Q & A December 2004

Question 70- Question on Moses and Genesis

Robert-
I made a statement in Bible Study that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, and our deacon corrected me with the following:

Clarification: we do not believe that Moses wrote any of the Pentateuch.

Is that Church teaching ? My understanding is that even if someone rejects the decisions of the PBC, that the Church does not teach his claim.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Mussel, the present Pontifical Biblical Commission holds no authority over what Catholics can or should believe, because it, as of 1970 under the decision of Pope Paul VI, was made into merely an advisory are of the magisterium, and its authority over what Catholics believe was rescinded. Therefore, nothing of what is to be believed as a matter of faith can be authoritatively based on what the present PBC says.

Previous to 1970, of course, the PBC did hold such authoritative power. As such, in their decree on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, they affirmed Moses as the writer, with only a few qualifications. Here is what they stated in 1906 (and which has not been rescinded by any Catholic magisterial authority):

1997 Question 1. Whether the arguments accumulated by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the Sacred Books, which are designated by the name of Pentateuch, are of such weight that, in spite of the very many indications of both Testaments taken together, the continuous conviction of the Jewish people, also the unbroken tradition of the Church in addition to the internal evidences drawn from the text itself, they justify affirming that these books were not written by Moses, but were composed for the most part from sources later than the time of Moses? Reply: No.

1998 Question 2. Whether the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch necessarily demands such a redaction of the whole work that it must be held absolutely that Moses wrote all and each book with his own hand, or dictated them to copyists; or, whether also the hypothesis can be permitted of those who think that the work was conceived by him under the influence of divine inspiration, and was committed to another or several to be put into writing, but in such manner that they rendered his thought faithfully, wrote nothing contrary to his wish, omitted nothing; and, finally, when the work was composed in this way, approved by Moses as its chief and inspired author, it was published under his name. Reply: No, for the first part; yes, for the second.

1999 Question 3. Whether without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch it can be granted that Moses for the composition of the work made use of sources, namely written documents or oral tradition, from which, according to the peculiar goal set before him, and under -the influence of divine inspiration, he made some borrowings, and these, arranged for word according to sense or amplified, he inserted into the work itself? Reply: Yes.

2000 Question 4. Whether, safeguarding substantially the Mosaic authenticity and the integrity of the Pentateuch, it can be admitted that in such a long course of ages it underwent some modifications, for example: additions made after the death of Moses, or by an inspired author, or glosses and explanations inserted in the texts, certain words and forms of the antiquated language translated into more modern language; finally false readings to be ascribed to the errors of copyists, which should be examined and passed upon according to the norms of textual criticism. Reply: Yes, the judgment of the Church being maintained. END

Incidentally, the JEPD theory of Julius Wellhausen (liberal Protestant) is probably what your "deacon" is using to deny Mosaic authorship. Not only has this theory NEVER been officially accepted by the Catholic Church, but it has a formidable opponent. Please consult the work we have put on our website titled "The Toledoth's of Genesis." You can find it at:

<http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/jepd1.htm>

If you are interested in further study, I suggest you get the book "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch" by William Henry Green (Baker, 1978). Pages 31-58 have an extensive scholarly foundation for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
God be with you.

Top

Question 69- Was Vassula Ryden Condemned by the Church?

Dear CAI:
I read with interest an article that you are currently making available on your website by Fr Peter Joseph entitled "Apparitions and Private Revelations: True and False". In this article, Fr Joseph makes some comments with regards to an alleged seer Vassula Ryden, viz:

"Some individuals have been pronounced against by name, e.g., Vassula Ryden, and the Little Pebble, William Kamm. Vassula has been condemned twice by the Holy Office (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), on the grounds that her revelations do not come from God, and because they contain errors against the Faith."

Now, the purpose of me writing this short email is not to start any kind of dispute on this matter, especially considering you did not write this article and so you have nothing to defend in the first place. Rather, the purpose is to bring to your attention some information that I have gathered that may suggest that Fr Joseph's comments cited above are not entirely accurate. And considering you are currently hosting this article, I thought you may be interested?

I wish to make it clear that I am not making a personal judgment for or against the validity of Vassula's messages. That is not the purpose of my email. My purpose is to maybe provide you and Fr Joseph (I don't have his email?) with some facts which I have discovered. If you have information to the contrary then I would welcome such correction.

I have discovered on Vassula's website (www.tlig.org) an extract from an interview between Niels Christian Hvidt and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger which was published in 30Giorni, No.1, January 1999 http://www.tlig.org/ratzfull.html.

During the interview, Mr Hvidt asks Cardinal Ratzinger:

"This last question could be a little embarrassing. It regards a contemporary prophetic figure - the Greek Orthodox Vassula Ryden. She is considered by many faithful, and by many theologians, priests and bishops of the Catholic Church to be a messenger of Christ. Her messages, which have been translated into 34 languages since 1991, are known throughout the world. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has, however, declared negative on the issue. The 1995 Notification on the obscure points as well as the positive aspects of her writings was interpreted by some commentators as a condemnation. Is that the case?"

Cardinal Ratzinger replied:

"You have touched on a very problematical issue. No, the Notification is a warning, not a condemnation. From the strictly procedural point of view, no person may be condemned without a trial and without being given the opportunity to air their views first. What we say is that there are many things which are not clear. There are some debatable apocalyptic elements and ecclesiological aspects which are not clear. Her writings contain many good things but the grain and the chaff are mixed up. That is why we invited Catholic faithful to view it all with a prudent eye and to measure it by the yardstick of the constant faith of the Church."

Mr Hvidt continues:

"Is the procedure to clarify the question continuing?"

Cardinal Ratzinger then replied:

"Yes, and during the clarification process the faithful must be prudent, maintaining a discerning attitude. There is no doubt that there is an evolution in the writings which does not yet seem to have concluded. We must remember that being able to set oneself up as the word and image of interior contact with God, even in the case of authentic mysticism, always depends on the possibilities of the human soul and its limitations. Unlimited trust should only be placed in the real Word of the Revelation that we encounter in the faith transmitted by the Church."

As can be seen, it appears Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ("CDF") have not condemned Vassula as claimed by Fr Joseph and cannot do such until Vassula is given the opportunity to air her views during a clarification process. The Cardinal has merely stated that during this time of clarification Vassula's messages be prudently viewed with a discerning attitude measured against the constant faith of the Church.

And it is worth noting that this clarification process did begin in July 2000 when Vassula submitted her messages to Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF for further study and a chance to respond to the CDF's reservations expressed in the Notification of 6 October 1995. In April 2002, the CDF replied to Vassula granting her request and submitted five questions for Vassula to answer. In June 2002, Vassula answered the CDF's five questions as part of the clarification process. The Cardinal then requested that Vassula publish the correspondence (which can be found in full at http://www.tlig.org/cdf.html).
I am not aware of any further published correspondence in relation to this clarification process and I assume it is still continuing?

Therefore, while Fr Joseph's views on the bona fides of Vassula's messages may be true, I believe that it is inaccurate to label her messages as condemned by the Catholic Church at this stage. Apparently (as I cannot personally recommend it as I have never read it), a good book for Fr Joseph to read on Vassula is a book written by the famous Fr Rene Laurentin called "When God Gives a Sign" which answers all the theological reservations posed in the Notifications referred to by Fr Joseph.

