hunger. Out of pride and a spirit of disobedience, and to please his wife, with black ingratitude he deliberately and willfully defied God and His just command, and despised His threats."

God Bless

Michael Koziolek

R. Sungenis: Michael, your suggestion certainly is possible (since the text isn't as clear as it could be). But... In my study, 1 Timothy 2:14 is not trying to say that Adam was never deceived (obviously, for whatever reason he ate the forbidden fruit, he was deceived into eating, even if he ate it only because he was trying to please Eve) but that he was not the first one deceived by the devil, but was deceived by his wife. Also, it would hard for me to imagine a scenario wherein Eve is convinced she can become a god by eating the fruit but then she somehow forgets to relay this earth shattering message to Adam.

The only other possibility I see is that Eve tricked Adam into eating the fruit by not telling him from where she got it or what the devil had told her about being a god if she ate it.

But I think Genesis 3:11 tells us that Adam knew that the fruit Eve offered him was from the forbidden tree and he decided to eat it for that very reason. I also think that it is implied that Eve told Adam to eat the fruit because that scenario is implied in Genesis 3:13 where she tells God that the devil deceived her into eating it. So it follows that Eve told Adam what the devil had told her about becoming a god, and thus Adam was deceived, in that sense. And I think this is very close to the source you have cited above.

Top

Question 5- Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VI?

Bob, you said work is work, and love is love. Are you telling me that Paul is referring to debt in Romans 3.28, but in Romans 2 "it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who will be justified" is referring to grace? if you believe that unmerited favor can be merited in a personal relationship, that is what you believe Paul to be saying; this isn't a theological debate per se, but a logical one. Paul clearly calls love, hope, obedience, and charity as a work (whether in grace or debt) so how do you define "faith" in Romans 3.28? this is now the third email, and i want you to tell me if love, hope, obedience, and charity is included with the word pistis in Romans 3.28. when you tell me that the word "faith" is a mental assent to trust in God, are you or are you not using that definition the way Paul did in Romans 3.28? That is a simple yes/no question.

Todd

R. Sungenis: Todd, in your previous email you asked me for an interpretation of Romans 2:13. I showed you how to interpret it by examining the context in which it is placed. That context says that those who were "obeying the law" in Romans 2:13 had already enjoyed God's grace in Romans 2:4 and had repented of their sin. That means that any work they do is coming after grace has been given to them, and therefore their works are in the category of grace, not debt.

Conversely, I sent you an email prior to that and stated that the "works of the law" in Romans 3:28 were not in the category of grace, due to the context in which that verse was placed. The context is telling us that the Jews were doing works under the law and seeking to put God into debt to pay them. Thus, there work were not under God's grace, but under the law, and thus they could not be used for justification.

Top

Question 6- How Should We Understand Transubstantiation?

Hi, Robert,

I've always thought that after the priest consecrated the host and the
wine, only their appearances remained. Although the consecrated host is
really Our Blessed Lord, the host looks feels, tastes, and smells like
bread. Replying to the man who wrote about "eating Jesus," you said
that we defecate only the accidents of the hosts. Can anybody defecate
something that's a mere appearance? I know that "accident" is another
word for "property." I just don't know whether an appearance differs
from an accident. Does it? And theologically, what's the difference
between, say, an appearance and an illusion?

Thanks.

God bless,
Bill

R. Sungenis: Bill, an illusion is something that looks like something else, whereas an appearance is a description or existence of something that is present. An appearance is real, where as an illusion is not real, but is a state of mind. Thus, the appearance of bread and wine is real. It is not something other than bread and wine which is appearing. What is missing is the "substance" of the bread and wine, which is the second component of its existence that we can't see.

We can compare this to a dead body. (Understand, this is only an analogy). It is a real body. It appears as a real body. But it is not what we understand as a human being any longer because the soul is absent. It is just a mass of flesh and bone. Analogously, we could say that the "substance" of the body has been removed, while the appearance of a body remains. That dead body will undergo all the normal physical effects that an animated human body would undergo.

Top

Question 7- Baptism before the the Cross

Robert, what is the opinion of the Church on the baptism Jesus and His disciples performed in John 3:22; 4:2? Was this an efficatious baptism, and were the folks who received this baptism regenerated at this time? Or put another way, was this baptism more like the baptism of John the Baptist, that is a baptism of repentance and not regeneration?

Thanks,
Mark

R. Sungenis: Yes, the baptism of Jesus performed by his disciples in John 4:2 was efficacious toward salvation, whereas the baptism of John was not. That Jesus' baptism was efficacious in John 4:2 is the very reason he told Nicodemus in John 3:5 that he had to be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven, and it is why the Council of Trent can use John 3:5 as proof of the necessity of Baptism, even though, technically speaking, Jesus said those things on the Old Testament side of the cross. The Church understands these moments in Jesus' ministry as transistion periods and as a precurrsor to what would take place formally and officially after He died. It is the same reason that Jesus could institute all the rest of our New Testament sacraments even though He was technically on the Old Testament side of the cross (e.g., Confession in John 20:23; Eucharist in Luke 22:22, etc).

Top

Question 8- What Makes the Sun Revolve?

Dear Robert, J.M.J.

How is CAI doing? Hope all is well. I finally finished the numerious tapes I bought from you a couple of months ago. I enjoyed every minute of it. Little by little I am starting to grasp (due to my own limited knowledge in science/physics) geocentrism. As I delve deeper and deeper into the subject, its starting to make sense to me. I understand that a revolving universe around the earth can produce the same effect as a rotating earth, i.e., satellites, hurricanes etc.

When you have time could you answer me one question which I am trying to clear in my own mind. If we are not rotating, what accounts for day and night. We are brought up with the notion that we spin on our axis every 24 hours and this is the reason we have day and night; at one point we are facing the sun (daylight) and one point we are not (darkness). How does that fit into the geocentrist model. Please forgive me if this is a stupid question. I am asking in a sincere desire to learn.

Take care and Our Lord bless you.

In the Sacred Hearts,
Phillip Bellini

R. Sungenis: Philip, as the universe rotates around the earth it carries the everything with it, including the stars and sun and the moon. In fact, the angular momentum of the universe is transferred to the heavenly bodies, thus making them revolve and rotate.

Top

Question 9- Predestination

Mr. Sungenis

I'm having a hard time figuring out the Churches position of the relationship between grace and freewill. From "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott. I get the impression that the Church teaches both that we are saved by efficatious grace alone by God and that we freely chose this???? How is this possible? Can you refer me to a comprehensive source on this paradox of faith?
Thank You
Peace in Christ
Luke

R. Sungenis: Luke, there is no source book that can clear up the apparent paradox. The Church tried it a few hundred years ago (between Suarez and Molina) but got nowhere except a lot of love loss between Christian brethren. Pius V said he was going to revisit the issue when he called a truce between the two factions, but he never did, and no pope since has addressed the issue. The closest the Church has come recently is its statement in Para 600 of the Catholic Catechism where it says that our "free response" is included in the "predestination" of God.

Top

Question 10- Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VII?

i understand that, bob. what i am asking for is how do you define pistis or faith in romans 3.28? when you define faith as a mental assent to trust in God are you or are you not using that in the same sense paul did in romans 3.28? it really is a simple question.

todd

R. Sungenis: I've already answered that faith is a mental assent to the truths God gives us; a trusting relationship with God wherein we accept all that He says about Himself, no matter how difficult. It is the same whether it is in Romans 3:28 or James 2 or Galatians 2 or anywhere else in Scripture.

In Romans 3:28, faith is contrasted with "works of the law," not works of grace. This is because the Jew was depending on his works, without true faith in God, to make him right with God. Thus, the directive in Romans 3:28 is that, of the two (that is, faith or "works of law") which one justifies? The answer is faith, since works, in themselves, seek to put God in debt. But then we learn elsewhere that it is not faith alone. It is faith with works of grace that justifies, as we find very easily in the case of Abraham. Faith puts one in the category of grace wherein his works can now be rewarded with salvation.

