Q & A December 2004

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

You said: "The pope can say or write something that is erroneous without losing his papal office."
Question: How can you say this when there is specific law within the Church dealing with the issue of a Pope being a manifest heretic? Example: If Pope John Paul II came out and taught that the Mass was NOT truly a propitiatory sacrifice. That would be a heresy. How can you say that he would not immediately lose His office, according to the Laws of the Church? I am aware that Pope Honorius did not formally teach the Church his heresy, but for you to say that the "Pope can say or write something that is erroneous without losing his papal office" is got me a little confused. How can you say this? Can you please clarify a little more for me?

In Christ,

Mike

R. Sungenis: He would not lose his office because the papal office is not subject to the personal judgments of either clerics or parishioners. What you are proposing would lead to total anarchy. Anyone at any time could claim that the pope was a manifest heretic, and begin convincing people not to submit to him. None of us have that authority. Those that think they do are very deceived, and they will be judged by God accordingly.

Top

Question 52- Canonical Status of SSPX

Mr. Sungenis,

I have been in discussions lately with a few folks regarding the canonical status of the SSPX. These folks vehemently take the stance that the SSPX is not in schism and that the Vatican has never formally said that they were. While I understand that one my fulfill their Sunday obligation, in the strict sense, by attending an SSPX chapel as well as tithe, I am still and have always been under the impression that the SSPX is in schism. I guess my question is this: What is the Vatican's official stance with regard to the SSPX?

Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Rick Orr

R. Sungenis: Rick, until if and when the Vatican herself officially clears up this matter, then we have to assume that the SSPX is in schism. The SSPX is not the authority here, in fact, they have no authority whatsoever. God only placed one supreme authority here on earth, and it resides in the papal chair. The last word we have on the SSPX, officially, is Ecclesia Dei, written in 1988. The pope hasn't changed his mind since then, and I don't think he ever will. There are, however, various canonists both inside the Vatican and outside who think the SSPX is not in schism. They certainly have the right to their opinion and they can bring it to the Holy Father for his approval. But so far, nothing has happened. Until something happens, then Ecclesia Dei is our authority, not Bishop Fellay.

Top

Question 51- The Seventh Mansion

Under the assumption that God calls everyone to the 7th mansion (not just monastic/cloistered)...why do so few make it even to the 4th mansion especially among solid, daily-mass going Catholics - especially those that practice the faith seriously? What separates the haves from the have-nots?

R. Sungenis: The "have nots" fail to take Isaac up to the mountain and prepare themselves to stick the knife in their son's chest. In this life, each of us will be called to have our own "mountain" experience with God. Those that fail will live in Christian mediocrity.

Top

Question 50- Can the Pope lose his office?

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Thank you I will do my best. Maybe a suggestion (and I am only suggesting here) would be to do a piece on your website on this. The reason being - I have not seen one website or heard one Apologist/Theologian give a complete rebuttal to such an organized piece in favor of sedevacantism. This could be a huge help to a whole lot of people. I know with your background and expertise you would know all the Councils, Popes, Saints, Theologians he references. To date I have not seen anyone give a complete answer to such an organized point by point argument.

R. Sungenis: I'm sorry, but I've already answered these questions many times on our QA forum. You need to check it.

The bottom line is this. The pope can say or write something that is erroneous without losing his papal office. That case was already proven with Honorius, since he wrote a heretical statement (Christ had one will) to the bishop Sergius of the east. Honorius was condemned both by Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II, as well as the Emperor, and the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth ecumenical councils, but no one ever said he lost his office as pope. Pope Agatho said Honorius abused his papal authority, but never lost his papal authority. Pope Leo II said Honorius "polluted" the papacy, but nothing about losing his office. That, and that only, is the precedent God has given the Church. Any quotes from saints or theologians on other ways to handle or classify a heretical pope is pure speculation, since the Church has never dogmatically declared what her procedure would be other than what occurred with Honorius.

Top

Question 49- The Greek present tense of 1 John 1:7

Mr. Sungenis

I was wondering if you could give me a little help with a verse I have been struggling with lately.

1 John 1:7 says:

but if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.

Several commentaries that I have read pointed out the fact that "cleanses" is in the present tense and thus denotes an on going or continual action of cleansing by the blood. Being that as long as we are walking with christ we are continually being cleansed. This sort of a view seems to me to go directly against the concept of offering the mass to apply the sacrifice of Christ to our lives and cleanse us from venial sins. If this sort of an interpretation were true then it would seem that the mass would then be inconsequential, since we would be cleansed at each moment anyway. I know this can't be the case, yet I can't find a way to get around this idea specifically in this verse.

any help would be greatly appreciated

Kyle

R. Sungenis: Kyle, the Protestants are always trying to use the Greek present tense to prove such things, at least when it is convenient for them. But the Greek present tense means no more in regards to continuing action than other languages. If I say in English, "The tree grows," it is understood that the present tense verb "grows" is a continuing action. If I say, "The soap cleanses me," I mean that as long as the soap is applied it will cleanse me. The same can be said for 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The word "confess" is in the present tense also, and it means that as long as we confess our sins, God will forgive them. So, any attempt to make a theological demarcation and declare that the Greek present tense in 1 John 1:7 means that we can never fall from salvation is just simply bad exegesis.

Top

Question 48- Who is Neuchanezzer of Judith 1:4

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Could you please substantiate your claim that the Nebuchdnezzar in the book of Judith is not the king of Babylon? This is the first time I have heard this argument. Has this been the consensus throughout the history of the Church? Can you provide any references supporting this position?
Thanks very much and God bless.

Pete K.

R. Sungenis: Another reference to your question is the work:

Discours sur l'histoire universelle
by Jacques Bénigne Bossuet, 1627 - 1704

Dessein général de l’ouvrage

He writes: Saosduchin fils d’Asaraddon, appelé Nabuchodonosor dans le livre de Judith, défit en bataille rangée Arphaxad roi des Mèdes.

Translated from the French: Saosduchin son of Asaraddon known as Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Judith beat Arphxad king of the Medes in an ordered battle.

Top

Question 47- Discussion on Evolution and Genesis 4

Hi Phil, I would explain chap 4 by saying that they had the technology, given by God but then they lost it at the flood. If you have Foundation, there is a passage in there that talks about how easy it is to lose technology. Everyone thinks that if there were 8 people they could re-invent the world in a few tens of thousands of years. That simply isn't true. The tasmanians were 4000 people who were isolated from the rest of humanity for 10,000 years. Their technology got worse and worse as time went by. Eventually, when Europeans discovered them, they had a technology which was compared with that of the chimpanzee by McGrew, an anthropologist.

Now, do I have evidence that they had that technology? No. Many believe that mankind couldn't be that old because the small brained creatures who lived 4-5 million years ago would be too stupid. This was recently disproven when H. floresiensis was found in Indonesia who was a descendant of H. erectus, had the brain the size of a chimp but made
fire, stone tools, hunted and according to legends had a language. Just like us.

Robert Sungenis: I find it interesting how Mr. Morton can make arguments based on the literal chronology presented in Genesis 4-7 (that is, that there was a Flood in Genesis 7 and it came after Genesis 4), but then totally ignores the literal chronology presented in Genesis 5 and 11, and thus allows himself to speak about man existing 4-5 million years ago. At most the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 can bring us back to about 10,000 BC. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy in your view of biblical chronology, Mr. Morton?

Phil: I don't know about the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies, most biblical scholars will say there are many gaps there, right?

R. Sungenis: Yes, there are gaps but the gaps are limited in scope. They don't allow millions of years. At most they allow only a few hundred years. If Dr. Morton wants to believe that man existed 4-5 million years ago, that is his prerogative, but he can't use the Bible to back it up.

Phil: Glenn's book is probably the most well documented book I have seen on these issues from a science standpoint, that still treats Genesis literally and respects the literal existence of Adam/Eve. Its a great book. Not that I have a lot of these books. Another new one I'm getting soon is by Falk/Collins Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds of Faith and Biology (Intervarsity, 2004).

R. Sungenis: First of all, evolutionary science hasn't proven even one of their tenets, so it is rather presumptuous to use "science" as the benchmark here. As for interpreting Genesis literally, you can't do that and believe in evolution, since there is nothing in the Bible that speaks of evolution.

Phil: As for Genesis 4, the references to metal working (4:22), farming and livestock raising (4:2), and I forgot to mention sophisticated musical instruments (4:21), again seems to definitively put this in the 5000 to 4000 BC range or later, at least for Cain/Able. We only have anthropological / archeological evidence for these things around this time at the earliest.

R. Sungenis: Wonderful. Now that real science, since it is not basing things on speculation but on actual discoveries in archeology. In fact, a 4000-5000 BC date coincides very well with a creation date for Adam at 10,000 BC and a Flood at 5000 BC, which can be arrived at rather easily from the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

Phil: Glenn's response is that these early hominids that acted human millions of years ago had that technology, but there is no scientific evidence for it. As for H. floresiensis, I don't know if we know enough about them, but still they had stone tools, so that fits with our known technology time line, right? They lived during the early Stone Ages.

R. Sungenis: Glenn doesn't know there were "early hominids" millions of years ago. His system of dating is based on assertions he hasn't proved. He is assuming evolution is right, and then he makes his educated guesses as to where the so-called hominids would fit in.

Phil: If we take the anthropological data that Glenn does seriously, there were no bronze/iron tools, or sophisticated musical instruments 4-5 million years ago, nor even 10,000 years ago. These first start showing up around 5000 to 4000 BC or later if I understand right. So unless there is a huge gap between Adam/Eve and Genesis 4, that puts Adam/Eve 4000 to 5000 BC. Or least the authors of Genesis believed Adam/Eve to have lived during that time.

R. Sungenis: Agreed.

Phil: Maybe I'm being too simplistic here trying to meld science and Genesis. As I said, Miller and Haught (and Lamoureux I think) take another path and interpret Genesis as "myth" -- but myth that contains religious truth.

R. Sungenis: Of course, because Miller and Haught have accepted the Documentary hypothesis and Historical Criticism as the truth. But these have been shown to be full of false assumptions.

Phil: Robert Sungenis is a Catholic geocentrist but I included him on this list of those I respect in terms of taking Genesis literally, maybe a little too literally (sun rising, earth not moving). :-) If you two want to continue, I'll watch.