Anyway, that's about all I have to say. Again, although I would be interested in any comments you may have, this email was not written in any attempt to stir up controversy or to make any negative insinuations against you or Fr Joseph.
God's peace
Daniel

M. Forrest: Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your letter. I agree with you that Fr. Joseph overstated things by writing that Vassula was "condemned". However, I do agree with Fr. Joseph regarding the fixation on private revelations in these days (no intended inference here as to whether I think you also agree with Fr. Joseph on this part or not). I am concerned that Christ's words in Matthew 12:39 may apply: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet." Large numbers of people go from "healing Mass" to "healing Mass"...in spite of the fact that they never seem to be healed of anything. These same people seem to think nothing of spending all kinds of money repeatedly flying all over the country and the world in order to have an "experience" at this or that unauthenticated site, or to see some purported visionary.

Of course, this is not to say that absolutely none of it is authentic, but one has to wonder why so many are seeking far and wide after such signs and "experiences" when Christ Himself resides in parishes and chapels across the world...the One Who is the source and summit of our faith...and when there are verified, safe apparition sites/seers so readily available (Fatima, Lourdes, Knock, etc.) We have His own Word at our disposal. We have the lives of the Saints. We have the Councils, the Catechism and more. We have enough to last hundreds and hundreds of lifetimes without posing any risk. Yet, many seem to run right for the fence (or sometimes over it?), rather than staying within the bounds of the safe playground established by our Mother, the Church.

Finally, in this day and age, wherein the Vatican has adapted a very liberal, accepting posture toward the world, other religions, etc, I think wisdom and prudence would dictate that, if anything, we should AMPLIFY the implications of such Vatican warnings, rather than look for ways to mitigate them. There seems to be very little that is rejected as unacceptable these days.
In my opinion, until such time as the Church tells us that Vassula's writings are perfectly safe, we ought to view them very skeptically, as potentially dangerous, if we bother to view them at all. 98% or 99% safe is just not good enough. The Adversary works most effectively in that little 1-2%.

God bless,
Michael Forrest
Personnel Director

P.S. Here are a couple of other things I came across. I thought you might be interested in them as well.

<http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/VASSULA.TXT>
<http://mypage.bluewin.ch/cafarus/tlignotificationsreTLIG.htm>
<http://www.sffaith.com/ed/letters/2004letters/0406lett.htm>

On December 15, 1996, false seer and Jesus impersonator Vassula Ryden made an appearance here in San Francisco. At that time, Archbishop William Levada published in "Sunday to Sunday" the following announcement: "The Vatican has affirmed last year's warning to Catholics about information put forth by Vassula Ryden, an Orthodox Christian calling herself a 'Mystic from Switzerland'.... In May, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said again: Catholics should not consider Ms. Ryden's messages as divine revelations but as personal meditations. The meditations contain elements that are negative in the light of Church doctrine. The faithful are asked to preserve the purity of faith by not relying on presumed revelations but by following the Word of God and the directives of the Church's teaching authority.

"The 1995 statement about Ms. Ryden," Archbishop Levada continued, "said her writings contained several doctrinal errors including ambiguity and confusion about the Trinity. It also said Ms. Ryden was creating ecumenical confusion by receiving Catholic sacraments against the rules of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

Archbishop Levada's caution is still relevant, since Vassula Ryden appeared again in San Francisco on May 21. Those Catholics curious about Vassula can see for themselves the nature of her bizarre actions and "messages" by visiting her websites at www.vassula.org or www.tlig.us. Official Vatican documents and statements by bishops opposed to the Vassula phenomena can be found by searching for "Vassula" on www.google.com.
As Cardinal Ratzinger stated, Catholics should be "following the Word of God and the directives of the Church's teaching authority," instead of running after and being deceived and fleeced by phony seers.

Top

Question 68- Is JPII a valid Pope: Canon 188.4

Mario: Please tell me then what Canon 188.4 means. It reads: "188: Any office becomes vacant UPON THE FACT and WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION by TACIT RESIGNATION recognized BY THE LAW ITSELF if a cleric: (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith."

For the record, YOUR argument was that "there is no ipso facto issue here" and that "The only way Karol Wojtyla would have been considered a defector from the faith, as you put it, is by a canonical court of law." The text of Canon 188.4 *plainly* disproves you on both counts. It specifically says WITHOUT DECLARATION and UPON THE FACT (ipso facto).

R. Sungenis: Mario, you're just proving my point.

First of all, Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code is no longer in force, since that code has been superceded by the 1983 code. (And you can't argue that the 1983 code has no force, since you can't use as proof what you haven't proven, that is, that John Paul II has no power to enforce the 1983 canon because he is not the pope).

Second, even if canon 188.4 were in force, the clause "publicly defects from the Catholic faith" is not defined, so your attempt to confine it to when YOU think the pope has defected is simply begging the question. Unfortunately, you seem to think that if the pope says something wrong doctrinally in public, then he loses his office, but you simply have no proof for that assertion. If that were the case, then Honorius, John XXII, and many other popes would have lost their office, but the Church gives not the slightest hint that such was the case. Again, since the Church knew that a pope could speak a doctrinal error in public, this was precisely the reason Vatican I limited the times a pope would speak without error, and that is only in an ex cathedra statement. This was done precisely to stop vigilantes like you from declaring the pope a non-pope based on your personal judgment of whether or not he made an error.

So, not only do you operate with an outdated canon, the very canon to which you appeal doesn't prove your argument.

Top

Question 67- Papal authority

You: or call him to a trial and prove in a canonical court of law that he is indeed an illegitimate pope. If they determine so canonically, then if that antipope refuses to step down, they can thus ignore him and proceed to elect another pope in his place who will then use his authority run the Church and banish the illegitimate pope.

Me: Please read http://www.newadvent.org if that link doesn’t work the article is intitled simply “The Pope” on the newadvent.com Catholic Encyclopedia. In that article you will read that the Pope is the supreme ruler of the Church and he is protected by none other than Our Lord Himself from teaching heresy. He said that he would be with us until the end of the world. There is no authority above the Pope the college of cardinals cannot depose the Pope.

R. Sungenis: I didn't say the college of Cardinals can depose the pope. I said they can bring him to trial, convict him of heresy, and then elect another pope, and let the next pope do the deposing. As for the New Advent article, I don't know exactly what you wanted me to see, but the article says nothing about the parameters and conditions of infallibility, but only speaks of jurisdiction, which has nothing to do with heresy.

The Church has already had precedent of various popes saying things that are in error or doing things that are immoral. This is precisely why Vatican I said that the pope is only protected by Christ from error when he speaks ex cathedra, since Vatican I had to face the unmitigated fact that many previous popes were in error on various things.

If error is heresy, then the pope could utter a heresy when he is not speaking ex cathedra, and those occasions are quite rare. In every other thing the pope says, he is subject to error (NB: this does not mean that he is in error, but only that he is subject to error, being merely a human being). To deny this is to say that the pope has no free will, but is merely an automaton of heaven, but that is certainly not the case.

The only way out of this is to try to prove that error is not heretical, but I don't think anyone will be able to do that.

Hence, the question is: is the heresy/error a "manifest" one, and does the person insists on perpetuating this error even after admonishment? If so, then he not only uttered a heresy, he is now a canonical heretic, and steps need to be taken to deal with that.

A good case in point of a pope in error but who recanted is John XXII, who taught an error on whether the saints saw the beatific vision. Fortunately, after the admonishment of his cardinals, he recanted that error, and thus was saved being condemned by subsequent popes (as Honorius was condemned by subsequent popes).

Top

Question 66- Was the Mass Invented in 1054?