Top

Question 11- SSPX and the scapular

Dear Dr. Sungenis,

I have a question that in the whole eternal scheme of things may not be that important, however it has crossed my mind now and then. Last year I was frequenting an sspx chapel, and long story short I was invested with Our Lady's Brown scapular by the priest at the chapel, I felt that I could count on this priest to do the investment rite properly. Since that time I have ceased attending the sspx chapel, mostly under pressure from my wife, however after reading your statements concerning the sspx and their status with the Church I feel I must agree with you that we must submit to the pope's official document that Arbp. Lefevere and that those who adhere to the schism are excommunicated. This brings me to my question: do I have to go through the rite again and be reinvested with the scapular again by a priest that is in communion (or at least is regularized) with the local ordinary and Rome? I guess this is an important question to me because I have a very stong devotion to Our Lady and her scapular.
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
+JMJ+
James Holm

R. Sungenis: James, the answer is no. Since the SSPX priest are ordained, and since the Vatican has said that their office can dispense the sacraments, then must also be able to do the rites you describe above.

Top

Question 12- What if Siri ruled as Pope?

Sts. Cosmas and Damian, Martyrs

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Laudetur Iesus Christus! What do you think would have happened to the Catholic Church had Cardinal Giuseppe Siri ruled as Pope Gregory XVII? Would the Church have fulfilled the Blessed Virgin's requests at Fatima? Would the Third Secret of Fatima have been fully revealed by 1960? Would the Pope, in union with the Catholic Bishops of the world, have consecrated Russia, and specifically Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Would the Second Vatican Council not have been used to highjack the Church? Would there have been no Vatican-Moscow Agreement? Would the Immaculate Heart of Mary have triumphed under Siri's Pontificate?
I don't believe in the Siri Thesis but I highly admire and respect Cardinal Siri as an ardent foe of Communism like Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, Father Coughlin, Father Fahey, and Father Gruner.

Yours respectfully in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,

John

R. Sungenis: John, we can't involve ourselves in prognostication, but I would say that, most likely, all the you describe above would have occurred if Siri was elected pope in place of John XXIII. Siri was one of the most dedicated men of God this Church has had in a long time.

Top

Question 13- Ott's Fundamentals & Evolution

Robert

I am reviewing the section on creation in Ott's Fundamentals of Dogma. In chapter 2 #13 "The first man was created by God" it references the 4th Lateran and Vatican council: from Denzinger 1783 "immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation common as it were, composed of both spirit and body".

Ott goes on to say in the very next paragraph "as regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty". Also, "In fact, noteworthy, even if not absolutely decisive palaeotological and biological grounds seem to point to a genetic connection between the human body and the highest forms of the animal kingdom."

Now I would conclude that common genetic material would point to a common designer, creator and not necessarily a common ancestor and that the word "immediate" means "made at once".

Do I perceive a definite evolutionary bias in Ott.? In view of the teaching from Lateran IV and Vatican I how does Ott makes these conclusions? What is your view on the reliability of Ott?

Thanks
Walt

R. Sungenis: Walt, generally speaking, Ott is one of the best dogmaticians of the modern Church. He does have certain biases, however, and on occasion he does have very scant evidence for some of the conclusions he makes. For example, the issues of evolution, the future of Israel, the anger of God, are occasions where Ott makes personal interpretations rather than give us solid Catholic teaching or dogma. Ott lived in a day in which evolution was coming into vogue, and the contrary scientific evidence had not yet been discovered. Since then, we have found that evolution is nothing but a hoax. The fossil record is totally antithetical to the theory of evolution.

Top

Question 14- Book on Geocentrism

Dear Sir,

I was just reading your web site concerning geocentrism. I only found out about it from a book by Malcolm Bowden called "True Science Agrees with the Bible". I'm wondering if you have finished your book about the scientific evidences for it since I am curious about it.

Thank you for your time and your web site.
David

R. Sungenis: David, the book is about half way completed. I hope to have it published by late 2005, just in time for Einstein's 100th anniversary of anti-geocentrism. The title will be "Galileo Was Wrong."

Top

Question 15- Follow-up question on "for many" vs. "for all"

Hi Robert,

In reply to Paul who asked how "all" replacing "many" can be defended in the consecration, you replied that "unless the magisterium ever makes a declaration which says that the sacrifice of Calvary, represented in the words of consecration offering remission of sins, only applies to baptized members and is not offering the possibility of salvation to the whole world, then there is no recourse to condemn the usage of "all," except on practical grounds."

There is no dispute that the sacrifice of Calvary was offered to provide a possibility of salvation to all, but I think the point is that the Church has said previously that the words of consecration of the wine refers only to the fruits of the Passion, and hence the word "many" is used instead of "all." In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued by order of Pope St. Pius V, there is this statement:

"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."

By the way, I enjoy reading your articles and your books. God bless,

Richard

R. Sungenis: Richard, I see two problems with your suggestion. First, neither the Gospels nor Catholic dogma make a distinction between the "fruit" of the Eucharist and the other dimensions of it. Jesus clearly says, when he is speaking directly to the apostles, that the Eucharist was instituted for the "remission of sins." Matthew 26:28 says: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." We know that Jesus did not shed his blood only for a few select people. He shed it for all people. And there is nothing in the context that says the offer of "remission" is limited to the apostles and their followers. In fact, when the same word "remission" is used in other Gospel texts, it includes the offer of remission to all people (Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; 3:3-4; 24:47Ac 2:38; 10:43).

Granted, it is also true that only those who actually repent of their sins are the only ones who have the blood of Christ efficaciously applied to them, and it is also true that only those who have repented of their sins can partake of the Eucharist, but that is not the context of Matthew 26:28. That verse says the blood was "shed," but there is nothing said about to whom it is yet efficaciously applied. We know Christ's blood was "shed" for all people on the cross, and this fact is precisely what Jesus is applying to the Eucharist. Unless we want to become Jansenists of Calvinists, we are going to have to conclude that the Eucharist is offered to all people, and because of the grace that flows from the Eucharist, all people of the world benefit from the graces God gives to the Church through the Eucharist.

As for the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is not Catholic dogma. Only the Council of Trent itself is Catholic dogma. Thus, we can't base our decision of this issue on a Catechism, especially since the Catechism does not address the issue in very much detail. As for Catholic dogma, it has never made the distinction that the Tridentine catechism made. The mere fact that those who claim that "many" refers only to some people have to resort to a catechism but cannot find any support in Catholic dogma shows that their position is not proven.

Top

Question 16- The Use of "Many" or "All"

Dear Robert,

I am confused after your latest QandA regarding the words "for you and for all" in the Novus Ordo. As a Greek, Hebrew and Latin I assume you know how specious the argument of Joachim Jeremias was: Hebrew and Aramaic had no words for "all" so Jesus had to use "many". While I am sure you know this, do you not remember reading St. Thomas's (and the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Pius V in an apostolic letter) commentary on the words of institution? Paraphrased, all three say that our Lord used the word "many" purposefully, i.e., as He was speaking of the fruits of the redemption. I am not trying to make the argument that this necessarily invalidates the Novus Ordo. However, you are philosophically off base in comparing Scripture's interchangeable use of the words "all" and "many" thus. Just because one passage can interchange these words, without APPARENT CONSEQUENCE, does not imply that this can be done in another unrelated passage. Three authorities - St. Thomas, the Catechism of Trent and St. Pius V - all explain why our Lord used "many" instead of "all", and until or unless a Roman Pontiff or Council gives us some philosophical sound reasons for this change, it seems we can regard this as an erroneous translation at least. Forgive me if you have said as much elsewhere, however, I am commenting on your Q&A of the last few days.

R. Sungenis: Jonathan, neither Thomas Aquinas nor the Catechism of Trent are Catholic dogma. As for Pius V, he made no mention of the meaning of "many" or "all," so he cannot be counted as an authoritative source on this particular question. The highest authority we have at present on the issue is Paul VI, for he is the one who allowed the change, and he did so on a dogmatic basis. Therefore, our apologetic should be molded around that conclusion, which is what I have done. Until if and when another pope says that "all" cannot subsitute for "many," then I will continued to use the same apologetic. We are not the authorities in these theological areas, only the pope can be the authority. Since no pope has condemned the use of "all" for "many," then we must assume it is allowed.

Question 17- John 3:16 versus Appeasement

Dear Robert,

In your book Not by Bread Alone and other articles, you always seem to imply (from my perspective) that the atonement is primarily about appeasement. Yet surely the gospel passage John 3:16, should be the primary way of understanding the atonement?: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever should believe in Him, should not perish but have eternal life."