R. Sungenis: A Catholic is supposed to take it literally unless science can prove that it can't be taken literally. If you can show some scientific proof for heliocentrism, then I'll join you, and this discussion will quickly come to a congenial end. :)

Top

Question 46- Hahn -- A Hypothesis?

I've been pondering several things after the discussions on your website about Scott Hahn. Hahn's tapes/books were very instrumental in my journey to deeper Catholicism (I was a "cradle Catholic" who, while never technically leaving, really didn't "get it") and my wife's own conversion to Catholicsm a year before our marriage. Needless to say I was a little concerned when I read a few of the articles that put some of his theology into question. What was said made a lot of since, and made both my wife and I wonder where else Hahn may have erred. Thankfully, you've since had more than 1 Q & A where you mentioned the good things about Hahn, which has definitely put me a little more at ease.

I wanted to run by my theory on Hahn's theology. I apologize in advance if you, or another person, has already touched upon this:

In Hahn's conversion story, he paints a picture of scripture study as being the prime mover for him towards Catholicsm. At the time, I believe he felt he was entering some new territory and realizing things that nobody else had. Of course, he discovered that the Catholic Church already had these beliefs and this led him eventually to joining the Church.

I think it's apparent that he's devoted to studying the scripture and I don't want to take anything away from his passion towards that endeavor. However, I wonder if Hahn doesn't relish the idea of discovering "new" things in scripture. It's like he finds a thread and just runs with it. While as a Protestant this led him to Catholic teaching; perhaps it now is hindering some of his theology, since he is no longer finding that Church Father that has already taught the same thing.

What do you think? Do you think there is any validity to my hypothesis? I'm saying this as an admirer of Dr. Hahn, but it's a thought that sort of jumped into my mind and outside of my wife, I figured I'd share it with someone.

Thanks!

R. Sungenis: I don't know for sure. I can't read Scott's mind. I would say this, however. It is very exciting to read Scripture and find something "new." It is a natural feeling. I experience it all the time. Just today I had an exhilarating experience, discovering an interpretation I never saw before. This will happen to any avid student of Scripture, and it is a good thing. It makes us want to dig deeper to find the next truth. But, there is a risk in such a venture, since in discovering something "new" you may be wrong in your discovery. I think this would be especially the case with a man like Scott, since he seems to have such a vivid imagination. Along with the penchant to "read between the lines," as it were, these assets could quickly turn into liabilities if they aren't checked and double-checked. This is what is so great about being Catholic. We always have either Oral Tradition, previous Scriptural exegesis from the Fathers or Medievals or the Magisterium to keep us straight.

Top

Question 45- Concordance?

Mr. Sungenis,
What is your preferred bible concordance?
Thank You,
Phyllis

R. Sungenis: Youngs Analytical Concordance for Engligh users, and Wigram's Hebrew or Greek Concordance for the biblical languages. Both are tied to the King James Bible.

Top

Question 44- Evolution

Mr. Sungenis, I went to go see a Catholic creation science presentation the other day. It was fine, but I was wondering if this is the only strategy that has been employed thus far, I mean presenting the evolution theory and then punching it full of enough holes that it looks like swiss cheese. Do creationist actually have a model of things or is it just like the bible says (I believe what the Bible says, what I mean is with greater details than the quick run through the bible gives us)?

Soldier in Christ ,
Jaime

PS My brother is a scientist and says that if one could prove that the way things are dated was proven to be false, the whole model of evolution would come crashing down. What do you think about this?

R. Sungenis: Jamie, there are dozens of books by Creationists putting flesh onto the bones of the Genesis account. The Institute for Creation Research would be a good place to start.

Yes, if the dating system is fallacious, evolution is proven wrong. We have already shot holes in their dating system, however, in paleontology, the geologic column and radiometric dating.

Top

Question 43- What is meant by the Serpent "crawling on its belly" in Genesis 3:14?

Dear Robert,
In reading Genesis Chapter 3 to my children as part of our family
Advent devotions, the question came up whether animals could speak before the Fall, since Eve’s conversing with the serpent is treated in such an ordinary manner. A Catholic Scripture commentary we have says that the devil entered the serpent to tempt Eve and therefore the serpent could talk. Is this the right way to understand this? Is it likely that animals could ordinarily talk of their own faculties before the Fall? Also, did God’s punishment of the serpent regarding belly crawling and dirt eating apply to all animal serpents and their descendants or only to the serpent in the incident? Or does this punishment apply to the devil? Thanks.

God bless,
Bernard Schnaufer
Marion, IA

R. Sungenis: Bernard, there is no indication in Scripture that the animals, in and of themselves, could talk. The only reason the serpent was made to talk is that Satan possessed the serpent's body, an action we know that spirits can do based on many other Scriptures.

The main question would be: why would Satan choose a serpent from which to communicate with Eve? The most likely reason is that Satan knew that Adam named the animals based on the characteristics of the particular animal (Genesis 2:19). Adam would have understood the serpent to be a wise animal, and named it accordingly. This is affirmed later in Scripture when, for example, Jesus says we are to be "as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves" (Mt 10:16).

So, knowing that Adam and Eve understood the serpent to be the wisest creature God made, it would have been the perfect animal for Satan to use in communicating with Eve. Eve would have understood the serpent to be very wise, and able to give her information that she could not think of on her own.

Satan had to pick at least one animal to do his bidding, since Satan is an immaterial spirit and could not physically appear to Eve on his own. He also had to pick one of the animals because there were no other humans in existence besides Adam and Eve. The fact that Satan made the serpent talk, would be even more evidence to Eve of the superior nature of the serpent. Not only is he a wise animal, but he can articulate himself, unlike any other animal.

The curse of the serpent is such that, previous to its deception of Eve, it would have been the highest creature, or one of the highest creatures, in the Garden. But now it would be brought down to be the lowest creature, even lower than cattle.

Why is the serpent punished in this way, since it was, shall we say, innocently possessed by Satan, and Satan was the real culprit? Because the cursing of the serpent will serve as a sign to mankind of man's fall in the Garden from henceforth, whenever he sees a snake slithering in the grass, just as the rainbow we see after a rain is a sign of God's covenant not to curse the earth with a flood again (Gn 9:13-17).

But the serpent is not the only animal to be cursed, rather the serpent's curse is merely more severe than the rest of the animals. Note that in the language God uses in Gn 3:14 ("The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life"), He indicates that the cattle are cursed, as well as every beast of the field as a result of Adam and Eve's sin. This is due to the fact that whenever God curses man, he also curses the creation, in particular, the animals. This is why we see so many references to "man and cattle" in Scripture (e.g., Gn 7:21; 9:9-10; Ex 9:3; 20:10; Dt 28:11; Neh 10:36; Jonah 4:11; Rom 8:20-22, et al).

In this curse, the anatomical features of the cattle and the other beasts are not altered, but the serpent's are altered, such that it will now be confined to earth by its belly and eat dust. This would imply that, prior to Satan's punishment via the serpent, the serpent would have possessed a more mobile body, perhaps with limbs or wings, and eaten things above the ground, but now those limbs or wings would be atrophied.

Not only will the serpent's new form and function be a sign to mankind of his fall in the Garden, but it also serves as a sign of the spiritual punishment God gives to Satan. (Since Satan chose to use a serpent for his ploy, then God speaks to Satan by means of the serpent). The physical demotion of the serpent to the lowliest beast is akin to the demotion of Satan to the lowest, in spiritual rank, of all God's angelic creatures (Gn 3:15). Because of this curse, Satan will eventually be crushed by the woman and her seed (Christ) just as a snake is crushed under the heel of a hunter.

Here is another important point. Since God does not give the full punishment to either Adam or Eve at that time, He justly cannot give full punishment to Satan, and thus he, like Adam and Eve, is allowed to roam the earth in his cursed condition (cf., Job 1:1-10), and only at the end of time will be finally be "crushed" (cf., Romans 16:20; Matt 25:46); although he received a preliminary crushing at the Cross (cf., Apoc 12:5-12; 20:1-3; John 12:31; 16:11; Heb 2:14). At the end of time also, all men who have not forsaken Satan will be punished (Apoc 20:11-15).

Top

Question 42- Proving the earth is heliocentric, using the Bible

Questioner: I know this will not fit the criteria on your website, but since you and I both know the Bible to be rock solid, if I can show the Bible points away from geocentricity and moves towards a more heliocentric universe, you'll be forced to drop any "truth" derived from theory, obersvation and hypothesis, in light of God's absolute truth, correct?

"Did I miss something?" You ask. "The Bible supports heliocentric theory? No way!" Stick with me.

Lets go to Joshua 12.

I think Joshua was radically ahead of his time and I think this chapter proves it.

First off, let us note, the Bible does use observational language:

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Darkness can be upon nothing! Nor can it be divided from light. Darkness is not a thing, it is simply the absence of light. Completely inappropriate literal language, but entirely legitimate
and logical observational language!

Note: Do NOT confuse figurative with obsersevational! Figurative language is the opposite of literal. It means what is said did not happen. By it, if the Bible was a figurative account, we could say the whole thing didn't happen at all! Observational language tells us what a person saw, nothing figurative about it, in that sense, it is LITERAL. And using it, you can help people understand the location of objects in the cosmos with almost pinpoint accuracy.

R. Sungenis: You first would have to prove that "darkness" is only the absence of light, and not also a substance in itself. Unless you can prove that as a scientific fact, your argument doesn't stand. In fact, there are several Scriptures that suggest that darkness is more than the absence of light (Exodus 10:21-22; 20:21; Dt 4:11; Jos 24:7; 1Kg 8:12; Job 38:17-19, et al).

Questioner: Note, the sun does not go down nor come up, it actually moves east to west (or I believe, we spin east to west)... does the Bible note the sun rising specifically in the east?

Numbers 2:3
And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.

Joshua 12:1
Now these are the kings of the land, which the children of Israel smote, and possessed their land on the other side Jordan toward the rising of the sun, from the river Arnon unto mount Hermon, and all the plain on the east:

Ezekiel 8:16
And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

Absolutely! The sun rising and setting in the east and west, moving east to west, is noted.