Dear Mr. Sungenis: Thank you for answering my question. I wondered, if you have the time, could you respond to another question? After reading David Currie's book, Born fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic I asked my pastor to respond to the chapter that dealt with the Eucharist being Jesus's flesh and blood. It pointed out that early writings favored the Catholic position on communion. He responded with the following. Is this true that the Catholic church itself did not create the Mass until 1054? Thank you, Mrs. Harter

R. Sungenis: Mrs. Harter, that is absolutely false. The early fathers had at least three mass liturgies and they had over 10 Greek words and 5 Latin words to describe the changing of the bread into the body of Christ. The only event after that was the dogmatization of the change by the word "transubstantiation" at the Lateran Council in 1215. If you want much more on this, I suggest you purchase my book, Not By Bread Alone. You can purchase a signed copy from us, or you can buy it through Amazon or Barnes and Noble. I have all the gory details in the book.

Top

Question 65- The Catholic Answer

Robert, I recently got an email offering a subscription to The Catholic Answer. Do you know anything about this magazine and do you think it is worth getting (orthodox)? Amy

R. Sungenis: The Catholic Answer is run by Our Sunday Visitor. They’ve had a few shakeups in the last few years with personnel, so I don’t know where they stand as of this date. I used to write for them back in 1996-1999, but I have now decided to write for more traditional outlets. By and large, they represent the typical post-conciliar mentality that there is little wrong with the Church and the present pontificate today, which is thoroughly incorrect.

Top

Question 64- Anger as a sin, Part III

Robert, Thanks again for your answers it does give me more insight. Regarding the 3 yr old child: Aren't they too young to do anything sinful? And do they even have the intellect to understand what sin is? Isn't the emotion of anger a natural response to something you are not happy with and the possible sin is in how you respond? So wouldn't it be wrong to tell them that they should not be angry but rather, deal with their response to their anger? I'm not saying that anger is always okay, it should be subordinate the intellect and will right? Amy

R. Sungenis: Amy, children sin but before the age of reason they are not responsible for their sin. That is the only difference. When they do bad things, we should tell them they are bad so that by the time they reach the age of reason (app. 7 years of age) they will have a formed conscience and know, very well, the difference between right and wrong.

Top

Question 63- Evolution and reexamining Catholicism

Hi,
I spent my first 24 years as a Catholic and the next 24 years as a Protestant but now find myself reexamining Catholicism. It is unclear to me as to what is the Catholic church's official position on evolution or the age of the earth. Can you tell me where I can find this information? Not opinions but actual doctrinal statements. Thank you,

Mrs. Harter

R. Sungenis: Mary, Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I assure us that all things, visible and invisible, were created in the six days of Creation week, and there is nothing being created by God at the present time.
Lateran VI says: Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and omnipotent and coeternal; one beginning of all, creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil.

Vatican Council I says: If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.

Pope Pelagius I, in 561, wrote to King Childebert I: "For I confess that...Adam and his wife, were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other from the rib of man."

In 1441, the Council of Florence stated in its decrees: "God...is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when he wished, out of his goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good, indeed...since they were from nothing..."

In 1860, the Council of Cologne condemned the idea of human evolution in very straightforward words: "Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that...those who...assert...man...emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.
Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, remarks how the theory of biological evolution has infected theological studies:

"First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church worship, the books that we receive as sacred, even faith itself..."
Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus in 1893 stated:

"The commentator...must carefully observe the rule...not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate."

Accordingly, the 1994 Catholic Catechism, in quoting St. Thomas Aquinas from the Summa Theologica, says in paragraph 116:

"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and... ‘all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.'"

Top

Question 62- What does it literally mean that God will create a new heaven and earth?

a) Will the earth be destroyed in the second coming?

R. Sungenis: Yes, 2 Peter 3:10-12 says that the whole universe will be destroyed and recreated, a New Heaven and New Earth.

b) If Adam hadn't sinned would heaven in that sense be a place on earth?

R. Sungenis: No, heaven is where the angels and God reside as spirits.

c) What does it mean that God will create a new heaven and earth?

R. Sungenis: It means that this heaven and earth will be destroyed and God will recreate a New Heaven and New Earth, “and the former will not come into mind nor be remembered.” (Isaiah 65:17).

Top

Question 61- Is God free?

Hi, Robert,
You wrote, in January 2005's question 21, I think, you wrote, "R. Sungenis: Konrad, admit to him that he is right -- we can't answer these questions. Is God free or is God determined, or is he neither or both? We don't know. But there is a reason we can't understand or explain these things: because if God exists, then by definition he is infinite since anything less than infinite would not be God. Consequently, we, the finite, since we cannot understand infinity, can never completely understand God. Hence, the logic the atheist uses to make it difficult to believe in God, we use the same logic to show that the atheist can't deny God's existence simply because he can't explain his existence."

You may want to reread page 46 of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma because Vatican I seems to disagree with you. It says, "If anybody says that God created things not in virtue of a will free from all necessity, but in virtue of necessity by which he necessarily loves himself, let him be
anathema" (Qtd. in Ott 46).

Ott, Ludwig. "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma." Ed. James Canon Bastible. Trans Patrick Lynch. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974.
God bless, Bill

R. Sungenis: Bill, Vatican I is not dealing with the same issue. It is only concerned about what motivated God to create the world. I was speaking about God’s nature as God.

Top

Question 60- Looking to come home

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

I stand in appreciation of your web site. As a Catholic apologetics site, it stands out from most of the rest, clearly standing for all the church has previously declared.

I am an ex-Catholic (poorly chatecized), who committed his life to Christ in 1981; a wonderful, life changing event and experience. But the Protestant book that got me to that point seriously prejudiced my mind against Catholicism, and so too did the Protestant Church I joined thereafter.

After years of bible study and apologetics (including anti-Catholic apologetics), by the grace of God, I have found or fought my way to being open minded about examining pro-Catholic apologetics.

I hope you will not mind if I consult and maybe argue you with you on a few issues in an effort to resolve some of the questions that I have; some complex, and some not. I am actually hopeful that the Catholic Church has good answers on them so that I may rejoin in good conscience and full submission.

As you can understand, this is a rocky road. Your assistance, and that of your staff, would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Malcolm K
Issaquah, WA

R. Sungenis: Malcolm, we are always open to questions. I can’t guarantee when I can get to them, but eventually I will. God be with you, and congratulations on coming back to the one true Church.

Top

Question 59 - Are we going to be judged twice?

Dear CAI,

Can you please help me to understand the correlation between particular/individual judgment and general judgment. If our some of loved ones have died already and have faced judgment aren't they are going to be judged twice when Jesus comes again in the second coming, as it says in the creed 'he will come again to judge the living and the dead'. If Jesus judges us twice then how does this fit in with the story of the sheep and the goats as this is an example of how Jesus will judge us when he comes again. It seems as though that if this story taken to its logical conclusion in terms of Jesus judging the living and dead in the creed, then Jesus is going to pull the saved out of heaven to judge only to resend them to heaven!

Help I am confused, your clarity is greatly appreciated.

Tim

R. Sungenis: Tim, the particular judgment is a preliminary judgment to determine where a soul will be sent prior to the end of the world. This is only logical, since we wouldn’t expect the saved and the damned to be occupying the same locale. The final judgment is needed, however, because there will be a lot of people on earth who have not yet died (at present, about 6 billion of them) who have not yet been judged. The final judgment will not effect the status of those who had previously died before the end of the world. The only additional thing that will happen for those individuals is that their particular judgment will be announced at the final judgment, and their particular works with their rewards (for the saved) or the bad works and the accompanying degrees of punishments (for the unsaved) will be formally announced and applied.

Top

Question 58- Gift of Tongues (Glossolalia)

Dear Robert

Is the gift of tongues (glossolalia) a legitimate gift? Has anyone in the Catholic church ever had this form of the gift of tongues? Or is xenolalia the only legitimate form of the gift of tongues?