Didn't God allow His Son to be an offering for sin as He loved us so much and didn't want His people to people to perish in Hell. Isn't that what the atonement is about primarily, as John 3:16 seems to say? Isn't appeasement and God wanting to preserve his honour secondary? Or are they interlinked?

Thanks for your time,

Tim

R. Sungenis: Tim, John 3:16 is not a dissertation on the atonement, but merely one verse giving the motive of God for sending his Son. We have to go to other passages of the Old and New Testament to find out the nature of the atonement. The book of Hebrews is a good place to start, and then that leads to many other places. Once we have amassed all the passages that speak to the atonement, then we can make our conclusions. The conclusion is that the atonement is an appeasement of the wrath of God. Only then can the love of God be poured out to us, as John 3:16 implies.

Top

Question 18- The CASB and Chilton's Commentary on the Apocalypse

Dear Bob,

I think it [the CASB] is excellent. It fills such a void in true scripture scholarship that goes far beneath the surface level. I think the Navarre series is good but it is more for Catholics who aren’t going to going to deep into scripture. And to tell you the truth, I haven’t been overly impressed with the Haydock bible thus far. I just purchased a Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture (written in the 50’s) as well as the 2-volume set by Ferdinand Prat and I am hopeful that they will provide some great insights. I was talking to my priest after Mass today and he mentioned a commentary on the Apocalypse by D. Chilton that he said, even though it is protestant, is one of the best he has ever read. Have you ever heard of it?

Keep up the great work and I hope your set of commentary will be to Holy Scripture what Dom Gueranger’s the Liturgical Year is to the Traditional Mass.

Greg Hessel

R. Sungenis: Greg, yes, Chilton's book is one of the better Protestant efforts. I've used it many times. He avoids all the sensationalism that you see in other Protestant eschatological efforts (such as Premillennial Dispensationalism, Hal Lindsey, et al).

He is (or was, since he deceased a few years ago) an ardent Postmillennial Reformist. In other words, he is not taking the Amillennial view of the Catholic Church (which was confirmed by the Council of Ephesus). But since the Postmillennial view often overlaps with the Amillennial view, it appears as if Chilton is on the right track, but he is not.

His attempt at understanding the symbols of the Apocalypse is good, but even then, you won't find Chilton seeing the Blessed Mother in Apocalypse 12.

Chilton's "Reformist" view is often noticed in his commentary. This is a view that the Old Testament civil laws should be implemented in the New Testament, otherwise known as "Theonomy." Their goal is to "Christianize" the world by using these civil laws as a preparation for the return of Christ, which may be way off in the future.

In fact, Chilton and his followers (Rushdooney, Bahnsen, et al) believed that not until society is Christianized can Christ return. This is opposite the Amillennial view which says that, after the reign of the Church, society will become progressively worse, at which time Christ will come back in judgment.

There are other problems with Chilton, but overall he has some good "thought-starters" throughout his book for Catholic exegesis.

Top

Question 19- Canonization and JPII PontMax?

Robert,

I understand the rules concerning an ex-cathedra statement. However, is not the canonization of a deceased individual also an infallible statement. In other words, when a pope canonizes, is he not saying infallibly that this person has been saved and is spending eternity in Heaven?

My second questions is regarding the current pope. It appears to be your opinion that JPII has been a poor leader of the Church and has even been on the verge of heresy. I assume you don't believe he should be canonized after his passing, yet I don't think I am out of the Catholic mainstream when I say he probably will be. Do you think he will be, and would the fact that he would be declared a saint by the Church change your opinion of him?

God continue to bless you, your family and your work.
Dan

R. Sungenis: Dan, I personally don't think John Paul II will ever be a candidate for sainthood. Even those who like him are beginning to recognize that he has been much too lax with Church discipline, which is one of the primary tasks of a pope. The present condition of the Church, including the homosexual-pedophile scandal, can be laid right at the foot of John Paul II. And to prove his laxity, he has done virtually nothing to stop these abuses, except give speeches. This Church does not need any more speeches, it needs discipline.

Top

Question 20- Traditionalists versus Jim Gorham

1. Robert,

I've again been debating Jim Gorham who in the past has contested some of your stuff. We've been discussing TGF's allegations of ambiguities regarding Vatican II's ecumenism. I sent this to Chris Ferrara to get his thoughts (he's been debating Gorham also) but it doesn't look good for the Traditionalist view. This LOOKS like (I could be wrong) a hole that one cannot dig oneself out of, thus I thought you might like to see it.

Matt

Jim Gorham: Matt the claim that Vatican II avoids the traditional call of return to the church is simply false. On the contrary, when one reads the document on ecumenism, the councils conclusion that authentic unity can only be achieved by a return of the protestants to holy Mother church is impossible to avoid. Lets take a look at some key passages.

R. Sungenis: I have no problem with Mr. Gorham's conclusion, since I've said it myself. In my essay on Assisi, I remarked that John Paul II could not appeal to Vatican II's teaching on prayer, since the only time the council referred to praying with non-Catholics was when it recommended praying with Protestants so that they would come back to the Catholic Church (Unitatis Redintegratio).

Gorham: This first one comes from section 24 and tells us directly what the goal of all catholic ecumenical activity is and also notes that this " HOLY OBJECTIVE "
cannot be achieved without the power of God

"The Council moreover professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective-the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ."

And lest anyone be confused as to which church constitutes "the one and only church of Christ" to which as stated above all christians must be reconciled the council offers the following.

First the council notes that it was Jesus intention to found only one church, not a plurality of churches with similar teachings. It Quotes the apostle Paul to back up it's claim

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one Baptism".(6) For "all you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus".(7)

The council then tells us unapologetically that this one church established by Christ has been spread down through the centuries through the successors of Peter and the apostles. Thus the present day catholic church is that one and only church established by Christ

"In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying.(10) Among their number He selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven,(11) and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith(12) and shepherded in perfect unity.(13) Christ Jesus Himself was forever to remain the chief cornerstone (14) and shepherd of our souls.(15) Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors -the bishops with Peter's successor at their head-should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love. It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God. The Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it:(16) for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace(17) as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.(18) This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. It is a mystery that finds its highest exemplar and source in the unity of the Persons of the Trinity: the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit, one God."

The council Later states this even more strongly later in this same section 3

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

Matt note well this last sentence "to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

The council here states unequivocally that those "who belong in any way to the people of God" (an obvious reference to the protestants) need to be FULLY incorporated into that apostolic college of which Peter is the head. Again matt Note well that the council has just taught that it's God's intention that ALL christians have access to the fullness of the means of salvation which can only be found in the apostolic college of which Peter is the head. In other words the council has just taught that it's Gods intention that all christians RETURN to the catholic church. There is nothing ambiguous here, this is the ONLY way to read and and understand this passage.

This same point is made yet again in section 4. This quote follows a brief outlining of concrete actions the faithful can take in working for the restoration of unity in the body of Christ

"When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time"

Note again Matt that the council see's the goal of those ecumenical activities as being the gathering of all christians into the unity of the one and only church (which as we have seen the council has already Identified as exclusively the catholic church) Thus this is the third time that the council has taught the goal of ecumenical activity is the return of protestants back into the church. There simply is no other way to read and understand these texts. Note also that the council has emphasized that the Catholic church is already unified as christ willed and cannot be otherwise, thus it is the other churches who have separated themselves from that unity and it is they who must be reconciled to that unity.

The councils call for the return of the Protestants is seen in the council documents elsewhere also. Check out this quote from section 11.

"The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded."

I ask you Matt, if one is presenting catholic doctrine in it's entirety without clouding its certain meaning. Would they fail to mention that the fullness of truth resides in the catholic church, guarded by the successors of Peter ?? And would that not inescapably lead to the conclusion that it is for others to return to the one true church? If the councils directive is faithfully carried out the call for a return to mother church will be impossible to avoid. The council emphasizes the same point again in section 24

"Now that we have briefly set out the conditions for ecumenical action and the principles by which it is to be directed, we look with confidence to the future. This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, "

Note here Matt the councils teaching that real progress toward unity can only be achieved when ecumenical action ( sharing our faith with protestants) remains faithful to the faith of our fathers. Again if one takes this teaching to heart, a call to a return to mother church will be impossible to avoid.