If the sun rises and sets literally on a round earth, it moves north to south, rising to the north, and setting to the south. (North-up, south-down)(Yes, a very funny pattern indeed if you think about it. The sun must then double back on itself and never shine on the rest of the earth). An east to west movement on a round earth requires a sun going around the earth, not up and down. If the earth spins, the sun rising and setting in the east and west makes perfect sense using observational language, but using literal language this doesn't make sense at all, unless the sun itself moves first north, then west, then south. (Rises in the east, sets in the west.)Using literal language and a round earth, these observations don't make sense at all! Always trying to force literal non observational language easily becomes a befuddled chaotic mess. Ours is a God of order, not chaos. (Take that, evolution believing christians! Order, not chaos!)

R. Sungenis: Scripture has two ways of accounting for the motion of the sun: (1) from the perspective of someone standing on the earth and looking at the horizon, and (2) from the perspective of one looking from space. The point is that whatever language is used, Scripture always says the sun is moving with respect to the earth, and never says the earth is moving with respect to the sun.

Questioner: First let us look at what Joshua logically actually wanted. He wanted light from the sun to continue the battle, correct? We have to note his true desires. He didn't care about altering celestial bodies... or did he? Hmmmm.... what's that say?

12"O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

Why would Joshua give one rip about the moon? The sun was his most logical concern. (I could note that often you can't see the sun and moon at the same time, but sometimes you can, so forget that.) What did he mean?

Well a geocentrist can say, Joshua was ahead of his time and realized the correlation between the movements of the sun and moon. He didn't want to throw off people's ability to tell time by them so he quickly told the moon to stop as well.

Wait a minute, what else moves by Geocentrist theory? The stars... but he said nothing about the stars! So what?... as an astronomer you have to know what. People navigate by the stars. If the stars kept moving for a significant period whilst the sun and moon froze, star charts would have been thrown off. My guess, that wouldn't be good for Joshua and the Jews either.

Ah, but by a Heliocentric universe system, in relation to us, the stars don't move much at all. If the earth stood still, the sun moon and stars would all appear to stop competently for a time.

Joshua addressed the sun because he needed light, the moon because he didn't want to throw off essential things like telling time and said nothing to the stars because he knew it wouldn't matter if he did! They wouldn't change one bit.

R. Sungenis: You haven't proven your premise in order to make your conclusion. That is, you haven't proven that the stars didn't stop. You also haven't proven that the moon was inconsequential in the request of Joshua. In fact, his call for the moon to stop moving supports the Geocentrist, since heliocentrists and geocentrists already agree that the moon moves. If we both agree that it moves, yet Joshua called for it to stop moving, then it is no great stretch to understand that when he called for the sun to stop it must have been moving as well. In any case, we know Joshua didn't ask for the earth to stop spinning.

Questioner: Oh by the way, being a Protestant myself, you and I are at crossroads on many issues, but, I do note that you declare the earth to be 10,000 years old. As a fellow young earth creationist, we don't have a crossroad there. Most creation science research groups put it at 6,000 years. All save for Creation Research headed up by John Mackay (my absolute favorite creationist). He also says 10,000, but I can't remember the reason for the difference of 4,000 years. Can you help me?

R. Sungenis: Most of the archeological research that we find agreeing between secularists and Creationists settle on about 10,000 BC for the beginning of civilization, and the destruction of that civilization around 4000-5000 BC. Ussher's date of 4004 BC is wrong because he only has Israel in Egypt for 215 years, or at most 237 years, but the Bible is clear that they were there for 430 years, to the very day. Also, Ussher doesn't explain the lacuna between Arphaxad and Shelach when compared with Luke 3:36, which adds Cainan between them. As for extending the dating of the Genesis 4-11 genealogies beyond 4000, we can do so because only three of the relationships claim to be father-son (Adam to Seth, Seth to Enosh, and Lamech to Noah) while the rest use the Hebrew YALAD, which can mean father-son or ancestor. If we use the ancestral paradigm as a calendar of biblical history, it can only take us back as far as 11,000 BC.

Top

Question 41- Gehenna

Dear Mr. Sungenis: Recently I read an article regarding the origin of the Catholic doctrine of Hell. It went something like this: At one time Yahweh was a sky god like many of the Canaanite gods and demanded human sacrifice. This is attested to by earlier books of the Old Testament and early prophets such as Isaiah. These sacrificial victims or places were called molochs; hence the confusion of the practice with a god subsequently called Moloch. These human sacrifices took place at various high places in ancient Palestine. In the 7th century, B.C., the royal establishment of Israel and Judah decided to centralize worship and revenues and suppress the high places. As part of this effort, new prophets like Jeremiah denounced human sacrifice and a "new book" of scripture was "discovered" (Deuteronomy) with a condemnatory attitude toward human sacrifice. Eventually the place at Jerusalem where such sacrifices were made (Gehenna) became identified with a place of eternal fiery punishment prepared by God for sinners. Thus the author believes that Hell is actually a recrudescence of the ancient belief in Yahweh as a vengeful sky god demanding human sacrifice as his due.
Ted Van Oosbree

R. Sungenis: Ted, this is what happens when we become "too smart" for ourselves. That usually happens when we imbibe the liberal hermeneutic that there has to be a natural explanation for everything. Unfortunately, as St. Faustina warned us, Hell will be populated mainly by those who thought that Hell didn't exist. By the way, in the historical sense, "gehenna" was the place outside of the walls of Jerusalem where they burned the refuse of the city. Since there was a continual stream of garbage, the fires were continually burning. Thus, it also developed a spiritual application in standing for the eternal fires of hell, and the NT writes adopted it as such.

Top

Question 40- Question regarding God's omniscience, Part III

dear mr. sungenis,

thank you for your reply and for the quotes from vatican 1; they were very helpful. however, i think you're misunderstanding my position and my question (at least in part because of a lack of clarity in my explanation). i do not deny that God knows our future free actions; rather, i deny that God knows what we would do in situations that we never will come across. so, for example, let's assume that tomorrow i will see someone stealing $5 from a cashier and that i will stop the person. because God knows the future, He knows what i will do. however, let's change the situation and say that i never see that person. in this case, i deny not only that God knows what i would do if i did see this person, but i also deny that any statement regarding what i definitely would or would not do (unless, of course, it's something impossible like saying i would turn into superman and stop him) can be either true or false. unless (notice that i said "unless," not "until," because "until" implies time, which God is outside of) we actually make a decision in a certain situation, there is no one single thing that we would definitely do in that situation. therefore, that kind of knowledge does not even exist, so God cannot know it. but don't take this to mean that God doesn't know what we could do in any situation. no, He definitely knows that. however, i hold that God does not know what we definitely would do in a hypothetical situation that we never did nor ever will be in. i hope i have clarified my position.

those quotes from vatican 1 were helpful because, while they do say that God knows all things past, present, and future, they don't say that God knows what we would definitely do in hypothetical situations. so, do you know if the church has made any infallible statements on whether or not God does have this kind of knowledge? your response is much appreciated.

-jp

R. Sungenis: JP, if God were presented with the case in this way: "God, here we have JP. If JP were to put into a situation where he had to choose X or Y, but we are not saying that JP has actually yet seen X or Y, can you tell me whether JP will choose X or whether he will choose Y?" If that is what you are proposing, then I would have to say that God still knows what we will choose, but there is no Church dogma with which I am aware that covers this precise situation of hypothetical's, but I think the consensus of Church teaching would agree that God does know the hypotheticals. 1 Samuel 23:1-14 is a good case in point.

Top

Question 39- Book of Judith: Was Nebuchadnezzer King of Assyria?

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Could you please substantiate your claim that the Nebuchdnezzar in the book of Judith is not the king of Babylon? This is the first time I have heard this argument. Has this been the consensus throughout the history of the Church? Can you provide any references supporting this position? Thanks very much and God bless.

Pete K.

R. Sungenis: Pete, one of the better sources for such an identification is Damien Mackey, which I will provide below.

Damien Mackey: THE ASSYRIAN TURTAN www.specialtyinterests.net/turtan.html

Part Three: Esarhaddon's Central Rôle in the Drama

This is effectively Part Three of the previous article on Sargon/Sennacherib.

The Douay and Greek versions of the Book of Judith are unanimous in saying that the King of Nineveh made war against the Chaldean foe in his Year 12. They diverge in assigning the destruction of the latter's city [1] to, respectively, Year 12 and Year 17. This may be explained to some degree by the fact that Sargon/Sennacherib twice conquered Babylon. The destruction of Babylon in Year 17 though accords well with the sequence outlined in Part Two, which took us as far as Sennacherib's Seventh Campaign.

For, in his Eighth Campaign, against the Elamite king, Umman-menanu, he ravaged the southern capital.

"Eighth Campaign I advanced swiftly against Babylon .... Like the on-coming of a storm I broke loose .... I completely invested that city, with mines and engines .... The plunder .... Year 17 (Judith 1:13,14) In the seventeenth year [the Assyrian king] ... came to Ecbatana [i.e. Babylon], captured its towers, plundered its markets, and turned its glory into disgrace"

Then, still in Year 17 according to Judith, "... he returned to Nineveh, he and all his combined forces ... and there he and his forces rested and feasted for one hundred and twenty days" (v.16).

Sennacherib by now had much about which to be self-congratulatory. His Eighth Campaign, though, is about as far as the Great King's war records take us. And we could be left feeling very empty.

Where is the account of that most notorious of all wars of his, the one against the west all the way to Egypt - as recorded by Herodotus in The Histories, in the Scriptures and in the pseudepigrapha (Judith, Tobit, Maccabees) - when Sennacherib's army of almost 200,000 was humiliated?

So catastrophic a defeat for Assyria cannot by any means be accommodated during Sennacherib's Third Campaign, against the west, which as we saw was a stunning success for Assyria.

Historians have agonized over this. Was there a further western campaign after Hezekiah of Judah had initially been brought into submission? [2].

And, I must add, what about the showdown between Judith and the Assyrian Turtan, "Holofernes", who completely lost his head over this Jewish beauty? No indication in what we have already read about the incursion of Sargon's Turtan into Judaean territory that he came under even the least pressure from Hezekiah's subjects.