Also, I was reading a book on the gift of tongues by Fr. Sears (a charismatic Catholic priest), and he concedes that the early Fathers only spoke about xenolalia as the gift of tongues and not glossolalia. But Fr. Sears quotes several Fathers throughout different historical periods that show the Fathers spoke about the "gift of jubilation." Fr. Sears then tries to make the connection that the "gift of jubilation" is basically glosslalia.

What is this gift of "jubilation" that Fr. Sears speaks about? Was it common throughout Church history? Was it done during liturgy?

I appreciate your help as the "jubilation" argument seems to be his main argument to assert that glossolalia is not new to Catholicism and should be embraced today.

God bless,

Tony

R. Sungenis: Tony, Fr. Sears is a little off the mark. First, there was no “gift” of jubilation in the Church, if by “gift” we are referring to a supernatural gift from the Holy Spirit as were the other vocal “gifts” mentioned in the New Testament (cf., 1 Cor 12-14; Rom 12:6-8). Charismatics need to understand that when they attempt to “speak in tongues” (whether it is xenolalia or glossalalia) they are claiming to be directly prompted, supernaturally, by the Holy Spirit. This is not just some casual occurrence that we can turn on and off like a light switch. It is the same supernatural vehicle as if God was inspiring a prophet to predict a future event. It takes an intrusion by God, nothing less, to create a legitimate tongues occurrence. Those occurrences are very rare, and they will certainly not happen on the mass scales we see Charismatics claiming today, and trying to push on other Christians as a sign of either salvation or special blessing.

Fr. Sears is correct in stating that the Fathers spoke only about xenolalia (tongues in foreign languages). Glossalalia stems from the religious cults of ancient Greece, and is prevalent among many Protestant denominations today, beginning with the Holiness movement in the late 1800s and the Pentecostals and Assemblies of God in the 1900s. Glossalalia is a completely learned phenomenon, and has nothing to do with biblical tongues. As for xenolalia, the Fathers were in consensus that it stopped after the first century, at least on grand scales. There are only three reports of Catholic saints speaking in xenolalia in all of Christian history after the apostolic age. I have written a 50-page paper on this, and much of it contains a historical and psychological analysis of modern glossalalia. You are welcome to purchase it from us.

As for “jubilation,” the only Father who spoke about it was Augustine, but it had nothing to do with glossalalia. Augustine made reference to “jubilation” only because, in his commentary on the Psalms, he was attempting to explain the emotional experiences of the Psalmist (David) in his relationship with God. If you’ve ever read the Psalms, you will notice that in many instances David is filled with emotion as he contemplates God and his word, and rightly so, but there is nothing there about glossalalia. For example, Augustine writes:
“What is ‘jubilate’? Into the voice of rejoicings break forth if ye cannot into that of words. For ‘jubilation’ is not of words, but the sound alone of men rejoicing is uttered, as of a heart labouring and bringing forth into voice the pleasure of a thing imagined which cannot be expressed. ‘Be joyful in God every land:’ let no one jubilate in a part: let every land be joyful, let the Catholic Church jubilate. The Catholic Church embraceth the whole: whosoever holdeth a part and from the whole is cut off, should howl, not jubilate” (Homilies on the Psalms, LXII, 2).

“’Praise Him on the well-sounding cymbals, praise Him on cymbals of jubilation’ (verse 5). Cymbals touch one another in order to sound, and therefore are by some compared to our lips. But I think it better to understand that God is in a manner praised on the cymbal, when each is honored by his neighbor, not by himself, and then honoring one another, they give praise to God. But lest any should under stand such cymbals as sound without life, therefore I think he added, ‘on cymbals of jubilation.’ For ‘jubilation’ that is, unspeakable praise, proceeds not, save from life” (Homilies on the Psalms, CXXIX, 10)

As you can see, this is speaking about normal, human emotion, not of anything supernatural. If Charismatics want to be joyful and express that joy in various ways, that is fine. But once they cross the line and claim that their “jubilation” is the same as biblical tongues or that they have been supernaturally endowed with joy that is over and above human emotion, then they have entered into forbidden territory, and they open themselves up to the preternatural.

Top

Question 57- Concerning baptism, infants, and sanctifying grace

Dear Dr. Sungenis,

I have a few questions concerning infants, baptism, and sanctifying grace:

1) One may put forth the following question: "Is it not merciless of God to create a person in the womb of its mother without His sanctifying grace?" In other words, how is it that our human nature is good, yet fallen from God?

R. Sungenis: First, we must always start from the premise that God is just, and never question it. Unless one starts from that position, he will always come up with doubts about God’s motives. This is why God requires faith first. Without it, God can never take us to the next step. How would you like it if you were trying to teach someone, but he simply never got over the hump of first trusting you? Second, God is just in creating us without sanctifying grace because his justice demands that he punish the sin of Adam as he promised he would do. Adam knew this. Therefore, for God to go back on that promise would have been unjust.

2) How is it that a married man and woman who are each baptized cannot pass on sanctifying grace to their children if they indeed do each have it in their souls?

R. Sungenis: Because sanctifying grace is not transferred physically or by generation. God must create a new soul for the newly conceived child, but when he does so it is without sanctifying grace.

3) How verifiable is it with the Fathers and theologians that the doctrine of the limbo of children is true?

4) And concerning the limbo of children, is such a place in the realm of hell (as in sheol near where there once existed the limbo of the Fathers) certainly a permanent state, or is it possibly not the final destination of souls that have committed no actual sin but have the absence of sanctifying grace, the stain of original sin?

R. Sungenis: Limbo is from the Latin “limbus,” meaning “on the margin.” It was originally proposed as an admission of ignorance regarding what God will do with unbaptized babies. In other words, the Church put those babies “on the margin” because they left it in the hands of God as to their final destiny. As such, limbo is not a doctrine of the Church but more an admission that there is no doctrine.

5) Could not our Lord instantly and miraculously baptize infants right after they may die, for did not the Lord say, "Let the little children come to Me," and is not anything good possible with God? Does He not desire that all be saved (even certainly not all will be saved)?

R. Sungenis: Yes, the Lord can do anything good he desires, if it were possible. But the fact is, you cannot baptize a dead person, since a dead person has no soul residing in the body any longer.

6) What is one to tell parents who have lost their children who had not yet been baptized?

R. Sungenis: Trust in God. He is just.

7) Could the Church make a dogmatic statement to settle the issue as well?

R. Sungenis: Yes, but apparently God has held her back from doing so, otherwise it would have been settled. Apparently, these are areas that God himself will decide.

8) Last question: What happens to unbaptized persons who do not die with actual sin but with only original sin on their souls?

Sorry I may have given you too many questions to answer. You can answer though only if and when you are to do so, since I do know you are a busy man with all the good work you do in service to our Lord. I only simply ask for possibly a different perspective on the issue of which I ask, for I have very perplexed with at this time now. It was once the subject of an argument I recently had with another person. Thank you very much, Sir, and God bless you, your family, and the work you by the Blessed Mother.

Pax in nomine Christi per Mariam,

Teodoro B

R. Sungenis: No problem. Unless they had a desire for baptism (Council of Trent, Sess 22, Chapter 4, Canon 4), which is the only other way to receive the sacrament, they would be under damnation. The question remains, however, how we are to understand the desire for baptism. It is, unfortunately, a infallible dogma of the Church that has not yet been fully explained by the magisterium.

Top

Question 56- Did the early Church believe that Mary was their Mother?

Dear CAI,

I am confused and troubled by John 19:26-27, it is my understanding that is here that the church understands that Mary became the mother of the Church/ body of Christ. A lot of protestants (of the James White type) say that this reading into the text a lot of emotional hype and is simply poor scriptural exegisis.