Matt when you say that any teaching is ambiguous, that means it can credibly be understood to mean more than one thing. Thus tell me where in this document one may credibly find a teaching which would lead one to believe that unity no longer means a return to the unity of the catholic church. In other words show me for example how Kasper may legitimately quote from this council document in order to support the idea that the church no longer calls for a return. If you can't do this , then Matt you must admit that the council was not ambiguous on this issue. I make you another challenge, you said in another email that there are ambiguities galore in this document. Show me precisely were they are, and demonstrate how they can credibly be read to allow for both an orthodox and unorthodox understanding.

R. Sungenis: The problem with Mr. Gorham's final analysis is that he is refusing to make the distinction between the teaching of Vatican II and how that teaching has been interpreted by the liberals of the modern Church, including Cardinal Kasper. Mr. Gorham also fails to see that there are other places in which Vatican II, from an exegetical/critical perspective, was either ambiguous (e.g., the issue of "for the sake of our salvation" in Dei Verbum 11, which liberals now interpret to mean that Scripture is only without error when it speaks about salvation, which is opposite the traditional teaching) or used wording that seemed a little too suggestive ( Nostra Aetate 2 says: "In Hinduism, men explore the divine mystery and express it..."; Dignitatis Humane 4 states: "They [non-Catholic religious communities] must be allowed to honor the supreme Godhead with public worship"), even though one could safely say the wording was not in "error," and that it could be interpreted in a completely orthodox manner. In fact, I have maintained that, if an interpretation of Vatican II finds itself at odds with the tradition of the Church, then the interpretation is, ipso facto, incorrect. Moreover, the liberals themselves have admitted that they purposely put ambiguous wording in Vatican II so that they could later interpret it to their liberal leanings. The quote from Schillebeeckx on this issue is well known. Unfortunately, wrong interpretations are inevitable from documents that do not contain any definitions and which are as verbosely worded as Vatican II's documents often were. I believe that God allowed these ambiguities at Vatican II just as He allowed seemingly contradictory statements in Scripture itself, for the purpose of exposing heretics. Anyone who finds himself interpreting Vatican II as contradicting any previous Catholic teaching will merely expose himself as a heretic.

Top

Question 21- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Mr. Sungenis, in answering some of the questions posed to you, you said that the Novus Ordo can be imposed by the Pope. Do you also say that the Traditional Latin Mass can be also forbidden? I read an article from Catholic Family News (the link is http://www.oltyn.com/tridmass.htm ) that it was never forbidden and priests in good standing can't be forced to say the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass by any bishop; Cardinal Stickler made this comment. Please clarify.

Sincerely,
Paul D.

R. Sungenis: Paul, the pope could suppress the traditional mass. If he can create the Novus Ordo he can certainly demand that the traditional mass be stopped. In fact, by the very fact that John Paul II asked nine of his top cardinals whether Paul VI had stopped the traditional mass and found out by an 8-1 margin that Paul VI had not stopped it means that John Paul II understood that Paul VI had the prerogative of stopping the traditional mass but didn't choose to exercise it.

Top

Question 22- Dummying Down the Douay?

Robert, please read this short article by Jimmy Akin regarding the Douay translation. I believe it warrants a response from CAI. The article makes some very questionable statements regarding the Douay. For example, the Vulgate was never the official translation of the Church (if not, then what was?); Trent's declaration that the Douay contains no doctrinal or moral error does not mean it is a good or accurate translation; the downplay of Jerome's access to original documents and his lacking of a "critical apparatus" for sorting through textual variants; the speed at which Jerome translated undermines the quality of the translation (even though Jerome was fluent in Latin, Hebrew and Greek); and the assertion that the liberal scholars of today, most of whom believe the Bible contains errors, have done a much better job than Jerome ever could have. Give me a break.

R. Sungenis: John, I will take a look at it and see it needs a reply. Suffice it to say, I wonder how James Akin became so adept at these issues since the last time we corresponded he was asking me the meaning of various biblical passages from the original Hebrew and Greek, which obviously he did not know at the time. Thanks for alerting us to this.

Top

Question 23- Regarding Fatima.....what is this?

Have you seen this?

Here is the actual third secret of fatima on the Vatican web site:

Link

The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fatima, on 13 July 1917.

I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.

Tuy-3-1-1944".

INTERPRETATION OF THE "SECRET"

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II TO SISTER LUCIA

To the Reverend Sister
Maria Lucia
of the Convent of Coimbra

In the great joy of Easter, I greet you with the words the Risen Jesus spoke to the disciples: "Peace be with you"!

I will be happy to be able to meet you on the long-awaited day of the Beatification of Francisco and Jacinta, which, please God, I will celebrate on 13 May of this year.

Since on that day there will be time only for a brief greeting and not a conversation, I am sending His Excellency Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to speak with you. This is the Congregation which works most closely with the Pope in defending the true Catholic faith, and which since 1957, as you know, has kept your hand-written letter containing the third part of the "secret" revealed on 13 July 1917 at Cova da Iria, Fatima.

Archbishop Bertone, accompanied by the Bishop of Leiria, His Excellency Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, will come in my name to ask certain questions about the interpretation of "the third part of the secret".

Sister Maria Lucia, you may speak openly and candidly to Archbishop Bertone, who will report your answers directly to me.

I pray fervently to the Mother of the Risen Lord for you, Reverend Sister, for the Community of Coimbra and for the whole Church. May Mary, Mother of pilgrim humanity, keep us always united to Jesus, her beloved Son and our brother, the Lord of life and glory.

With my special Apostolic Blessing.

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II

From the Vatican, 19 April 2000.

LUCIA REVEALS THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA Independently of any Creed or Religion, it is better to be prepared and be on good terms with GOD, as we never know when we will be leaving this world....

LAST SECRET OF FATIMA

The Church has given permission to reveal to the people the last part of the message. The Blessed Virgin appeared to three children in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, this is a proven fact, one of these children is still alive, her name is Lucia, she is a Cloistered nun and lives in a
monastery in Portugal.

Lucia disclosed the message for the first time to Pope Pius XII whom, after reading it, he sealed it and stored away without making it public. Later Pope John XXIII read it and, in the same manner as his predecessor he kept it out of the public eye because he knew that once
revealed, it will bring desperation and panic to human kind. Now the time has come, and permission has been granted from Pope John Paul II to reveal it to the children of God, in order not to create panic but to make people aware of this important message so everybody
can be prepared.

The Virgin told Lucia: "Go my child and tell the world what will come to pass during the 1950's - 2000's. Men are not practicing the Commandments that our Father has given us. Evil is governing the world and is harvesting hate and resentment all over. Men will fabricate
mortal weapons that will destroy the world in minutes, half of the human race will be destroyed, the war will begin against Rome, and there will be conflicts amongst religious orders.

God will allow all natural phenomenon's like smoke, hail, cold, water, fire, floods, earthquakes, winds and inclement weather to slowly batter the planet. These things will come to pass before the year 2010. "Those who won't believe, this is the time" your beloved mother told you "those lacking charity towards others and those who do not love their
neighbor like my beloved Son has loved you, all, cannot survive. They will wish to have died, millions are unimaginable, they will come, and there is no doubt.

Our Lord God will punish severely those who do not believe in him, those who despise him and those who did not have time for him." "I call upon all of you to come to my son Jesus Christ, God helps the world but all of those who do not show fidelity and loyalty will be destroyed".

Father Agustin, who lives in Fatima, said that Pope Paul VI gave him permission to visit sister Lucia who is a Cloistered nun (she does not leave the monastery nor is allowed to received any visitors). Father Agustin said that she received him greatly overwhelmed and told him:

"Father, our lady is very sad because nobody is interested in her prophecy of 1917, though the righteous are walking through a narrow path, the evil ones are walking through an ample road that is leading them straight to their destruction, believe me father, the punishment
will come very soon.

"Many souls will be lost, many nations will disappear from the earth. But, in the middle of all these, if men reflect, pray and practice good deeds, the world can be saved. One of all these, if men persist with its evil, the world will be lost forever.