By contrast to this, the impressive Greek version of Judith, in particular, records a massive military campaign - ultimately disastrous - first envisaged by the Great King of Assyria in his Year 18, and to be led by a commander of enormous prestige:

In the eighteenth year, on the twenty-second day of the first month, there was talk in the Palace of [the] king of Assyrians about carrying out his revenge on the whole region, just as he had said. (Judith 2:1; Septuagint).e1

... When he had completed his plan, Nebuchednezzar, king of the Assyrians, called Holofernes, the chief general of his army, second only to himself ... (v.4).

e1)

The Turtan duly raised an army of 120,000 picked troops by divisions [3], together with 12,000 archers on horseback, plus immense numbers of animals for baggage and food, ample rations and a huge amount of gold and silver from the royal palace (vv.14-18).

Sheer revenge is given as being the Great King of Assyria's motivation for this campaign (probably series of campaigns again), especially against the west, because the nations from Cilicia as far as the borders of Ethiopia had refused to support him upon his request during his Year 12 war against the Chaldeo-Aramaean coalition (1:7-12). "... they were not afraid of him, but regarded him as only one man. So they sent back his messengers empty-handed and in disgrace" (v.11).

A desire to conquer wealthy Egypt was probably also a major motivational factor for Sennacherib.

The Turtan went forth with his huge army, and by the time that he had brought the west into quaking submission, and had come "toward Esdraelon, near Dothan, facing the great ridge of Judaea" (3:9), his fighting forces had swollen to "one hundred seventy thousand infantry and twelve thousand cavalry, not counting the baggage and the footsoldiers handling it, a very great multitude" (7:2). This overall total equates strikingly to the 185,000 men of Sennacherib's defeated army. It was down upon such an immense host, encamped before Dothan, that there gazed in awe the northern Israelites, including Judith, a 16th generation Simeonitess, and her townspeople of Bethulia [4].

The Israelites commented: "They will now strip clean the whole land; neither the high mountains nor the valleys nor the hills will bear their weight" (7:4).

Nonetheless, urged on by their high priest in Jerusalem, Joakim (var. Eliakim) - whom I have previously identified as Akhimiti of Ashdod of the Assyrian records - they had resolved to resist (Judith 4) and live with the consequences.

Who was Assyria's Ill-Fated Commander-in-Chief?

The Turtan named "Holofernes" in the Book of Judith was unlikely the same person as the Turtan whom Sargon/Sennacherib had previously sent against "Ashdod", who would by now, about a decade later, have been well familiar with the various nations of the west. For the Turtan in the Judith narrative has to ask the locals: 'Tell me, you Canaanites, what people is this that lives in the hill country?' (Judith 5:3). To identify these as the one Turtan would also make for a very tight chronology indeed in the context of this revision. Sennacherib, according to Roux, employed both "a turtânu 'of the right' and a turtânu 'of the left'" [5].

Which one, if either, was the mighty "Holofernes"?

The Book of Judith is quite specific: "Holofernes" was "second only to [the king] himself ..."; he commanded an army of epic proportions; he cleaned up the west, preparing the way for the king himself (just as was the pattern in regard to Sennacherib's Third Campaign]. He was eventually stopped dead in his tracks by some mountain folk in Samaria, before he could penetrate as far as Jerusalem.

History apparently knows of no such Turtan. At a later time, presumably in 352 BC during the reign of Artaxerxes III 'Ochus', a Cappadocian prince named "Holofernes" is said to have fought against the Egyptians [6]. This is one of various examples of the unwarranted intrusion of Medo-Persian elements into the Book of Judith [7].

However, there was a notable Assyrian blue blood at the time of King Hezekiah who is a most appropriate candidate for "Holofernes" inasmuch as he was a potent leader, who invaded even Egypt, and who died mysteriously on campaign. And he fits exactly the description given in Judith of "second only to [the king] himself". I refer to Sennacherib's favourite son and heir, ESARHADDON [8&8a].

I would naturally expect immediate, strong objections to this identification of Esarhaddon with "Holofernes" considering that Esarhaddon (680-669 BC, conventional) is universally thought to have outlived - and reigned subsequently to - his father, Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, after having presumably put down a revolt by Sennacherib's patricidal sons, began by rebuilding the Babylon that his father had destroyed. His records tell that he was "still a youth" when his father secured his accession [9]. The young Viceroy had made his famous march from Babylon northwards to Nineveh against the brothers who had rebelled against him, who blocked his path: "The terror of the great gods, my lords, overwhelmed them", he said [10].

As for those villians who instigated the revolt and rebellion, when they heard of the approach of my army, they abandoned their regular troops, and fled to parts unknown. I reached the dyke of the Tigris. [At the word] of Sin and Shamash, the gods, the lords of the dyke, my armies scrambled over the wide Tigris as (across an) irrigation ditch.

Warmly welcomed by the Assyrian people, and by most of the opposing army which defected to him, Esarhaddon proclaimed: "I entered into Nineveh, my royal city, joyfully, and took my seat upon the throne of my father in safety".

According to Luckenbill, Esarhaddon's brothers had actually, in the course of this particular revolt, slain their father Sennacherib [11]:

A firm [determination] "fell upon" my brothers. They forsook the gods and turned to their deeds of violence, plotting evil. Evil word(s) and deed(s), ... they perpetrated against me .... They revolted (?). To gain the [kingship] they slew [Sennacherib, their father.] ....

The Bible and pseudepigrapha seem to support this sequence of events, referring to Sennacherib's death and then accession of his son, Esarhaddon. Thus for instance 2 Kings, having briefly narrated Sennacherib's murder, adds: "His son Esarhaddon succeeded him" (4.Regn. 19:37) ; Septuagint.

But according to Georges Roux [12]: "The patricide is not mentioned ...".

Could this therefore be perhaps yet another case where the modern restorers of the Assyrian records have filled in the blanks with bracketed data according to their preconceived notions?

But, then again, what about the testimony of the scriptural data cited above? Well, the Hebrew root ben here is not too much of a problem, as it can mean both 'son' and 'grandson' [13]. As for the name, Esarhaddon, the Book of Tobit, which had been an ally for me in my theory that Sennacherib was the successor of Shalmaneser, now seems to desert me by distinctly naming Esarhaddon as the successor after Sennacherib's death (Tobit 1:21). Still, that is only in translation. The name translated as "Esarhaddon" is given in the Greek as Sacherdonos; a name that comes very close to the Saosduchin said in the Douay version of Judith to have "succeeded Asarhaddon in the kingdom of the Assyrians" [14].

That can only mean Ashurbanipal. Thus the original version of Tobit may well have read "... his [Sennacherib's] (grand)son Ashurbanipal succeeded him".

With Esarhaddon generally recognised as a younger son of Sennacherib, the eldest being Ashur-nadin-shumi whom Sennacherib made Viceroy of Babylon during his Year 12 (Fourth Campaign), the chronology I am trying to develop here would be extremely tight indeed. But Esarhaddon in fact calls himself "the oldest son of [Sennacherib ..." [15] - another apparent rebuff to convention. This primary piece of evidence not only assists my reconstruction, but now makes highly attractive also an identification of Esarhaddon (i.e. Ashur-akhi-iddina) with Ashur-nadin-shumi [16].

Ashur-nadin-shumi's six years of reign over Babylon would thus correspond with Esarhaddon's reign over that city. And I suggest it was during this early period that Esarhaddon rebuilt, probably magnified, the city of Babylon.

But while his father was still alive [17].

Once again, as with the data concerning the Sargonid succession, historians have taken an extreme licence when restoring the Assyrian records, adding what was never there - in this case the murder of Sennacherib - and thus wreaking havoc with Assyrian history.

If Sennacherib, ensconced at Khorsabad, had virtually abdicated in favour of his son, whom as heir he re-named Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-aplu [18], this would go a long way towards explaining historians' puzzlement over the fact that there are no official annals for about the last decade of Sennacherib's 24-year reign. The annals are in fact available, but they need to be looked for under the name of Esarhaddon, whose 11-12 year reign must now be encompassed entirely within the reign of Sennacherib - who, as we shall see, only just outlived his son.

Unfortunately, Esarhaddon's annals are - as we noted in Part One - carelessly arranged, making the editor's job difficult.

Judith herself, in her definition of the precise relationship between the Great King of Assyria and his Viceroy, shows that, whilst the latter now had full charge of military affairs, it was nonetheless the ageing king who still cracked the whip (11:7):

'By the life of Nebuchednezzar, king of the whole earth, and by the power of him who has sent you to direct every living being! Not only do human beings serve him because of you, but also the animals of the field and the cattle and the birds of the air will live, because of your power, under Nebuchednezzar and all his house'.

Esarhaddon's military prowess was legendary; not least in his own mind [19]:

Like a lion I raged, I put on (my) coat of mail, (my) helmet, emblem of victory, I put on my head. I grasped in my hand the mighty bow .... Like a fierce eagle, with wings outspread ..., in front of my troops, [I went], like a flood, I advanced. The unsparing javelin of Assur, fiercely, swiftly, was let loose ..., the gods Shar-ur and Shar-gaz going [at my side].

Judith will immediately play on this reputation during her first encounter with the Turtan: "... it is reported throughout the whole world that you alone are the best in the whole kingdom, the most informed and the most astounding in military strategy" (Judith 11:8).

Esarhaddon was also ever loyal to his father, Sennacherib, and was thus especially vengeful against insolent kings - presumably those who according to the Judith narrative had originally sent back the Assyrian messengers "empty-handed and in disgrace". Good examples of kings who stubbornly resisted Assyria during Esarhaddon's floruit were Abdi-Milkuti, King of Sidon, whom Esarhaddon captured and beheaded, Baal of Tyre and his colleague, Tirhakah of Ethiopia [20]:

... I threw up earthworks against Ba'lu, king of Tyre, who had put his trust in his friend Tirhakah ..., king of Ethiopia, had thrown off my royal yoke and had sent me insolent (messages). Food and drink (water) (which would) keep them alive, I withheld ....