Did the early church take this passage to mean that Mary is our Mother and if so who are these people and what did they say?

Thanks for your help,

Tim.

R. Sungenis: The Catholic Church comes to the ultimate understanding of John 19:26-27 from an a-priori position, not the Protestant a-posteriori position. That is, the doctrine of Mary and her position in the Church is a product of Tradition, various other Scriptures, and the decisions of the magisterium. This allows us to see the deeper meaning of John 19:26-27 that Protestants will invariably miss, since they fallaciously depend on Scripture to give them all the necessary details about the Christian faith. Scripture is merely one witness among two other equally authoritative sources of infallible information.

Top

Question 55- Catechesis of the good shepherd

What are your thoughts about the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd begun by Sophia Cavaletti inspired by the Montesorri teaching principles? We have recently started this program at our church and I am in training to present it to the children. The kids love it and it seems to get thru to them. My problem is with Sophia's support of a long age earth in her timelines. I will not teach that theory and it doesn't even belong in church. Maybe there are other hidden things in CGS I should be wary of. I'd love to hear what you think, have heard, whatever.

Thanks, Brenda Y

R. Sungenis: I’m not familiar with what Sophia Cavaletti teaches, but if you have a question about something particular that she teaches, by all means, run it by us. As for the “long-age” view, that, of course, is an error.

Top

Question 54- Are the Canons of the 7th Ecumenical Council Valid?

Dear Robert,

Greetings in the name of Christ.

I was just reading the first time through the 7th Ecumenical council and I began to wonder: Are the canons of this council valid, in force, in perpetuity? Canon I seems to state that the canons from the previous 6 Ecumenical Councils were still in force "Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers."

I noticed 2 of the Canons in particular appear to contradict the current teachings of the Catholic Church. For example:

Canon VII: "...And if any bishop from this time forward is found consecrating a temple without holy relics, he shall be deposed, as a transgressor of the ecclesiastical traditions."

Canon XIV: "That no one without ordination ought to read in the ambo during the synaxis."

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the current teaching of the Catholic Church that new churches can be dedicated without any relics and that it is completely permissable for the non-ordained to read during the liturgy (lay lectors)?

If the Church has the authority to overturn these Canons, could not a future pope steeped in the current wave of liturgical iconoclasm overturn this council's teaching regarding the veneration of icons?

May God continue to bless you and your apostolate.

Chris
Indianapolis, IN

R. Sungenis: The Church has not made an official and binding declaration that a Catholic Church can be consecrated without relics. Hence, any bishop, who is making such a decision is going against Canon VII of Nicea. The canons are put there to be obeyed, but this also means that there will be individuals who disobey them. As to Canon XIV, the synaxis is understood as referring to the reading of the Gospel. As it stands, the practice even in Novus Ordo churches is to lay hands on a qualified deacon or visiting priest before they can read the Gospel.

Top

Question 53- Reformed Friend's Question About Celibacy

Robert,
First I would like to thank you for doing all that you do with your apostolate. I have read all of your books and enjoyed all of them tremendously.

I recently was asked a question by a Reformed friend of mind that I haven't ever heard phrased quite the way he phrased it and really don't know how to answer him. He basically asked how can the Catholic Church impose celibacy on its priests and bishops since Paul allowed bishops to be married? He sees celibacy as something the Catholic Church has imposed on its clergy that Paul nor any of the other apostles required and wanted to know how the Catholic Church can make such a requirement when scripture doesn't make such a requirement.
Sincerely,
Scott

R. Sungenis: Scripture may not make celibacy a requirement, but Scripture allows the Church to make various requirements of its people. In Acts 15, for example, Scripture records the time in which a Church council imposed 4 laws on the Jews in regards to relations with Gentiles. Scripture itself did not require those laws (except for the fornication law) for New Testament Christian, but the Church thought it wise to impose those laws for the sake of good relations. In the same way, if the Church regards celibacy as a help to the priesthood, she can make it a requirement if she chooses. According to Jesus, the Church can bind and looses as she sees fit. Scripture does not prohibit that decision, it allows it. Not only does Scripture allow it on a procedural basis, but also a spiritual basis, since St. Paul states in 1 Cor 7 that the celibate life is better so that a man can better serve the Lord. Moreover, Protestants often misinterpret 1 Timothy 3:1-2 as St. Paul requiring a bishop to be married, but that is not the case. The passage only says that IF a bishop has a wife and children, he must rule his house well in order to be qualified for the bishoprick.

Top

Question 52- Can the Feminine "Rock" be the Masculine Peter?

Mr. Sungenis
Sorry to bother you I just have a quick question regarding mathew 16:18. I've read an article you wrote a long while back about how epi tautee tee must refer to its nearest antecedant which is Peter. It was a very good article by the way. My question though is can tautee refer back to Peter because it is in the feminine. Or am I mistaken that it is a feminine demonstrative pronoun? I'm sure its probably just a simple mistake on my part, but I was curious as to how to respond to someone who says a that feminine demonstrative prounoun cannot go back to masculine petros. any help would be greatly appreciated.
thanks
Kyle

R. Sungenis: Kyle, the matchup between masculine adjectives and masculine nouns in Greek is only required of common nouns, not proper nouns. "Peter" is a proper noun, and thus it can be used with a masculine or feminine adjective. You will see the same grammatical occurrence in 1 Cor 10:4 in which "rock," a feminine noun, has as its antecedent "Christ," a masculine proper noun.

Top

Question 51- On Question 9 - Baptism of Desire

Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church". This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:

"In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains." (From page 126 of "The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia", by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956) [Emphasis mine]

(Brother David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tertiary)

Yours thoughts, please.

Regards
Stephen H
Republic of Singapore

R. Sungenis: It is a false definition. Chapter 4 of Session 22 of Trent says nothing about "an act of perfect contrition" or that the desire for baptism "does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains." This is precisely where the the MICM followers have gone off the track, and it is precisely why they then go on to make the artificial distinction between justification and salvation in order to cover their tracks.

Trent is clear that justification (which is salvation) occurs "through the laver of regeneration, OR a desire for it..." The MICM followers keep trying to change "or" to "and," but that is fallacious.

Top

Question 50- Predestination and Free Will

Dr. Sugenis,

I have greatly enjoyed reading your articles on your site regarding justification. It is now alot easier to see the position that both St. Paul and St. James articulate in the bible. The question I have for you is definitely the most difficult area that I have had throughout my christian life. I was wondering if you could attempt to explain to me the relationship between free will and predestination. I have done alot of research regarding predestination taking in all the positions that the fathers have had throughout the years. At the site http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
the theory described as C. The Theory of Predestination post prœvisa merita is very appealing to me scriptually and morally. I am extremely interested in this question because no one in my family is an extremely devoted Christian and I am worried that it might be true that God does not want them to be saved. I have seen some interpretations of 1 Tim 2:4 from Augustine that makes me think that he did not believe that God sincerely wanted all men to be saved. This follows then that he may have thought that God does not work for all men to try and save them. I am very sensitive to this kind of thinking because I hate the idea of people suffering in hell, especially if God displays an apathetic attitude towards them. Also Aquinas seemed to have a similar interpretation to Augustine regarding 1Tim 2:4. Could you please tell me what you think about this mystery starting from this verse?

Thank you for your time,
Adrian F

R. Sungenis: Adrian, the great thing about the Catholic Church is that it is not afraid to interpret Scripture at face value. Hence, the Church has consistently taught that God, indeed, desires to save ALL men, without qualification. But he did not or cannot predestine them to heaven because there is another component in his determinations and that is man's free will. If you would like a more in depth explanation that balances out the predestinarian and free will dimensions of this issue, you can acquire my books "How Can I Get to Heaven" or "Not By Faith Alone." I treat the subject extensively in those two works. The former one is a more simplified version, the latter is heavily annotated. We also have a 90-minute cassette tape titled "Predestination and Free Will." You can purchase them from us at CAI in a return email. God be with you.