The time has come for all to pass on the message of our Blessed Lady to their families, friends, and to the entire world. Start praying, to make penitence and sacrifices. We are at the last minute of the last day and the catastrophes are near. Due to this, many that were far from the church will return to the open arms of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The joining of the churches will result in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. England, Russia, China, Jews, Muslims and Protestants. All will return believing and worshipping God our creator, in his beloved Son and in our Blessed Mother Virgin Mary".

WHAT AWAITS US???

Everywhere there will be "Peace Talks", but punishment will come. A MAN IN A VERY iMPORTANT POSITION WILL BE ASSASSINATED AND THIS WILL PROVOKE THE WAR. A POWERFUL ARMY WILL DOMINATE ALL THROUGH EUROPE AND THE NUCLEAR WAR WILL COMMENCE.

This war will destroy everything, darkness will fall over us for 72 hours (three days) and the one third of humanity that survives this obscurity and sacrifice, will commence to live a new era, they will be good people.

In a very cold night, 10 minutes before midnight, A GREAT QUAKE will shake the earth for 8 hours. This will be the third signal that God is who governs the earth. The righteous and those who propagate the faith and the message of the Lady of Fatima SHOULD NOT FEAR, DO NOT BE AFRAID.

WHAT TO DO???

Bow your heads, kneel down and ask God for forgiveness. Because only what is good and is not under the power of evil will survive the catastrophe. In order for you to prepare and remain alive I will give you the following signs: ANGUISH........AND IN A SHORT PERIOD THE
EARTHQUAKE WILL COMMENCE... THE EARTH WILL SHAKE.... The shake will be
so violent that it will move the earth 23 degrees and it will return it to its normal position. Then, total and absolute darkness will cover the entire planet... All evil spirits will be mingling around and free, doing harm to all those souls that did not want to listen to this
message and those who did not want to repent. To the faithful souls, remember to light the blessed candles, prepare a sacred altar with a crucifix in order to communicate with GOD and implore for His infinite mercy.... All will be dark, IN THE SKY A GREAT MYSTIC CROSS will appear to remind us the price that his beloved Son had to pay for our
redemption.... In the house the only thing that can give light will be the HOLY CANDLES... Once lit, nothing will put them off until the three days of darkness are over. Also, you should have Holy water that should be sprinkled abundantly on windows and doors. The Lord will protect the property of the chosen ones...

Kneel down before the powerful cross of my beloved Son, pray the Rosary and after each Hail Mary you must pray the following: "Oh God forgive us our sins, preserve us from the fire of hell, take all souls to heaven, especially those who are in more need of thy mercy. Blessed Virgin Mary protect us, we love you, save us and save the world".

Pray 5 Creeds and the Rosary which is the secret to my Immaculate Heart. All those who believe in my words go and take the message to everyone, DO NOT FEAR. FEAR NOTHING DURING THE LORD'S GREAT DAY. Talk to all the souls now that there is time, those who keep quiet will be responsible for all those souls who will perish in ignorance. All those who pray humbly the rosary will have the protection of heaven and those who are bound to die I will help them die in peace and they will be holy when they enter the other world. I wish all my children to attend mass every first Friday and every first Saturday of each month, to confess and receive Holy Communion and in doing do, save the world from its TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

WHEN the earth shakes no more, those who still do not believe in our Lord will perish in a horrible way. The wind will bring gas and it will disperse it everywhere, then the sun will rise. Maybe you will survive this catastrophe. Do not forget that God's punishment is holy and ONCE IT HAS STARTED YOU SHOULD NOT LOOK OUTSIDE, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, GOD DOES NOT WANT ANY OF HIS CHILDREN TO SEE WHEN HE PUNISHES THE SINNERS.... All this encompasses with the writings of the Holy Scriptures..... Read on the New Testament: Luke 21 - 5:121, 12:19, 20:20, 29:33, Letters of St Paul 3 -8-14, Isaiah 40, 1:5:9. You must understand that God allows all this to happen. The Pope and Bishops are now awaiting another message that speaks about repentance and prayer. Remember that Gods words are not a threat, but good news.... Please arrange to forward to all your friends so we all can have the opportunity to repent and be saved. We do not know if those receiving this message believe or not in GOD, but think that if you are receiving this message is for a reason!!

Maybe the Creator is giving us the chance to be saved, no matter what religion or creed. If you don't believe in this message at least send it to others, it costs you nothing. To all those receiving it, they can have the opportunity to judge for themselves. Remember, we can avoid a great deal if we practice the commandments that our Father God left us.

There are 10 simple things, that if we all put in practice we can obtain God's pardon.

R. Sungenis: The CDF has had the Third Secret (at least what they have released) on the Vatican website since the so-called dissemination of the Third Secret on June 26, 2000. It is nothing but a liberal disclaimer to Fatima, which I have written about in my 100-page paper. It is conspicuously missing the remaining part of the Third Secret since it stops at the Fourth Memoir:

(7) In the "Fourth Memoir" Sister Lucia adds: "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc. ...".

The Vatican failed to give us the rest of this message -- the most important part of the Third Secret.

The person who is interpreting the CDF's remarks is apparently an over-enthusiastic Catholic who is reading all kinds of private interpretations into the Third Secret. You know once the interpreter starts giving dates ("before 2010") that it is all a fantasy of their own imagination. Prevalent also is the so-called "three days of darkness" that they have been "prophesying" for the 20 years but has not seen the light of day, to use a familiar pun. This interpreter also has most of his Scriptures wrong (e.g., Luke doesn't have 29 chapters). The interpreter even takes the Copernican view that the earth is already titled 23 degrees. All in all, it is nothing but sensationalist misinterpretation of both Scripture and Fatima, and it probably comes from the genre of the Medjugorje crowd. As Jesus said, "An evil and an adulteress generation seeks for a sign." (Mt 12:39).

Top

Question 24- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass, Part II?

Thank you for answering my question. However, I believe your position to be
untenable, in light of this excerpt from a June, 2001 Catholic Family News
article by Fr. Paul Kramer:

It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the
Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

I can't see how the Novus Ordo doesn't fit this anathema. After all, it was formulated by a Freemason, Archbishop Bugnini, with the help of 6 Protestant ministers (which is why I avoid it whenever I can, despite its validity)

R. Sungenis: Paul, you're not using the common sense God gave you. How could Paul VI approve a Mass that was condemned by the Council of Trent, with an anathema?!

If Paul VI did such a thing he would have committed the worst heresy the Church has ever known and allowed the gates of hell to prevail, and you make Jesus a liar.

If what you claim: "I can't see how the Novus Ordo doesn't fit this anathema," is true, then the Novus Ordo is an invalid Mass. Not only is it invalid, it is an abomination. So, obviously, Fr. Kramer's interpretation of the Council of Trent is wrong.

The Council is not prohibiting the Novus Ordo. It is prohibiting someone from tampering with "the solemn administration of the Sacraments," not every jot and tittle in the Mass.

Regarding the Eucharist, the "solemn administration of the Sacrament" refers to the consecration formula that confects the Eucharist, since that is the only thing in the Mass that administers the Sacrament.

The "solemn administration of the sacrament" of Baptism is the use of water along with the Trinitarian formula. For Confession it is the words of absolution. Everything else can be changed if the pope desires to do so.

Paul VI, despite what Bugnini or any Protestant minister desired, kept the consecration formula intact, even against the wishes of others, including Bugnini. END

Paul: And added to that, Pope Paul VI thanked the Protestant ministers for helping formulate the Novus Ordo; also, Jean Guitton, a friend of Pope Paul VI, said that the intention of Pope Paul VI was to create a Mass that is very close to the Calvinist "liturgy." Again, I see this as consistent with a Pope creating a new rite and unofficially suppressing the traditional rite, and thereby incurring the anathema of the Council of Trent. Sincerely, Paul D.

Paul, it makes no difference who was involved in the creation of the Mass. We all agree that the Novus Ordo is a watered-down version of the Tridentine. The question is: does the Novus Ordo fulfill the anathema of Trent? The answer to that is a resounding NO. Don't be taken in by people who are over-reacting to the crisis upon us.