Baal and Tirhakah are likely the two figures depicted at Esarhaddon's feet in the victory (Senjirli) stele the Assyrian set up in northern Syria. Esarhaddon holds a cup in his right hand and from the left hand extends the ropes ("reins") which pass through the lips of these two conquered figures [21]. But Esarhaddon's and his father's enemies - at least those who survived their vengeful regime - would have the last laugh. In a short space of time, Assyria would lose to violence its Turtan (Viceroy) - slain during the campaign that was intended to culminate in his second (possibly third) invasion of Egypt [22] - much of the powerful Assyrian army, and - not long afterwards - the Great King himself, assassinated.

The Downfall of "Holofernes"

My reconstruction of neo-Assyrian history has enabled thus far for a most plausible identification of "Holofernes" with Esarhaddon, as second only to the Assyrian king during a climactic period of history, who died during a western campaign. All well and good as far as it goes. But to be fully satisfying we need some evidence of the Viceroy's shameful demise. This is to be found, I believe, most surprisingly in the Assyrian records themselves, in the Eponym Chronicle [23]; giving the lie to any naïve view that the Assyrians did not record defeats. Tadmor gives the crucial text as if belonging to Sargon's Year 17 (705 BC), presuming this to have been the year that Sargon actually died [24]:

"The king [against Tabal ....] against Ešpai the Kulummaean. [......] The king was killed. The camp of the king of Assyria [was taken ......]. On the 12th of Abu, Sennacherib, son [of Sargon, took his seat on the throne]".

There is no information from any other source on the last war of Sargon [sic], nor any plausible identification of the Kulummaeans.

We now know that a succession of Sargon to Sennacherib, as proposed in the above quote, is impossible. The un-named "king" referred to in this quote should in fact be identified as Esarhaddon, that is the "Holofernes" of the Book of Judith who "was killed [with the result that] ... The camp of the king of Assyria [was taken ......]". Cf. Judith 13:8, and 15:6-7: "... the people of Bethulia fell upon the Assyrian camp and plundered it, acquiring great riches. And the Israelites, when they returned from the slaughter, took possession of what remained".

The aging Sennacherib by no means at this point - as is suggested by the above quote - "took his seat on the throne" (though perhaps he may personally now have taken over the duties of his dead son).

Rather, he had to undertake a far less pleasant task.

Tadmor tells what this task was, though wrongly supposing that it was Sargon's demise that was the matter that Sennacherib had to investigate [25]:

The death of a king on a battlefield, killed in action, is as yet unparalleled in the history of Mesopotamia. Sennacherib had to investigate closely into the hidden reasons of his father's [sic] death in order to find out what were the sins (hîtâti) of Sargon [sic].

What was an added shame for Assyria - pointing to the sins of the slain King of Assyria - was that this Assyrian king (the Viceroy) was not buried in "his house". According to Tadmor [26]: "This may mean that either his corpse was cremated at the battlefield or that it was not recovered from the enemy". The Book of Judith is definitive on this. The Viceroy's head was actually carried away from his lifeless corpse by the triumphant Judith and her maid back to Bethulia, where - upon Judith's instructions - it was hung upon the parapet of the city wall (cf. Judith 13:9-10, 15, & 14:11); the purpose being to strike fear into the hearts of the Assyrian soldiers and cause them to flee.

The Esarhaddon Chronicle gives the exact day of Esarhaddon's death, "on the [tenth] day of the month Marchesvan", which is the eighth month [27].

We can now set the record straight once and for all. The all-conquering Assyrian army of 185,000 was not 'nibbled to death', or 'infected', by mice (Herodotus) [28], nor space-blasted (Velikovsky). Its rout and defeat were set in train by the pious woman Judith, as she herself testifies (16:5-6):

'But the Lord Almighty has foiled them by the hand of a woman. For their mighty one (Turtan) did not fall by the hands of the young men, nor did the sons of Titans strike them down, nor did tall giants set upon him; but Judith daughter of Merari with the beauty of her countenance undid him'.

Sennacherib's Fury and Death

According to Tobit - who identified as a metaphysical cause for the defeat and flight of the Assyrian army, not the Turtan's sins but Sennacherib's own sin, of blasphemy - Sennacherib in his fury took revenge upon the Israelite people in Assyria, including eventually Tobit himself (1:18-20). Tobit finally had to flee for his life, but "not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib's sons killed him".

Epilogue

Encyclopaedia Judaica's article, "Judith", shows that this drama to end all dramas has consistently, down through the centuries, been represented in art, literature and music. Our footnotes especially show that the Greeks absorbed the story of Judith and Holofernes into their own folklore. In the Lindian Chronicle it is narrated that when Darius, King of Persia, tried to conquer the Island of Hellas, the people gathered in the stronghold of Lindus to withstand the attack. The citizens of the besieged city asked their leaders to surrender because of the hardships and sufferings brought by the water shortage (cf. Judith 7:20-28). The Goddess Athena [read Judith] advised one of the leaders [read Uzziah] to continue to resist the attack; meanwhile she interceded with her father Jupiter [read the God of Israel] on their behalf (cf. Judith 8:9-9:14). Thereupon, the citizens asked for a truce of five days, after which, if no help arrived, they would surrender (cf. Judith 7:30-31). On the second day of the truce a heavy shower fell on the city so the people could have sufficient water. Datis [read Holofernes], the admiral of the Persian fleet [read Turtan of the Assyrian army], having witnessed the particular intervention of the Goddess to protect the city, lifted the siege.

Top

Question 38- Baptism of Desire?

Hi Robert,

Please forgive me, my email of 21st November left a lot to be desired in terms of introduction and context.

I am a lay person, living in the Republic of Ireland and working for a multi-national company.

I have read many of your articles in Catholic Family News and have recently purchased your book - The Gospel According to St. Matthew. I find your writings grounded in the Truth and irrefutable.

One of the (many) evils of Modernism is the notion of universal salvation, where all religions are pleasing to God. A man is saved whether he wants to be or not!

In parallel with this notion is the opinion, held by many, that baptism of desire and blood is equal in value to baptism of water. Various Doctors and Saints of the Church are quoted as supporting this position. The words of Our Lord, to the Good Thief, are used as a defining QED. However, the Church has not dogmatically defined this position.

I find the positions of universal salvation and baptism of desire and blood similar in nature, one being more advanced than the other.

When I sent you my first email, I had just returned from Mass where the priest (SSPX), during his sermon, spoke of baptism of desire and blood gaining a soul entry to Heaven. He further stated that a miscarried baby, through the prayers of its parents gained entry to Heaven. In other words the priest was saying that the desire of another was sufficient for salvation. Impossible.

Our Divine Lord has clearly said that unless a man is baptized with water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and the thrice defined Dogma 'Outside the Church there is no Salvation' leave no quarter for other means of entry to Heaven. There is always a role for Theological speculation and charitable conversation, it makes things interesting, but it does not become Church teaching.

Universal salvation, on the one hand and baptism of desire and blood, on the other hand, are carriages on the same train. The only difference being the proximity of the carriages to the engine!

Unfortunately, positions taken on baptism of desire and blood quickly become emotive and accusations and labeling and boxing follow.

Robert - how do you argue the case for baptism of desire and blood?

-----Original Message-----

Hi Robert,

Could you please let me know the Church's official teaching on baptism of desire and blood in the context of salvation? Also, somewhat related, could you please let me know what is the Church's position on babies that are miscarried - can they get to Heaven?

Regards,
Paul McDermott

R. Sungenis: Paul, the Church did take up the topic of baptism of desire (actually, in the Latin it is "desire for baptism") in Chapter 4, Session 6, of the Council of Trent. There it stated that the desire for baptism was a valid means of obtaining the grace of justification:

"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be erected except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"

Obviously, if there were no chance of receiving the grace of justification by a means other than having water poured over one's head with the Trinitarian formula, then the Council fathers would not have even suggested such a possibility as a "desire for baptism."

Unfortunately, the Council did not go any further than just stating the possibility. They did not work out when it would be applicable. The traditional understanding is that the "desire," since the word here in Latin is "vota" meaning "vow," meant that it only applied to one who was just about to come into the Church and had made a personal vow to receive baptism, but suddenly died before he could receive the actual laver. Even the present 1992 Catechism recognizes this traditional interpretation.

The fact is that the Church does allow for one to receive justification without having received the actual water of the laver. In the same way, Trent allowed for a confession by desire as well:

"Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation of them, or ‘a contrite and humble heart' [Psalm 50:19], but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment..."

and thus mortal sins could be forgiven based on the "desire" to have them forgiven. Again, however, the traditional interpretation held that this "desire" or "sincere act of contrition" was to be used in instances where one could not go to the confessional.

Whether the "desire" of baptism or the "desire" of confession has any other application is pure speculation. Unless the Church formally teaches that the "desire" has other applications, no one should be teaching that such allowances of "desire" are to be applied in any other instance than that traditionally practiced by the Church.

By the same token, it is not our prerogative to judge whether God saves someone, for salvation is His domain, not ours. It is one thing to teach Church dogma, it is another thing to play God. Unfortunately, people who discuss this issue often fail to draw that line.

Top

Question 37- St. Nilus prophecy?

Mr. Sungenis,

The magazine Inside the Vatican (which has happily taken a more traditional position regarding theology and the Sacred Liturgy) recently published a prophecy accredited to St. Nilus. The prophecy was somewhat startling in its seemingly accurate vision of the future, and I was wondering if you have any knowledge of this prophecy and its authenticity. Thank you for all of your work.

R. Sungenis: Andrew, yes, the prophecy of Nilus comes from a 4-5th century eastern mystic, at least the rudiments do. Whether the whole thing can be attributed to Nilus is another story, however. Some of the "prophecies" seem a little too convenient for someone so far away from the modern era. We did not use it in our CASB for that very reason.

Top

Question 36- Laying On Of Hands

Robert,

Can you recommend a good source on the practice of laying on of hands as practiced in both the NT and OT? I suspect that this practice is very important to apostolic succession as it appears in Paul's letters to Timothy and Acts. Am I correct to believe that this practice is the confirmation of authority given from one who has authority to another?

Craig

R. Sungenis: Craig, sorry, I don't know any book on the topic. Yes, it is a solemn rite of transferring power. The church has used it since its inception. Unfortunately today, there are a lot of Protestants and Catholics abusing this rite, claiming that it transfers healing. That would only be the case if someone was a bona fide miracle worker, and there are few of those today. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Top

Question 35- Pope John Paul II -- What are the Positives? Pt II

Thanks so much for your reply! It's definitely given me some things to ponder.