Top

Question 49- Baptism of Desire Infallible, Part II

Dr. Sungenis,

If you admit that there can be a question as to the infallibility of
paragraphs of the 22nd session, then even if something infallible
says: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema," it is not logical to say that the fallible definition MUST be applied to this infallible declaration, which speaks merely of the Sacraments in general.

R. Sungenis: Your argument is illogical, since it stands to reason that what applies to the sacraments in general regarding a "desire" for them thus applies to the sacraments that speak of incorporating a "desire" for the sacrament. Moreover, the Council of Trent is one cohesive whole. It does not contradict itself. It is well known that the authors of the Council coincided the canons with the chapters, and the canons are merely succinctly worded statements of what the chapters stated in more detail.

Top

Question 48- Trent and Desire

I had another question about Baptism of Desire and Trent. If it is so clear in the Council that Baptism of Desire is true, where is it in the Catechism of Trent? The catechism makes it clear that absolutely no one is saved outside of Baptism:

R. Sungenis: The Canons of Trent on Baptism do not address Baptism of Desire either, but who would argue that those canons are contradicting the canons on Justification where "desire" of the sacrament is addressed and accepted? The catechism of Trent itself declares that the doctrines of Trent are infallible, and thus the catechism implicitly accepts everything that Trent dogmatizes, and it is a fact that "desire" of the sacrament was dogmatized in a canon with an anathema. To suggest that the catechism would reject Trent's teaching on "desire" for the sacrament is ludicrous.

Top

Question 47- Baptism of Desire Infallible

Dr. Sungenis:

I have written you a few times in the past concerning Baptism of
Desire. I have read yet another response by you on your Q & A section for February, contesting that Baptism of Desire is an infallible teaching of the Church. You said, in response to a question about the translation of the passage "without the laver of regeneration, or its desire, etc.":

"Lastly, I would suggest that whoever is trying to teach you that there is no such thing as a baptism of desire cease and desist. This is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, and it is infallible. Any attempt to alter it will simply bring terrible consequences."

This seems absurd to me. Even if you will argue that this is a
statement by the Church in favor of the Baptism of Desire theory, how can you possibly allege that this is ex Cathedra and infallible? Vatican I clearly said what is and is not infallible. NOT every word of an Ecumenical Council is infallible. This was merely an explanation of the canons, not a canon or declarated statement itself. I see no words that would suggest this is spoken infallibly (no "we declare, say, define, preach, etc.). The Catholic Encyclopedia explains, speaking on which teachings are infallible:

"A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.

"As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

"As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible.

For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."

I do not see how you can attempt to pawn off this as some sort of ex Cathedra statement.

Sincerely,
M.

R. Sungenis: M., if there is any question whether the chapter paragraphs of the 22nd session of the Council of Trent are infallible, Trent reiterated its acceptance about the "desire" for the sacraments in Canon 4, which reads: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema."

Since, as we know from chapter 4 and 14 of Session 22 that the "desire" for the sacrament can be applied both to baptism and penance, this plurality of application is thus covered by Canon 4's general reference to desire for the sacraments.

Top

Question 46- A Coptic Genesis?

R. Sungenis: Yves, thank you for your "explanations." With all due respect to you and your work, however, I must tell you that I thoroughly reject most of your assertions. I will explain below.

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

I will answer to your mail because I guess you didnt understand Crombette's view and discoveries.

He was first successfull in the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs, reading them as rebuses in primitive coptic language,he reconstituted from this one of christian era. Doing this, he demonstrates that the first pharao was Misraïm, son of Ham, he finds testimonies cocernig Jacob, Joseph, the persecution of Hebreus by Sethos and Ramses II, and Egyptian accounts of Joshuah's and Isaiah's solar miracles. He finds a narrow agreement between biblical and Egyptian chronologies. Using the same method and language, he translated Cretan and Hittite hieroglyphs,peculiarly the Karchemish bas relief which describes the lives of arounf 85 Hittite kings, from Heth, grandson of Ham, up to the last king living in the 8th century. Finally, he
translated the rongo rongos of Eastern Island, which are antediluvian and concern the Caïn descendants.

This primitive coptic or egyptian language is this of the Bible. Moshe was educated at pharao's court. He speaks nthe Exodus book the same language as pharao and wrote the Pentateuch with it.

R. Sungenis: Moses certainly carried over Egyptian phrases and such. Damien Mackey has made quite a case, for example, in arguing that the Pentateuch has Egyptian roots, not Babylonian roots. But to argue that the Bible in Coptic is more accurate than the inspired Hebrew is absurd.
Crombette's appeal to alternate biblical stories in Coptic is no more convincing than finding stories of Marduk in Babylonian literature, especially when some of these alternates that Crombette creates are so diverse from the Hebrew accounts. Crombette's translation of Genesis 1:1, for example, is so different from the Hebrew bible that it makes a laughstock of Christianity to think that not until Crombette do we have even an adequate text to exegete. The Fathers, the medievals, and the holy Councils stated that the Hebrew text alone was the authentically inspired text.

And then to suggest that the earth came out of the sun, and the moon came out of the earth is totally absurd, and against every witness in the Christian faith. On top of this is your attempt to dismiss as an error the three popes and the Sacred Congregation who said the earth has no diurnal motion based simply on Crombette's Coptic version of Genesis. So not only do you find yourself at odds with the Church's testimony that Hebrew was the only inspired text, you also find yourself at odds with the magisterium, based simply on the testimony of one man about whom you know very little, and have little recourse to check his work. END

The reading of Bible with help of this language is not a midrash, as you say, but the dicovery of the first meaning of Holy Scripture, the Hebrew people could no more understand when they start speaking aramean language at the time of deportation in Babylon.

R. Sungenis: And what proof do you have for this assertion? END

Thanks to the coptic roots of Hebrew words, is it possible to discover the meaning of the names of animals given by Adam, and of the names of men and places.

R. Sungenis: I don't have a problem saying that Hebrew may have some Coptic roots. Mackey, as I said above, lists quite a few of them. But that is quite different than saying the Coptic version of Genesis is more accurate and more authentic than the Hebrew. END

In this version, it appears explicitely that continent-drift took place during the Flood.

R. Sungenis: Well, that would then be in contradiction to the Hebrew bible, which indicates that continental drift took place after the Flood due to the sin of man at the tower of Babel. END

I wrote a long paper, unfortunately in french, showing that objections of critics since Richard Simon against Mosaïc origin of Pentateuch disappear if it is admitted that the real language of it is Coptic one.

It may seem incredible that Holy Church didnt know the primitive meaning of Scripture until our time. Our Lord has answered to this difficult question in a revelation given to Mary of the Valleys, from Coutances in Normandy, who inspired to the blessed John Eudes the devotion towards Holy Hearts. He told to her that at the end of times, The Church would know a meaning of Scripture She had not yet known. This new meaning doesnt change Faith, but allows to harmonize the Bible and science on a better way that with classic translations.