Top

Question 25- Hahn on Ham and Maternal Incest

Robert, in the book A Father who Keeps His Promises, Dr. Hahn says that Noah's son Ham committed maternal incest, and the offspring of this incestuous union was Canaan. This, he argues, is the meaning of "uncovering his father's nakedness." However, the text in Genesis 9 does not seem to support this conclusion. It appears that Canaan is already alive when Noah became drunk and his nakedness was uncovered. In my Douay Confraternity translation, the footnote says that "uncovering his father's nakedness" indicated that Ham and Canaan saw Noah naked, and laughed and ridiculed him. That is, Canaan, who was already alive, laughed at his grandfather. What is all this about Ham having relations with his mother, with Canaan the resulting offspring?

R. Sungenis: John, Scott Hahn's interpretation, I'm afraid, is another case of him reading into the Scripture what he wants to see, or as he says it in "First Comes Love," it is "reading between the lines."

Normally when someone tries to "read between the lines" his interpretation at least follows the outline given in the text. Hahn's interpretation of Genesis 9:20-27 doesn't even do that much. Hahn takes liberties with the text that are unprecedented, and he doesn't even bother to tell his reader the traditional interpretation (that Ham saw Noah naked and perhaps did something to him or did not act appropriately).

The text of Genesis 9:20-27 is clear:

1) Noah became drunk.

2) Noah uncovered himself in his tent (i.e., he was naked)

3) Ham saw Noah naked and may have done something to him (e.g., either acting inappropriately, or just leaving him there naked without covering him). The verb form used in Ham's "seeing" of Noah is the Imperfect, which implies that Ham was in the act of staring at Noah. The verb "told" in Gn 9:22 is the Hifil form, implying that Ham had secretly done something and is now revealing it to his brothers.

4) Shem and Japheth come in and, walking backward, cover Noah's nakedness. Since it is clear in the context that Noah become drunk and uncovered himself, the nakedness cannot refer to Noah's wife. In fact, the Hebrew verb for "uncovered himself" is GALAH, used in the Hitpael form, which, being reflexive, can mean ONLY that Noah uncovered himself, not someone else.

5) Shem and Japheth cover Noah while he is still asleep. Later, Noah wakes up and "comes to know" what Ham had done to him. The verb "comes to know" is the Imperfect tense, meaning that either Shem and Japheth told Noah what Ham had done, or there was some immediate sign of what Ham had done.

The words "had done to him" in Gn 9:25 use the masculine construct verb form, which means that the immoral act was done to Noah, and no one else. In addition, since Lev 18:14, 22 open the possibility of a male uncovering the nakedness of another male, then that possibility exists in the case of Noah and Ham.

There is nothing about Noah's wife, or her being raped by Ham. She is not even mentioned in the scene. The last time she is mentioned in the book of Genesis is in Gn 8:8 when the family of Noah came out of the ark. She is never mentioned again.

In fact, it would be highly irregular to assume that Noah's wife would NOT have cried out if Ham had raped her. And why would Ham be so stupid to rape his mother right in the same tent Noah occupied, while Shem and Japheth are apparently just outside the door?

Moreover, it is obvious that merely seeing Noah naked is taboo, since Shem and Japheth walk backwards to avoid that possibility. Contrary to what Hahn claims, there couldn't be any motive to take over his father's house or harem, since Ham would have had to kill Noah, not just rape his wife, for such an eventuality. Then, of course, his brother would have killed him, and his plans would have been foiled.

When the Bible wants to tell us that someone was raped it gives us graphic language. We don't have to "read between the lines" to know such hard facts, especially when the outcome of this incident has repercussions for the rest of the world, as Noah's prophecy makes quite clear in Gn 9:25-27.

The conclusion Hahn draws that "seeing the nakedness" or "uncovering the nakedness" refers exclusively to illicit sexual intercourse is wrong. "Seeing the nakedness" applies to anything of a pornographic nature, whether it is viewing someone's nakedness (e.g., voyeurism, pornography to produce a self-induced orgasm, etc), touching someone who is naked (e.g., petting, fondling, etc), or the ultimate act of coitus. Any one of those would have been an abomination to Noah.

In fact, in the very passage Hahn cites but doesn't notice (Leviticus 18), it contains a difference between "uncovering the nakedness" and "intercourse." We know this because Leviticus 18:23 says "you shall not have intercourse with any animal..." Obviously, you cannot "uncover the nakedness" of an animal because it doesn't wear clothes, and thus "uncover nakedness" cannot exclusively refer to sexual intercourse.

The same distinction between the words is noted in Leviticus 18:19 and 18:20, wherein the first says: "do not uncover a women's nakedness during her menstrual impurity," and the second says "do not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife." In the Hebrew the word "intercourse" here is literally "lying with your semen," thus making explicit and exclusive reference to the coital act, whereas "nakedness" is not exclusively coital.

The word for "uncover nakedness" is already translated literally, and it refers to any illicit exposure of nakedness, for any reason. In this way, no one would have an excuse for engaging in pornographic acts, since every area of exposing "nakedness" is covered in the command "do not uncover someone's nakedness."

In short, Hahn's interpretation is just another in a series of unproven and imaginative speculations on his part. The Remnant just carried an article titled "The Sands of Celebrity" which shows more of Hahn's exegetical errors, and there are many more yet to be exposed.

Top

Question 26- Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay?

Dear Sir,
Robert, please read this short article by Jimmy Akin regarding the Douay translation. I believe it warrants a response from CAI. The article makes some very questionable statements regarding the Douay. For example, the Vulgate was never the official translation of the Church (if not, then what was?); Trent's declaration that the Douay contains no doctrinal or moral error does not mean it is a good or accurate translation; the downplay of Jerome's access to original documents and his lacking of a "critical aparatus" for sorting through textual variants; the speed at which Jerome translated undermines the quality of the translation (even though Jerome was fluent in Latin, Hebrew and Greek); and the assertion that the liberal scholars of today, most of whom believe the Bible contains errors, have done a much better job than Jerome ever could have. Give me a break.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

R. Sungenis: John, I have read Akin's comments on the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Vulgate translation. I would have to say that Akin's comments are quite correct. The only things I would add are the following:

In the Vulgate's favor is John Paul II's Apostolic Constituion titled Scripturarum Thesaurus of April 25, 1979 which reaffirmed the traditional elevation of the Latin Vulgate above other Catholic translations. In Scripturarum Thesaurus, John Paul II says the following:

"This New Vulgate edition will also be of such a nature that vernacular translations, which are destined for liturgical and pastoral use, may be referred to it; and, to use the words of our predecessor Paul VI, "it is permissible to think that it is a certain sort of foundation on which biblical studies... may rest, especially where libraries open to special studies can be consulted only with greater difficulty, and where the diffusion of suitable research materials is more hindered" (cf. Allocution, December 22, 1977; cf. daily L'Osservatore Romano, 23 December - 1977, p. 1)."

The other thing I would add is a comment regarding Mr. Akin's reference to Ronald Knox's translation. Akin writes:

"Ronald Knox puts the manuscript point wryly when he writes, "You cannot, I think, be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old when he came to the throne, merely because that is the construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously defective Hebrew original" (Trials of a Translator, 29)."

Althought it is true that the DR makes a mistake at 1 Sam 13:1 in saying "Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel" (which the King James corrects to "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel"), still, this gives the impression that Knox's translation is an example of how the art of biblical criticism or translation know-how of the 20th century is superior to Jerome's Vulgate. Barring Jerome's mistakes (which are few), his translation of the original Hebrew and Greek is so far superior to Knox's translation that it's like comparing a college text to a first grade reader. I've been through Knox's translation with a fine-toothed comb and I have never in my life seen a translator twist and distort the original text to his liking than Knox has. I would say in all candor that Knox was the first "paraphrased" Bible of the English-speaking world, outpacing the Protestant paraphrasers by about 30 years.

The other caution here is that Catholic bibles containing the Douay-Rheims are all traditionally-based publishers who are very faithful to the doctrines of biblical inerrancy and patristic-medieval traditional understanding of the biblical text. This is quite the converse with Catholic bibles such as the New American Bible. Not only is the translation often slanted to the erroneous concepts of Catholic liberalism, but the footnotes explaining the text (which appear on the same page as the biblical text) are filled with outright heresies. We have a section on our website devoted specifically to exposing these heresies.