While I did mention the potential for additional questions, one just came to mind after reading your e-mail:

When John Paul II's papacy comes to an end, do you think the next Pope is likely to be less/more liberal? Do you have anyone in particular that you'd like to see elected, and could it happen? (I know JPII has named a lot of cardinals and I don't know the theological makeup of most of these men).

Hopefully that made sense.

Thanks again!

R. Sungenis: Unfortunately, JP2 has stocked the college of cardinals with like-minded thinkers. I would say the odds are very great we will have a more liberal-minded pope, but there is a saying in Rome that he who goes into the conclave hoping to be elected will come out not elected. I would recommend that we all pray very hard for God to intervene and give us a pope who will do his job well.

Top

Question 34- Is the Church Too Rich?

Hello Mr. Sungenis,
I have read Butler's wonderful Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. Your
contributions were, of course, the best part. To get right to the point, is there any justification for the wealth of the Vatican and the Pope? Every time I try to explain the structure of authority in the Church to my father he responds by saying that Jesus would not like the Church because it is too rich. He says that the Church is a business. When he says these things, I have no idea how to respond.

Also, do you know when the earlier Q&A articles will be up? I am anxious to reread your article on Mary Magdalene. By the way, I loved your article on the toledoths. God bless.

Sincerely,
Joshua

R. Sungenis: Joshua, your father is right -- the Vatican is too rich, among many other things these days. But that doesn't mean the Catholic Church is not the true Church. It just means that the Vatican heirarchs need to get their priorities in order. There were several times in history that the Church got "too fat," as the saying goes. It was usually followed by a more austere and frugal pope who cleared away the extravagance.

As for the Q&A, my webmaster is working as fast as he can. He had to redo the whole site, and he is putting things back together piece by piece.

God be with you

Top

Question 33- Fr. Gruner vs. Rick Salbato, and Audiotape on God's character

Hello Robert!

1. I notice you've been referring more lately to Father Gruner and Christopher Ferrara. On another web site, "Unity Publishing" by Rick Salbato, it is claimed that Father Gruner tried to forcibly enter Sister Lucia's convent on one occasion, and that he is persona non grata there. Now, I don't know Father Gruner or Mr. Ferrara, but are you sure they aren't on the fringe?

R. Sungenis: Michael, I assure you that Fr. Gruner and Mr. Ferrara are two of the sanest people on planet earth. The allegation that Fr. Gruner tried to force his way into Sr. Lucia's convent is ludicrous. Fr. Gruner is about as saintly as they come, but since he is also a lion the prevaricators have now tried to silence him by making up stories. The long and short of it is: if you want the truth, talk to Gruner or Ferrara.

2. I have also heard that, during the March 25, 1984 consecration, that the Holy Father paused at one point, as if mentally making the intention of consecrating Russia though not using audible words, just as a priest might have a private intention at Mass. I have also read a piece suggesting that, even if the Pope did or will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, there still remains *our* duty of living out the Fatima devotions, Five Saturdays, Rosary, etc. Is it possible that John Paul II is not lying or deceiving us, and that he *did* consecrate Russia (at least by mental intention), but that the problem is that *we* laity have not done our part? The Blessed Mother said, God wanted "devotion to my Immaculate Heart to be established". Frankly, I don't think we have it to any large degree, and we persist in sinning.

R. Sungenis: Well, it is certainly true that most of Catholicism hasn't kept the Five Saturdays, but that is mostly because the church hierarchy has not educated them to do so, since they believe the Fatima revelations are passe. And no, there is no possibility that the pope could have accomplished the consecration by mumbling under his breath, as it were, and that certainly is not what the Vatican hierarchs are claiming (Ratzinger, Sodano, et al). First, Our Lady specified a public, audible and ecclesial consecration. Mumbling would not satisfy her request. The bishops had to be involved and had to give their affirmation of what was said by the pope. They can't do that if they don't know what the pope is saying. Second, the Vatican hierarchs are claiming that there was indeed a public and audible consecration, and the wording of the consecration satisfied what Our Lady requested. Unfortunately, their version of what needed to be said and Our Lady's version are diametrically opposed. Our Lady specifically and unalterably demanded that "Russia" be named in the consecration. The Vatican has specifically and unalterably avoided naming Russia, and even gave excuses for doing so. Speaking of sanity, anyone can figure out that the Vatican has systematically and purposely circumvented the Fatima revelations, and that is because she has become a whore who wants to make love to The Beast instead of her Lord.

3. On your older website format, I remember there was an audiotape on the character of God, that you had come to a point after years of reflection where you thought you really knew God and His expectations of us. Is that tape still available?
Regards,
Michael

R. Sungenis: Yes, the tape is "Who is God and What Does He Want from Us?" It is available from our audio tape selection on our website.

Top

Question 32- The Toledoths of Genesis?

Robert

The article on the Toledoths of Genesis was fantastic. Are there any catholic bible scholars presenting this view of Genesis? The Navarre commentary on Genesis presents the Documentary theory. I searched the archives of Fr. William Most, who does not support the documentary theory. and found no mention of Wiseman or Yahuda's work. I shared the article with members of a catechetical group and was criticized for attacking "this well supported documentary theory". I need more ammunition.

Walt

R. Sungenis: Walt, I wish there was more support. Unfortunately, we live in an age of apostasy that thinks the Bible is full of errors and fabrications.

Top

Question 31- Who is a Modernist Today?

Dear Robert,

I found your website because I wanted to read your opinion on Scott Hahn’s theologizing. I’ve had trouble with his Protestant methods for many years now and am speechless regarding his newest series of books. However, reading other items on your site leads me to ask the question, “Who then is not a Modernist among the theologians of the last 50 years?” I wonder if my personal library is “tainted” and useless. Is Pope John Paul II a modernist? Are his writings tainted? Von Balthasar? De Lubac? Since Fr Fessio is, then is Ignatius Press suspect? I am afraid to ask if Fr. Hardon is as well. Get my drift?

What would you say about Catholic Distance University? I am taking two courses there now. It seems solid so far.

I am interested to know your opinion.

God bless,

Marcela Carbo

R. Sungenis: Marcela, I would suspect that most of the books written today are taking a modernist bent. There are degrees, however, of how much modernism they accept and propagate. There are the ultra-liberals, the liberals, the neo-conservatives, the conservatives, the traditionalists, the SSPX, the SSPV, sedevacantists. Some are modernist on one or two doctrines (e.g., Fessio on Scripture's inerrancy); some are modernist in most of their theology (Von Balthasar). Hardon, I believe, was okay, but he had one or two areas that one might question. I would say that John Paul II is a modernist at heart, except as pope he must often curb his own modernist tendencies (e.g., Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994), since he cannot, dogmatically, go against Tradition. In addition, John Paul II was a framer of Vatican II's Gaudium et spes and Dignitatis Humanae, both of which, using ambiguous language in certain places, laid the ground work for the Assisi events and the thrust (but failure) of ecumenism we have seen for the last 25 years of his pontificate. I believe Assisi is a total misinterpretation of both GES, DH and the Tradition, but Assisi is not Catholic dogma, and thus the pope escapes censure.

Top

Question 30- Jerome and the Deutero-canonical books, Part II?

As always thank you for your response.

1. How have Catholics historically interpreted the additions to Daniel. Do they accept the events that are told in them as actually taking place. Opponents of the DC are quick to point out the 'legendary and fanciful,' nature of these sections? How do Catholics counter such a claim? Are literal interpretations also accepted with regards to Tobit and Judith, generally speaking? I am inclined to think that the characters presented in such stories are more than fictitious.

R. Sungenis: The DC additions to Daniel are no more "fanciful" than the PC narratives, the latter of which the PC "only" proponents of Daniel have had their hands full in combating the Protestant liberals who find the PC stories not only "fanciful" but also contradictory. As to the "fanciful," the narratives of Daniel in the Lion's Den; his visions of prophecy to Nebuchadnezzer; the meeting of the fourth person with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and many other events would raise the objections of any skeptic who denies the possibility of miraculous intrusion into the human sphere. So, for the PC onlyists to shift the problem of "fanciful" narrative to the DC portions of Daniel is simply the pot calling the kettle black. As for the "contradictions" in the PC of Daniel, the liberals point out many, especially the problem with Darius being a Mede or a Persian. We have an answer for it, however, just as we have an answer for the apparent contradictions in Tobit and Judith, both of which I explained to you in earlier emails. END

2. Another common claim, and I have not had time yet to validate it has to do with Baruch 1:8 which apparently speaks of the vessels of the Temple being sent from Babylon during the time of Jeremiah, while Ezra 1:7 indicates that they came after the exile. Any thoughts on this?
Kelly J. Wilson

R. Sungenis: The vessels in Baruch 1:8 were only "silver" vessels, while those in Ezra 1:7-11 were both silver and gold, and are actually numbered. Daniel 5:2 also tells us there were silver and gold vessels. So, the only logical answer is that Baruch had taken some of the silver vessels prior to the completion of the exile, and that the rest of the vessels, both gold and silver, were returned in full after the exile.

Top

Question 29- Pope John Paul II -- What are the Positives??

I figure that I'll have lots of questions, but for now I thought I'd narrow it to one specific area of concern. I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge, and found "Not By Bread Alone" to be a very helpful and enlightening book. (In addition, I felt you were clearly the ace in the hole for another book which was inspiring -- "Jesus, Peter & the Keys.") When I went to look for more info on you, I found lots of negative articles about you. Your site has the dreaded "red flag" at Catholicculture.org, and the anti-pope thread seemed to be the sticking points to many of these things I read. I started coming more regularly to your site to see just where you stood (were you in communion with Rome?), and quite frankly
because it invigorates/challenges me which has always been a beneficial thing to my Faith development.

Recently, the Hahn articles have spewed a volume of Q&As as well as other articles. I imagine this is similar to what may have happened when you posted a few of your concerns about John Paul II. The perceived negativity is what I think is the biggest concern for many. This brings me to my question:

What things do you most admire about John Paul II? What are the real positives that he's had in this Papacy in your opinion? Have you found any of his papal writings to be particularly helpful/inspiring to you?