R. Sungenis: I'm sorry Yves, but we don't base our faith on private revelations. You as a Catholic should know better. Regarding Scripture, the Church has always known that as time goes by she will understand more and more of Scripture, but that refers to its more esoteric parts. No where does the Church suggest that an alternate version, more authentic and accurate than the Hebrew or Greek, would replace those inspired languages as the source of knowledge. If Crombette's Coptic version was not so different in language and meaning than the Hebrew, there wouldn't be much of a problem, but his texts are frequently diametrically opposed to the Hebrew.
There can be only one inspired text, and no one in the history of Judeo-Christianity has ever claimed it was Coptic. The Church has rejected all except the original Hebrew and Greek as the inspired texts. Therefore, any time there is a discrepancy between the Hebrew and Coptic, we side with the Hebrew. If you side with the Coptic, then you're creating another religion, I'm sorry to say, and I will vigorously oppose any effort you put forth to say differently.

This is all I'm going to say on the matter.
Robert Sungenis

Top

Question 45- Jesus' human knowledge

dear mr. sungenis,
i am a bit confused about the extent of Jesus' human knowledge and what the catechism says about it. the catechism says
This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man,” and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of Himself, taking “the form of a slave” [Philippians 2:7]. CCC 472 this implies that Jesus really didnt know certain things and that He knew certain things only by experience. however, i've been doing some reading (including fr. william most's book the consciousness of Christ, ludwig ott's fundamentals of catholic dogma, and the catholic encyclopedia), and i've learned that Jesus actually had infused knowledge and knowledge from the beatific vision. these sources say that, due to His infused knowledge and knowledge from the beatific vision, Jesus was not ignorant of anything. thus, when scripture says that He grew in wisdom, it means that He gained knowledge in a new way, not that He actually gained any knowledge. so, i have a few questions.

1) the catechism seems to imply that Jesus really learned new things (and also that in His human knowledge He really didn't know when He would come again, ccc 474). is it wrong, is the other stuff i've read wrong, or am i missing something?

2) if Jesus already knew everything before He experienced it, how could He have really grown in wisdom? sure, He can have His knowledge confirmed by experience, but thats not truly growing in wisdom. i don't think you can really separate knowledge based on the way we gain it to distinguish between knowledge of the same thing gained in 2 different manners.

3) if i correctly understand what i've been reading, it seems that Jesus' human intellect had to contain all the knowledge that His divine intellect has, which is infinite. however, a human intellect cannot be infinite. so what exactly was the extent of Jesus' human knowledge?

4) would i be correct in explaining Jesus' human knowledge this way:

through His infused knowledge, Jesus knew certain things. through His experience, He learned other things. and through the beatific vision, He had at hand all knowledge (such as the time of His second coming) and could go into the depths of His divine intellect and put things into His human intellect, but He could have chosen not to and maybe even sometimes chose not to.
thank you for your time; any help you can give me on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
-jp

R. Sungenis: JP, this is usually a difficult subject since we are dealing with the mystery between the human and divine natures in Christ. But the Church has been very firm that Christ had full knowledge present with him on earth, and still does in heaven.

Gregory the Great tried to explain Matthew 24:36 by saying that Christ knew the day and hour of Judgment Day, but that that divine knowledge did not come from his human nature. I appreciate Gregory's attempt, but I personally don't like the explanation. The text is clear that Christ is putting himself in the same category as the angels and everyone else who do not know the day and hour.

The question is: do we use grammatical/historical exegesis, or in this case does theology override the plain meaning of the text? A Thomist would be more inclinded to the latter, but a phenomenologist would be more inclinded to the former.

Pius X seems to lean more to former option in his syllabus of errors saying that "The natural sense of the evangelical texts cannot be reconciled with that which our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ" is in error. However, Pius X is only saying that it is wrong to say that the biblical texts cannot be RECONCILED with Christ's infallible knowledge, not that the biblical texts cannot be taken at face value and Christ's infallible knowledge be taken at face value. As such, Pius leaves room for the mystery but condemns the idea that there is a contradiction between the biblical text and Christ's infallible knowledge. Unfortunately, he does not offer a solution to the seeming contradiction.

The Holy Office of 1918 answered questions regarding the "soul" of Christ, that is, whether the soul of Christ enjoyed the beatific vision while on earth; whether the soul of Christ knew all things; and whether there is no limitation to the knowledge of Christ's soul. They said in all three cases Christ enjoyed these divine benefits. Pius XII in Mystici Corporis also said Christ enjoyed the beatific vision while on earth.

But again, as we saw in Pius X, the Holy Office does not attempt an exegetical reconciliation between the face value meaning of the biblical text (e.g., Matthew 24:36) and Christ's infallible knowledge.

As it stands, the preponderant testimony from the Church (although it has not been defined, and probably never will be) is that Christ had complete and infallible knowledge while on earth at least in his "soul," but no one has offered a sufficient grammatical/historical exegesis of passages such as Matthew 24:36. As I see it, it will simply not suffice to say that: "Well, it doesn't matter what Matthew 24:36's face value meaning is, Christ had infallible knowledge because our theology says so." We, as Catholics, surely aren't so bold when it comes to passages such as John 6:54 which, in its plain meaning, dictates to us that we are to eat Christ's flesh, while our theology of transubstantiation simply does not do adequate justice to the nature of the eucharist (although it is the best we have).

As such, since the issue has not been defined by the Church, there is still room for discussion. I believe the discussion should center around how we can properly exegete passages such as Matthew 24:36, being faithful to the grammatical meaning of the text, but, at the same time, not diminishing the infallible knowledge of Christ. Whoever comes up with it will be quite honored by the Church, I'm sure.

Top

Question 44- Baptism by Desire revisited

Dear Mr Sungenis :

I refer to "Question 9 - Baptism of Desire " under "Q & A February 2005". In your reply, you said that Baptism by Desire was a dogma.

In 2001, I had the privilege of discussing the matter with Father
Laisney of the SSPX by e-mail. Father Laisney defended the arguments in SSPX's Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau's book "Baptism of Desire, a Patristic Commentary" in favour of Baptism by Desire.

The discussion is attached. Perhaps you could kindly give me your thoughts on it after reading it ?

Regards
Stephen,
Singapore

R. Sungenis: Stephen, I read a good portion of the document. I see the same arguments going back and forth as in my previous encounters. The bottom line is this, as I see it: The Council of Trent assures us dogmatically that the Desire of Baptism, in lieu of receiving water, does indeed exist. The only remaining issue (and to which Dominus Jesus is referring) is to whom the desire can be applied, that is, is it only to catechumens who are about to enter the Church and thus make a "vow," or does it have wider application. Until if and when the Church herself settles this issue, I would not be persuaded by any other arguments, especially those coming from the SSPX.

Top

Question 43- Obeying Our Lady's Requests

I've been doing some reading on your various articles relating to Fatima and Our Lady's requests. I was wondering if we have examples of other requests from Our Lady that have gone unheeded, or unfulfilled? If so, what happened as a result?

Thanks!

R. Sungenis: Monaghan, here is an excerpt from my paper on Fatima. There was a warning in 1936 regarding the unfulfilled consecration. Notice the reference to the King of France who was punished for disobeying a heavenly revelation.
...In August 1931, Sister Lucia reported that Jesus appeared to her with the words:

Make it known to My ministers given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him they will follow him into misfortune.

Here we have a clear warning of terrible things that will happen if the consecration of Russia is not performed. If, as the Vatican now claims, that the consecration of Russia was performed in 1984 (which we will analyze later in this essay), then this means the Vatican did not believe the consecration of Russia was performed at any time beginning from when the consecration was first requested (1929) to 1984. Fifty-five years, by any reasonable standard, can certainly be considered a "delaying the execution of My command" specified in the 1931 vision.

As noted earlier, the 1931 vision is then followed by another vision of Jesus to Sister Lucia in May 1936. As reported, He reiterates to her that the conversion of Russia will be accepted in heaven only when it is publicly consecrated by the Pope and all the bishops participate in unison. As in the 1931 vision, Jesus states again that if His words are not heeded, then He will use Russia to chastize the world.