So, for all intents and purposes, I would much rather have a Catholic read the Douay-Rheims than the New American Bible. The former will enhance one's faith; the latter will destroy it.

Again, other than these issues, Akin's analysis is very good.

Top

Question 27- How Does the Just War Doctrine Apply to Nuclear War?

Mr. Sungenis,

Would the United States using nuclear weapons, pre-emptively or otherwise, against an enemy's cities be in direct violation of the church's just war doctrine, which holds that the deliberate military targeting of innocent civilians is always immoral? If that is the case, how should the United States respond to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack?

Pax Christi

-- Edgar

R. Sungenis: The Just War doctrine was written long before nuclear, biological or chemical attacks were possible on a wide scale. It needs updating to account for the massive destruction caused by such weapons. The condemnation of "deliberate military targeting of innocent civilians" was based only on conventional weaponry and normal war strategies.

Top

Question 28- Dave Hunt Debate and the CASB, Vol. 2

Hello Mr. Sungenis,

Last night I was listening to your debate with Mr. Dave Hunt, and I just wanted to say masterful job! Is it sometimes difficult to keep your cool with such people when they assert such outrages? My main reason for e-mailing; when is the next version of your Apologetics Study Bible coming out? Thank you very much for your work; God bless!

Marc Miller

R. Sungenis: Marc, thanks for the commendation! As for the CASB, I'm peddling as fast as I can, but I have three other books I'm trying to publish before I release the second volume of the CASB. I would say that the CASB, Vol. 2 won't be out till this time next year.

Top

Question 29- Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay, Part II?

Robert, I can see your points. But I take issue with the article because it suggests the Douay is on par with all the other translations. This is not true. The fact is, only the Douay translation was declared by a pope to be free of doctrinal and moral error (D.A.S.), and only the Douay translation was declared by a council (Trent) to be a bulwark against the Protestant heresies. The Douay has always been considered the unofficial translation of the Church for these reasons. Moreover, Akin says that Jerome did not have access to all the manuscripts that we have access to today, but he fails to mention which ones Jerome did not have access to (is he referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls? If so, that neither helps nor hurts his thesis). The article makes it sound like our scholars today have just as much as Jerome did. The tradition has always emphasized that Jerome was closer to the original manuscripts as well as more conversant with the idiosyncrasies of Greek and Hebrew linguistic construction than scholars 20 centuries removed. I personally use the RSV-CE for apologetics (because it jives what what's in the Protestant translations), but who can argue with the elevated status of the DR for biblical study and devotional reading within our Catholic tradition. God bless.

R. Sungenis: John, I agree with your concerns. I prefer the DR over modern translations for the same reason. But since Akin was coming from the perspective of preferring modern translations over the DR, I thought his treatment of the DR was at least fair, rather than resorting to bashing the DR, as many do today.

Top

Question 30- Would You Recommend Scott Hahn's Tape Series on Romans?

Mr. Sungenis,

I just wanted to thank you again for your work, and I have one more question; other than his "works of the law" interpretation, would you recommend Dr. Hahn's tape set on the book of Romans? God bless!

Marc Miller

R. Sungenis: I wish I could, Marc, but unfortunately, I can't. Hahn's misconception of the "works of the law" infects his entire exegesis of Romans and St. Paul. In fact, I don't think Hahn knows what the basic conflict is in the book of Romans. As long as he keeps entertaining the liberal/modernistic exegetical paradigm that Romans is a contest between the ethnic foundations of Jews and Gentiles, rather than the theological paradigm of grace versus works (which is the paradigm we find in the patristic consensus; the councils of Orange and Trent; Aquinas and the medievals; and the 1992 Catholic Catechism), he is going to miss the thrust of St. Paul's argument. This is precisely why I have been harping on this issue for the last ten years. In addition to that is Hahn's misconception of Original Sin in the Garden of Eden, which will infect both his intretation of Romans 5 and 7, as well as his misconception that "Israel" is in the loins of the Gentiles which will infect his understanding of Romans 9-11. The only safe interpretation Hahn might have of Romans is chapters 12-16.

Top

Question 31- Pope's Right to Forbid the Latin Mass; SSPX actually not in schism, Part II?

Sorry, Mr. Sungenis! I got a bit carried away. I agree that the Pope has the
legal right to forbid the Traditional Latin Mass, but he does not have the
moral right, unless he can show how the Novus Ordo is overall superior to
the Traditional Latin Mass, IMHO. Anyway's, priests, in the event that the
Traditional Latin Mass is forbidden, can use the argument that the
Traditional Latin Mass is immemorial custom. After all, all the orthodox
liturgists agree that the traditional Roman Rite is the oldest Christian
rite in existence.

R. Sungenis: Agreed. It would not be a good moral decision, at all. In fact, being an "immemorial custom," the pope would have a hard time justifying his decision on a canonical basis. I think he would have to rewrite canon law to do so, and even then he would have a hard time. I think this is precisely why the TLM has not been abrogated.

Also, I read in the Summer 2004 issue of The Latin Mass, when Bishop Fellay of the SSPX was interviewed, he explicitly stated, that despite the wording of the official documents from the Vatican that imply the SSPX to be in schism, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had said to him that they were neither schismatics nor heretics and the situation is just that of regularizing a canonical situation (like that of Campos). He also stated that normally, if a priest in schism receives Holy Orders, when he comes back into the Church, he cannot use his powers, yet the SSPX priests, when they get out of the order, Rome allows them to use their powers of the priesthood.

R. Sungenis: The pope can make any exceptions he chooses. Apparently, he decided to allow them to offer the sacraments while maintaining their schismatic status. As for Cardinal Hoyos, it makes little difference what he says. In fact, it makes no difference. He simply does not have the authority to decide this issue. This is the pope's move alone, because he is the one who issued Ecclesia Dei. But I don't think this issue will be addressed by this pope. I think we will have to wait until the next pope tackles the issue.

Top

Question 32- Jesus, Peter and the Keys; Scott Hahn's Tapes; the Substituionary Atonement

Mr. Sungenis,

I just have a couple of questions. I'm aware that you contributed to Jesus, Peter, and the Keys; since becoming more traditional so to speak, would you still recommend that book? Also, even though I imagine that you wouldn't endorse Romans, would you recommend any of Dr. Hahn's tape sets? And finally, are there any articles around that explain the Catholic view of the atonement vs. substitutionary, etc.? Thank you very much for your work and
God bless!

Matthew

R. Sungenis: Yes, I recommend Jesus, Peter and the Keys very highly. My views of the papacy have not changed one iota. It is only the personal opinions of John Paul II that bother me. As for Hahn's tapes, you have to tell me which ones you have in mind. In any case, I would take anything he says about the Catholic faith with a grain of salt. As for articles on the atonement, the only thing I can suggest off the top of my head is to look in the index or footnotes of my book Not By Bread Alone. I hope that helps for now.

Top

Question 33- What Made You Convert to the Catholic Church Considering its Problems?

Mr. Sungenis,
What was it that happened to make you decide to step over and become Catholic. I know you probably had all the apologetics for Catholicism but with the upheaval and discord in the Church itself that is so prevalent how did you do it? Was there a moment? How did you know you were being lead by the Holy Spirit? Does Jeus not teach us to judge fruit, and I'm not talking past fruit?

The fruit looks pretty bad right now. And far as God excepting the
Sacrifice of the Mass now I don't know how He feels with all the sin not repented. There are plenty of places in the OT where God does not except it. There is nothing wrong with the sacrifice but with the lack of shame, it becomes a stench.

Again what was the moment?
LS

R. Sungenis: LS, I've answered this before on our QA board. You might want to search the last couple of month's answers for it. In short, it is mainly the dogma of the Catholic Church that persuaded me. The Fathers planted those seeds by their study of Scripture, the popes and councils codified that knowledge and made it infallible. That is it in a nutshell. There is no other Church that even comes close to that cohesiveness. I'm not worried about how bad the Church may be due to the faithless individuals that partake in it. The Church will survive despite them, as Jesus promised in Matt 16:18. Moreover, Satan is going to attack where the truth is, so I'm not surprised to see him working overtime in the Catholic Church.