Thanks so much!

Patrick M.

R. Sungenis: Patrick, first, let me deal with the "CatholicCulture" site. Please read the article we have written about them which is cited on our homepage. Go to our homepage at www.catholicintl.com and scroll down to "Catholic Issues" and click on the article titled "Jeffrey Mirus: Self-Appointed Policeman of Catholic Internet Sites." I think that will answer your concerns.

As for John Paul II, of course, he has positive points as well, but unfortunately, his negative points overwhelm his positive. I do really think that he could go down as one of the most inept popes in Catholic history. His policies have decimated Catholicism. Just recently the 22-member nations of the EU refused to include the phrase "the Christian roots of Europe" into their constitution, even after the pope pleaded with them to do so. This shows that the pope's efforts at trying to be nice to the nations by his "ecumenical" program is an unmitigated failure. When this is coupled with his almost total disregard for disciplining his wayward clerics, both in faith and morals, in addition to his constant bent toward having pagans pray to their false gods and implying that these people are saved; in addition to his side-stepping the Fatima revelations by claiming to have fulfilled the request to consecrate Russia in 1984 (which he never did); his decimation of the doctrine of Justification (the cornerstone of the Council of Trent) by his approval of the Joint Declaration which says, "man is justified by faith alone"; and his statement that "evolution is more than a hypothesis," there is not much in this pontificate to be proud of.

As for his good points, I admire him for disallowing women to be priests (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994), (although he followed this with allowing altar girls) as well as his appeals against abortion and population control, and many of his encyclicals that reiterate traditional truth about Mary and other Catholic theological points, are very good.

Top

Question 28- Regarding God's Omniscience, Part II?

dear mr. sungenis,

thank you for your response, but i still have a questions.

i agree that God and much of His revelation is mysterious and beyond the ability of our limited intellects to grasp, but i still think that, just as God can't make a 4-sided triangle, He doesn't know what free beings definitely would do in hypothetical situations that they never were in nor ever will be in (although He does know what we will in situations that we will be in do because, as the catechism says, all moments are present for God). just as He cannot make a 4-sided triangle because there is nothing to actually make, He can't know what we would do in hypothetical situations because there is nothing to know. if a being is free, then unless it actually makes a choice in a given situation, there is no one single thing that it would definitely do in that situation. now, this subject can be debated back and forth, but that's not my question; rather, my question is whether or not the church has commented on this specific issue. the agnostic i'm debating with insists that unless i can prove to him otherwise, the official catholic position is that God does have the kind of knowledge in question. and when i say that, as far as i know, the church has not commented on the issue, he says that he doesn't know that much about what the church has and has not dogmatically defined, so for him the catholic encyclopedia is right until proven wrong. so, am i within the realm of catholic orthodoxy here, or do i fall under the anathema of an official church teaching (not just the opinion of the majority of catholic theologians)? your response is much appreciated.

-jp

R. Sungenis: JP, you would be out of the realm of orthodoxy, and indeed heretical, if you did not hold to the fact that God knows all things, past, present and future, even those things that men will decide in the future of their own free will. Here are the infallible declarations of the Church:

“God is...infinite in intellect and will...” (Denz 1782, Vatican Council I)

“For all things are naked and open to His eyes, even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.” (Denz 1784, Vatican Council I).

Top

Question 27- Geocentrism

Subject: Re: radial motion
Sorry- I apologize for being an ass, please respond as I enjoy an intelligent discourse and so few are capable.
I belong to a creationevolution group, and we regularly slander each other w/o impunity-it's a generational thing. The point is that Hubble has very accurately now measured the parallax of thousands of stars; additionally, over many years astronomers can measure the independent motion of stars and therefore calculate their space velocity (a product of their angular change and radial motion). If stars are moving independently (although they have a component of motion in the direction of the motion of their birthing spiral arms), and billions of other bodies are in motion how can you possibly believe that we and we alone, are we the only body not in motion in the entire Universe. It defies belief! Sorry, I'm becoming hysterical!

R. Sungenis: First of all, parallax does not prove the Earth is in motion. The heliocentric version of parallax, as you know, is based on the 2AU distance of its supposed circuit. But in the geocentric system, it is the stars, in their annual rotation around the Earth, which move a proportional 2AU distance. As such, the angles of displacement in both the heliocentric and geocentric versions are identical.

As for the argument that because billions of other bodies are in motion then why would the earth not be in motion, this doesn't prove anything either. It is a simple fact of nature that the center point of a circle, although there may be billions of point at different radai moving around the center, the center itself does not move. The only was current astrophysics could escape this is by proving there is an infinite universe, but they realize that Olber's paradox precludes such an answer.END

Additionally, what of Occam's Razor as applied to this argument (are we to make a special dispensation for it in this case) & Adam's navel-yes, that's right Adam's no navel problem.

R. Sungenis: Occam's razor is a highly-overrated and often misused axiom. When it comes to science, most things are very complicated. Mario Bunge has very plainly shown, in his little book The Myth of Simplicity, how simplistic and naïve it is to assume that the most scientifically valid theory always turns out to be the least intricate” (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963). END

One more thing (maybe), if ballistic bodies (including molecules in fluids) are deflected from their paths over the earth's surface (rt. no/lft.so), then taking your point of view that an external force is acting on all of these bodies instantaneously then no calculus or computing maching could possibly supply all of those vectors simultaneously.

R. Sungenis: Our criterion for validity is not whether a computer can add up all the forces. The only criterion is Mach's principle that a rotating earth in a fixed universe is the same, mechanically, as a fixed earth in a rotating universe. END

Incidentally, if you hold that life's origin is instantaneous you must also believe in computation without form or matter. To be specific GOD would have had to have instantaneously calculated the shape, chemical composition, active sites, of every enzyme and planned every metabolic pathway in each and every cell in each and every organism on this planet; not to mention a calculation of the interactions of all of these organisms and their effects on each other and on all of the abiotic constituents in each and every ecosystem on this planet. How could that be possible? The Universe could not hold a computer large enough to effect this calculation for even one planet with evolved life forms let alone the at least 1000 or so that are in the Milky Way based on a conservative Drake formulation. If you have to cogitate over this a few days I don't mind. Sincerely yours, your Unitarian brother Alfred.

R. Sungenis: No extended cogitation needed. The simple fact is that it would take an infinite intelligence to figure it all out and put it all together. Nothing less will do. If one fact escape his purview, then the whole system will come crashing down. Fortunately, the Catholic faith believes in such a God, who created everything out of nothing, and Who upholds it by the power of His will.

Top

Question 26- Regarding God's omniscience

dear mr. sungenis,

i'm sorry for such a long question, but i really need an answer.

i've been debating with an agnostic about a facet of the problem of evil. he says that since God knows everything that we would do, he could've chosen to create only those who He knows would never sin. i responded by saying that i don't believe that God knows what we would definitely do in hypothetical situations because there is no definite answer. if there were a definite answer, then our actions would be determined by God rather than our free will. therefore, the only way for God to know what we will choose is to let us actually make the choice. and, as the catechism says, God can know our free actions from all eternity and, based on that knowledge, predestine the elect to heaven because "to God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. when therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination,' he includes in it each person's free response to grace" (ccc 600).

however, he responded by saying that catholic theology holds that God does in fact know what we would do in hypothetical situations, and he quoted the catholic encyclopedia:

"That God knows infallibly and from eternity what, for example, a certain man, in the exercise of free will, will do or actually does in any given circumstances, and what he might or would actually have done in different circumstances is beyond doubt"

my response to this was that the catholic encyclopedia is not infallible and that the church has (as far as i know) never said whether or not God has the kind of knowledge in question. therefore, even though the majority of theologians may believe that he does, i don't think i'm outside the realm of orthodoxy in believing that He doesn't. so am i within the realm of catholic orthodoxy on this issue, or am i espousing heresy? your response is much appreciated.

-jp

R. Sungenis: JP, the Catholic Encyclopedia is right, but there is more to the answer than merely asserting God's omniscience.

On the one hand, we have an example in Scripture in which God demonstrates that He knows what man's free will decisions will be, 1 Samuel 23:1-14. We wouldn't expect anything less of God, since, being infinite, nothing can escape His knowledge. On the other hand, men make their decisions freely, without coercion or determination by God. This must be the case, otherwise God would then be the determiner of man's sin, and God assures us He is not. This is where the Calvinists went off the track. Zwingli is noted for saying that "God is the sinless author of sin," but that, of course, is blasphemous.

So, in the end, there is a difference between God knowing all things that will happen and what He actually determines will happen. For example, God determined to create the world, but He did not determine for Adam to sin. To help answer this (but no one in history has had a complete answer) Aquinas said that God knows some things contingently (an aspect of this issue upon which Molina capitalized in his theory of "middle knowledge"). Thomas makes a distinction in God's knowledge, even though he teaches that God is omniscient. But it is more than just a distinction without a difference. It is a real ontological difference. That is, the contingencies cannot be overshadowed by the omniscience, otherwise we would not have true contingency, and thus God would become the determiner of sin. Thus, knowing things through contingency and knowing things through omniscience mysteriously work together, but without contradiction. Other than that, we simply do not have an explanation, and we probably will never have one on this side of the grave.

Let's approach this from another angle. Let's use God Himself as the example. Is God a determined Being or is He free? If He is determined, that means He had no choice but to create the world and watch Adam sin and send His Son as a man. But if that were the case, then God would be the cause or determiner of Adam's sin.

But if God is free and not determined, then He could change anything about Himself He desires and thus not be the same God He was previously, but a God who changes in His substance cannot be God.

(Even here we must be careful because one could use the argument that, if God changes Himself, then the ability to change must have always been an integral part of God and therefore He didn't really change, but then we have developed what they call in logic an "infinite regress," and ultimately a logical contradiction we cannot solve).

The only correct answer is that God is both determined and free, but we cannot say He is one or the other alone. But, of course, if God is both free and determined, then we have a paradox.

This analysis shows that the problem between God knowing things omnisciently or contingently, coupled with man's free will, goes right back to the nature of God Himself, which we cannot explain. All such questions invariably end up at what St. Paul calls the "unfathomable ways" of God (Romans 11:33). That is where St. Paul leaves us after he broaches this very subject of God's determinations and man's free will in Romans 9:1-23. I assume we will be contemplating it for all eternity, once we see the Beatific Vision.

Top

Question 25- Is the Eucharist just a Meal, according to Mane nobiscum Domine?

15. "There is no doubt that the most evident dimension of the Eucharist is that it is a meal. The Eucharist was born, on the evening of Holy Thursday, in the setting of the Passover meal. Being a meal is part of its very structure… As such, it expresses the fellowship which God wishes to establish with us and which we ourselves must build with one another."

If the most evident dimension of the Eucharist is that it is a meal, and being a meal, it expresses the fellowship that God wishes to establish with us, then could we not say this "fellowship" is the primary end of the Eucharist? Likewise, if the most evident dimension of the Eucharist were that it is a sacrifice, what the sacrifice means or expresses would be the primary end. Traditionally, the Magisterium has taught that the ends of the Mass are: 1.) to give glory to God, 2.) to give thanks to God, 3.) expiation, propitiation, and reconciliation, and lastly, 4.) impetration (from Mediator Dei, Pius XII, para. 71-74).

My questions are:
1. How can the meal be the most evident dimension and fulfill these four ends of the Eucharist? To me, it can be seen that the "meal" dimension of the Mass relates to number 4, but it is the sacrificial dimension that relates to numbers 1, 2, and 3.
2. Is there distinction between a meal with a sacrificial meaning and the sacrifice that has a meal element to it?

Thank you,

Joseph Pietras

R. Sungenis: Joseph, I think it is better to quote the whole of paragraph 15 before we comment. There you will see a two-sided view of the Eucharist from John Paul II. The paragraph you didn't quote contains the sacrificial part.

15. There is no doubt that the most evident dimension of the Eucharist is that it is a meal. The Eucharist was born, on the evening of Holy Thursday, in the setting of the Passover meal. Being a meal is part of its very structure. "Take, eat... Then he took a cup and... gave it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you" (Mt 26:26, 27). As such, it expresses the fellowship which God wishes to establish with us and which we ourselves must build with one another.

Yet it must not be forgotten that the Eucharistic meal also has a profoundly and primarily sacrificial meaning. In the Eucharist, Christ makes present to us anew the sacrifice offered once for all on Golgotha. Present in the Eucharist as the Risen Lord, he nonetheless bears the marks of his passion, of which every Mass is a "memorial", as the Liturgy reminds us in the acclamation following the consecration: "We announce your death, Lord, we proclaim your resurrection...". At the same time, while the Eucharist makes present what occurred in the past, it also impels us towards the future, when Christ will come again at the end of history. This "eschatological" aspect makes the Sacrament of the Eucharist an event which draws us into itself and fills our Christian journey with hope."

So here we see the pope say that the Eucharist is "profoundly" and "primarily" a sacrificial event, pointing directly back to Golgatha and making that event present to us.

This is quite different and subordinate to saying that the Eucharist as a meal is its "most evident dimension." What the pope is saying here is that, ostensibly, or what we see visually, the most evident aspect of the Eucharist is a meal, but underneath that dimension is the "sacrificial" part, which is "primary." He is correct. Just like the most evident dimension of your body is your skin, but underneath of it are all your vital organs which make your skin function.

Top

Question 24- Did Mary take a Vow of Virginity; Is the H. Spirit the Spouse of Mary?

Mark Stevens

1. In Mary's reply to the angel "How shall this be since I do not know man?" (Luke 1:34), the Church has understood that Mary had a vow of virginity. How solid is this? Would it be similar to someone saying, "You will become drunk" and a reply of, "How shall this be since I don't drink?" Does the Greek of Luke 1:34 support this?

R. Sungenis: I really don't know anywhere that the Church teaches, even remotely, that the Holy Spirit is the spouse of Mary. Neither the Fathers, Aquinas or any official Church document teach it. Scripture never refers to the Holy Spirit as Mary's spouse. Conversely, these same witnesses commonly speak of the Church as the bride of Christ (e.g., Council of Trent: "...at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice [can. 1]."(Denz. 938)). The Church merely teaches that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. All the above witnesses, however, teach clearly that Joseph was her only husband. If the Holy Spirit was her husband, then Mary would have had two husbands. In fact, Augustine speaks of the Holy Spirit providing the husband Joseph and the wife Mary with a child:

Augustine: "What the Holy Spirit wrought, He wrought for both." "Being a just man," saith the Gospel. The husband then was just and the woman just. The Holy Spirit reposing in the justice of them both, gave to both a Son. In that sex which is by nature fitted to give birth, He wrought that birth which was for the husband also. And therefore doth the Angel bid them both give the Child a name, and hereby is the authority of both parents established. For when Zacharias was yet dumb, the mother gave a name to her newborn son. And when they who were present "made signs to his father what he would have him called, he took a writing-table and wrote" the name which she had already pronounced. So to Mary too the Angel saith, "Behold, thou shalt conceive a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus." And to Joseph also he saith, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (Sermons, 30).

Hence, the connection with Ruth 3:9, although analogous in imagery, cannot be used to establish any kind of spousal relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit. This is the problem with Catholic apologists trying to find various imageries of Mary in the Old Testament, since they often try to make doctrine out of the imagery. That can't be done on a consistent basis. END

3. I prefaced the bible study in our e-mail advertisement with a statement suggesting that Calvin, Luther, and other early Protestants believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I intended to support this with a couple of quotes, which I have. I really didn't expect much out of this since most of the regular Protestants in the group aren't really into Protestant history very much. However, my comments went out to a lot of inactive people in the study group and suddenly there is a lot of interest in this topic, concerning Calvin's views. At least one of these guys is a pretty hard core Calvinist (I think), but has expressed surprise that Calvin believed this. Do you have anything more in this regard? I have the following from Calvin. Does this match what you have? Is there more?

John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

R. Sungenis: These are all you need to prove the point, Mark. I have some others but I would have to dig them up, and don't have the time at the moment.

God be with you.

Top

Question 23- I NEED an answer that only you can provide!!!!

Mr. Sungenis,

I am a Catholic who has read several hundred books, Bibles of all kinds, catechisms, tracts, magazines etc. I am well versed on most of the issues that separate Catholicism from everything else. Most Catholics would probably consider me knowledgeable. I do not feel that way.

My main problem is this: I really cannot see that any Catholic translation other than the Douay Rheims is of any value to any Catholic who really wants to study the True Faith. I have wrestled with this issue for a long time. The 'mainstream' Catholic apologists all advise using the RSV. Upon researching this translation I have found that even many Protestants find this to be a liberal translation. I have a great desire to set-up an apologetics Bible that is complete with cross references, highlights, notes etc. I got so fed up with much of the apologetics material that I sold much of my collection and gave many items to a prison ministry. At this point I only have the Douay Rheims published by Baronius Press. I have your books and live near several Catholic bookstores so I have the ability to obtain material very easily. I find that many of the books that I purchased are of little use because I believe they have 'modernist tendencies'.

I would appreciate any and all advice you could give me on this situation. It is a great desire of mine to become a knowledgeable, faithful Catholic and will spend the rest of my life(I'm 42) studying the Faith and can use some guidance and a suggested reading list. God has given me a good, intelligent mind and a desire to learn. Please help me at your earliest convenience.

Regards,
Louis

R. Sungenis: Louis, if you have a love for the Bible, and have found that the Douay-Rheims is the one for you (and I agree whole-heartedly with you), then I would minimize buying any other books for now, and set your heart on studying the Bible by itself. I used to study the Bible, by itself, for 5-6 hours per day. I still do, on occasion. There is no substitute for allowing God to speak to you directly through His word. Just read the Bible, make notes as you go, cross reference, etc. Get thoroughly familiar with the Bible itself. Of course, you will need some help along the way, but make these other sources only about 25% of your time allotment. The only books I would buy are a set of the Early Fathers, a Greek and Hebrew interlinear translation and lexicon, a good concordance, a Catechism, Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Vatican II documents, the Haydock Bible. That's it, at least for now.

Top

Question 22- Can We Pray with Non-Catholics?

You educate me greatly by your wisdom and writings.

Is it your contention that if I work or live with nonCatholic Christians and we pray the Our Father together daily, that I am sinning?

Thanks, Albert

R. Sungenis: Not necessarily, since if they are already praying the Our Father with you and know that you are a Catholic then it appears they have accepted your Catholicism, and in that sense seek unity with you. Your job, according to Vatican II, is to make complete unification with the Catholic Church an invitation to them. Conversesly, it is only those who repudiate the Catholic faith with whom we would not want to pray.

Top

Question 21- Assisi and Your Discussion with James Likoudis

Mr. Sungenis,

Thank you for clarifying your position on Dr. Hahn for me.

I would now like to critique your response to James Likoudis on Assisi.

Beginning with canon law, as this is something you say people do not comment on:

"The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons" (Can 212-2, 3).

I fully agree with the canon law. It’s your interpretation of it that worries me. Although not stated, it seems that “due regard for the integrity” of their pastors would mean informing the pastors prior to publishing something. Many people critical of Assisi, I am sure, have not written the Holy Father prior. Even less likely would be people going to him, like saints have done in the past, to speak to him about it in person. Furthermore, in this day of rapid communication on web, your
criticisms of the Holy Father are not just made known to the “other Christian faithful” but to Jews, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, or even teenagers weak in the faith. Is this prudent? I would say not, for the same reasons the law says “Christian faithful” and not just “others

R. Sungenis: Admittedly, "due regard for the integrity of their pastors" is a key clause. I see your interpretation, and agree with it. The fact is, I know people at the Vatican who read our website and the articles I write in The Remnant and Catholic Family News. I am using that for my communication to them. There are other people closer to the pope who, following Canon Law 212, have told him directly of their problems with his Assisi initiatives. So the prescriptions have been followed.

In addition, I believe that "due regard for the integrity of their pastors" also refers to the necessity to recognize the authority of the pastor and our responsibility to submit to him in all things lawful. That is why we, at the CAI website, make it a point to uphold the papal office to its highest esteem (as we distance ourselves from sedevacantists and the SSPX), and we upho