Top

Question 34- Justification Part VIII

Bob,
just when I thought you didn't want to answer because I felt you finally saw your contradiction you right: R. Sungenis: I've already answered that faith is a mental assent to the truths God gives us; a trusting relationship with God wherein we accept all that He says about Himself, no matter how difficult. It is the same whether it is in Romans 3:28 or James 2 or Galatians 2 or anywhere else in Scripture.

In Romans 3:28, faith is contrasted with "works of the law," not works of grace. This is because the Jew was depending on his works, without true faith in God, to make him right with God. Thus, the directive in Romans 3:28 is that, of the two (that is, faith or "works of law") which one justifies? The answer is faith, since works, in themselves, seek to put God in debt. But then we learn elsewhere that it is not faith alone. It is faith with works of grace that justifies, as we find very easily in the case of Abraham. Faith puts one in the category of grace wherein his works can now be rewarded with salvation.

But in your book, you write that love, hope and obedience are added to Romans 3.28 when you write, "On a purely grammatical basis, the phrase 'faith alone" denotes that faith is the only instrument, while the statement 'faith apart from works of the law--whatever they are--are the only thing that cannot be coupled with faith for justification." Then you add, "Paul in Galatians 5:6 seems to make an inseparable bond between faith working through love." By the same token, Paul never says "faith working through works of the law." Yet when I ask you to tell me what is love, hope and obedience if not works of the law, and you say, "Yes,[love, hope and obedience are works of the law} and that is what I have said and written. But when I catch you on this blatant contradiction, you tell me I don't understand the difference between grace and debt!....lol. And I know anyone reading to this, will see the contradiction because a contradiction if fundamentally unintelligible, and I doubt anyone can accurately describe to me what in fact, Robert Sungenis is saying because anyone will know that love, hope and obedience are works of the law under debt OR grace, (romans 2.13). i'll let you clarify yourself and tell me what i dont understand, but i feel to the careful reader, i have made my point: you cannot argue with someone who doesnt see a contradiction, all you can do is let the reader see it.
todd

R. Sungenis: Todd, I'll ignore your attempt at laughter and ask you to consider this: you are confusing the issue because haven't understood what I have said to you, and you seem bent on finding a "contradiction" to satisfy yourself.

There is no contradiction, that is, if you will understand what is being said.

"Works of the law" is the phrase St. Paul uses to designate any kind of work that someone does under the law, a category devoid of grace.

Love, hope, obedience, etc are actions that can either be done under the law or under grace.

If they are done under law, they cannot merit anything with God because God doesn't pay people a legal wage.

If love, hope, obedience, etc are done under God's grace (a grace relationship that is attained by putting faith in God), then God will reward the love and obedience by providing salvation for the individual doing them.

Finally, Galatians 5:6 is speaking about the instance in which the individual is under God's grace, therefore, he is adding love to his faith under God's grace (not under law), and thus God can reward him with salvation.

In fact, St. Paul himself makes the very distinction I am giving you, since he says in Galatians 5:4: "You who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." The antithesis is between trying to be "justified by law" as opposed to being "justified by grace."

It's really very simple. I hope that clarifies the situation for you.

Top

Question 35- Justification Part IX

Bob, all you have done is show that Romans 2 and Romans 3 texts are not a contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that love cannot be non-love at the same time and the same relationship, so you tell me, "see, they are not in the same relationship. but one under debt and another under grace" as if a change in relationship rendered a change of terms. You know that intuitively when you tell me." law is law, and love is love." When James, for example, says that we are not justified by faith alone, but by works, HE understands where love, hope and obedience are. When I ask you to define faith in Romans 3.28, you tell me that yes, it means a mental assent to trusting God, but not faith alone. So when i ask you to show me anything that can be added to faith that is not a work of the law, you turn around and tell me faith, hope and obedience, when you already just told me they were works of the law! you see, Bob, a contradiction cannot be understood, as it is unintelligible.

R. Sungenis: No, Todd, you got it wrong again because the premise with which you are working is misplaced.

Your premise is: "The law of non-contradiction states that love cannot be non-love at the same time and the same relationship, so you tell me, "see, they are not in the same relationship. but one under debt and another under grace" as if a change in relationship rendered a change of terms."

I didn't mention anything about "non-love," so your attempt at creating a "contradiction" with "love" is futile.

I said "love," period. I said love, obedience, hope, work or whatever, can be viewed from two different perspectives, grace or law.

I gave you the example of you digging a swimming pool for me. One scenario is when you dig the pool under a legal contract and demand payment, the other is when you do it based on the goodness of your heart because of our personal relationship, without demanding payment.

The work doesn't change. The only thing that changes is how the work is viewed and remunerated.

The change in the way the work is viewed depends on whether the person doing the work has first established a faith-relationship with the person for whom he is doing the work.

If there is no faith-relationship established first, then his work will neither produce a relationship nor put him in favor with the person to whom he does the work. All it will give him is payment for the work done.

St. Paul says one cannot come to God on that basis because no one can God in debt to pay for work done.

As for James and Romans, if love, hope, work, etc, is performed under grace, not law, then it is accepted by God, and is added to faith so as to please Him completely, and thereby God justifies that individual.

James already established the distinction between grace and law in James 2:12-13 when he spoke of acting under the "law of liberty" as opposed to the law which gives "judgment without mercy."

It is the same reason James says in verse 10 that, if one wants to put himself under law (rather than mercy, grace) then he is obligated to obey the whole law.

This is the precise same thing Paul said in Galatians 5:3 ("he is under obligation to keep the whole law") if one chooses to be justified by law as opposed to grace.

Everything is consistent.

May God give you wisdom.

Top

Question 36- Justification Part X

Bob, again, I agree that work of the law can be viewed under two relationships-one under debt, and one under grace, but that does not mean that work ceases to be work. The definition of work remains the same.

R. Sungenis: That's right, Todd. As I said a few times before "work is work."

So when I ask you to show me something that can be added to faith that is not a work of the law, you cannot tell me love, hope, and obedience like you did in page 5-7 of your book. love, hope and obedience may change under grace and debt, but what cannot change is whether they are a work of a law or not.

R. Sungenis: "Works of the law" is a phrase Paul uses only with refernce to work done under the law. The phrase is used seven times in the New Testament, always in the same sense, that is, work done under law, not grace.

For example, if I told you can paint the airplane blue in the air, but not on the ground, I am not saying that blue becomes green in the air. Blue remains blue and works of the law remain works of the law. Therefore, when you say that paul in romans 3.28 is using faith to mean a mental assent to trusting in God you are saying that paul teaches faith alone in romans 3.28. When i ask you to show me anything that can be added to faith that is not a work of a law, you cannot add love, hope, and obedience because under grace OR law, they remain what they are, namely love, hope and obedience.

 

todd

R. Sungenis: No, that's not how it works, or how I explained it to you. Love, hope, obedience, work, etc, are general terms for human actions. Depending on our relationship with God, they will be done and categorized either under grace or under law. If under grace, they are rewarded with salvation; if under law then they are demanding payment, and therefore will be rejected.

Top

Question 37- Questions on the Hoge/Sungenis debate

Feast of St. Nicholas of Tolentino
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
I read with fascination and deep interest, your “dialogue” with Mr. Hoge re geocentrism. I am by no means hostile to your view but am still searching for the truth.

To help you with some feed back, I wanted to give you my impression of these two dialogues now on your website, so that you could better know what questions your other readers might be having too.

First and least important to the pursuit of truth: it seems to me that the admissions of the modern physicists re the fact that each theory equally explains the appearances is true but I was under the impression that they referred only to the theory of the movements without regard to explaining the causes of the movement. Thus, they would never say that they merely prefer the heliocentric model but both have equal causal explanations. It is my impression that they would say that the geocentric model is greatly inferior when considering how the heavens actually move based on the forces acting upon the universe. Your comments?

R. Sungenis: "They" don't know what causes the forces. They don't know what causes gravity or inertia, the two most important forces in the universe. All they have are mathematical formulas that show bodies are interacting in precise ways.

Second, if there were huge masses opposite the sun but at a huge distance from the earth, to counterbalance the gravitational pull of the sun upon the earth, why would those huge masses at a huge distance not greatly skew the center of mass of the universe? That is, at the huge distance (whatever it is) at which the masses are, which counterbalance the sun’s gravitational pull on the nearby earth, this would gre