Six years later, while World War II was in full swing, Pope Pius XII chose to consecrate the world (not Russia singly and by name, as specified in the 1929 vision) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, both in October and December of 1942. In addition, he performed the consecration without including the bishops of the world. These events tell us several important things:

(1) Pius XII regarded the 1929, 1931 and 1936 visions to Sister Lucia seriously enough for him to perform a consecration. He did not, it should be noted, brush off Sister Lucia's visions as mere devotional fantasies or mental hallucinations (a ploy used recently by certain Vatican officials);

(2) Pius XII, either inadvertently or deliberately, did not feel it necessary to single out Russia by name or call for the bishops of the world during the consecration. As such, current Vatican officials do not consider Pius' attempt to consecrate valid, since, if they did, they would not have devised their own consecration in 1984 under John Paul II;

(3) It proves current Vatican officials realize that a papal consecration must: (a) name Russia specifically, and that a generic consecration of 'the world' is insufficient, and (b) enact the consecration in concert with the bishops of the world who perform the same consecration, whether at the Vatican or in their own dioceses.

(4) The consecration by Pius XII in 1942 and the consecration by John Paul II in 1984 tell us that both pontificates realized that the command to consecrate Russia must be fulfilled. One cannot claim that Sister Lucia's visions were a fantasy and yet act upon them by attempting to fulfill the required consecration. Any attempt today by the Vatican to claim that Sister Lucia's visions were not real, can only end up making the attempted consecration in 1984 appear as an irrational exercise in futility.

Confirmation of Pius XII's failure to properly administer the consecration is confirmed in a July 1946 reply by Sister Lucia to an inquiry by a Professor William Walsh. She specifies that Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world, but only of Russia. In her reply to Walsh, Sister Lucia states: "If this is done, Our Lady promises to convert Russia and there will be peace."
NB: According to various reports, there may be extenuating circumstances that mistakenly led Pius XII to consecrate the world rather than Russia in 1942. In June 1938, the Portuguese bishops wrote a collective letter to Pope Pius XI asking for the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (The Whole Truth About Fatima, p. 683). In this they appear to have been chiefly influenced by the revelations to Blessed Alexandrina Costa. (That Pope, as we know, did not respond to their request.)

On 1 September 1940, Sr Lucia wrote a letter to Fr Aparicio in which, for the first time, she mentions a consecration of the world alongside that of Russia (Fatima, Joie Intime, Événement Mondial by Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels – Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity’s successor, p. 232). She writes (and I translate from the French): “Latterly, several important persons have spoken to the Holy Father of a consecration of the world and Russia to the Immaculate Heart. His Holiness has shown himself well-disposed to this…”.
Shortly afterwards, Sr Lucia was ordered herself to write to the Pope by the Bishop of Gurza, D. Manuel Ferreira, mentioning especially this (conflated) request for a consecration of the world along with a mention of Russia. Naturally she was very perplexed by this novel demand and sought Heaven’s help to resolve the dilemma.

Heaven resolved her difficulty in a private revelation of 22 October 1940. Brother Francis writes: "The revelation of 22 October 1940 reveals therefore a new request, quite secondary in the context of the message of Fatima which remains definitively centered on the consecration and conversion of Russia. 'In October 1940,' comments Fr Alonso, 'Heaven acceded to the desires of Sr Lucia's superiors to see the consecration of the world realized with a special mention of Russia. It is the Lord Himself who suggests such an act.'"

Unfortunately, her bishop, Monsignor da Silva, added even further to the confusion by having her alter her original letter to Rome. Brother Francis writes: "Not only did he substitute an indirect style for the Virgin Mary’s very own words, but he also arranged them in a way that causes the most unfortunate confusion in the conditions proper to each of Heaven’s requests. Regarding the consecration of Russia, Our Lady wanted the Holy Father to order all the bishops to perform this in union with him. On the other hand, Our Lord’s desire regarding the consecration of the world was addressed to the Pope and to him alone. Well! Mgr da Silva reversed the conditions. He omitted the necessary union of the bishops with Rome in the request for the consecration of Russia, and he added it to the request for the consecration of the world! The modifications he imposed on the final version of this letter addressed to Pius XII had the most deplorable consequences. For the Fatima experts and the hierarchical authorities have sometimes used this document to obscure Our Lady’s exact demands, to disfigure and travesty Heaven’s wishes."

Writing with regard to a further revelation on 28 February 1943, Sr Lucia says: “The Good Lord has shown me his pleasure at the act (of Pius XII’s consecration of the world), albeit incomplete according to His desire… He promises, in return, to end the war shortly.” It seems that the Good Lord, knowing full well that His request for Russia’s consecration would go on being ignored, used the services of Alexandrina Costa to at least bring the war to an early close – a war that Pius XI could have prevented altogether if he had effected the original consecration asked of him in 1929 and received in Rome in 1930.

Top

Question 42- Regnum Christi

Dear Robert Sungenis,

I am a long time Catholic, a student at a Jesuit college, and Regnum Christi member. I appreciate your zeal for defending the church, and knowledge of the Bible. But I don't see why you take such a cautious stance on organizations such as Opus Dei and Regnum Christi which are trying to combat some of the same evils as you are in the modern church. Sure there are
members in these groups that seem to idolize their founder, but that can be said of every order alive today, and widespread throughout the church. In Mexico, before the Revolution in 1910, villagers in rural areas believed priests to be untouchable and had acid for blood, so if anyone hit a priest or shot him they would be burned with acid. Today I know many Catholics who
idolize prominent Catholics such as Scott Hahn, Mel Gibson, Christopher West, and even the Holy Father. I once asked a Bishop (and the holiest man I have ever known) what was the devil's greatest tool in the world, and he said it was forces of division within the church. How can we come together as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church if we are constantly at
odds with one another and divided?

Peace Always,
Jerry

R. Sungenis: Jerry, I appreciate your concerns. All things considered, I think Opus Dei and Regnum Christi are good for the Church. Anything that fights the liberal onslaught is good, as far as I see it. My only concern is that OD and RC not try to win this battle by artifical means. I was in both OD and RC, long enough to know what they teach and what they do. Of the two, I have more suspicion against the tactics of RC. They seem to be too interested in making money and churning out carbon copies of each other based on their idol, Fr. Maciel. And the fact that Maciel's accusers simply won't go away, adds to my suspicion that the cultic symptoms in RC go deeper than the surface. I appreciate your examples of how Catholics in the past have idolized their leaders, but that doesn't disprove my point, it only reinforces it. I hope you understand.

Top

Question 41- CAI Statement on Obedience, Disagreement and The Pope

Re: http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/confused-jpii.htm

Mario: Let me just bring up a few things here. You indicate that the current bishops and JPII himself have embraced errors that contradict the very heart of the Gospel. This is called apostasy. If they have embraced such errors and these errors are public and notorious (that's the canonical criterion), then they have, by divine law, lost their office (Canon 188.4, 1917 Code; Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus).

R. Sungenis: Cum Ex Apostolatus is only enforceable by a canonical court of law, not you or me. That was the whole point of my essay.

Mario: You write that "unless our next pope is strong and orthodox...." Bob, if the Pope is not orthodox, he is not a Pope.

R. Sungenis: If that were true, then the pope could make no mistakes outside of ex cathedra statements, which is certainly not the case.

Mario: Someone who is not orthodox is heterodox, and that means not a Catholic.

R. Sungenis: A person can be unorthodox on one point, but be orthodox on all required dogma. Unless he deliberately and persistenly rejects a dogma, he is Catholic, and neither you nor I have the authority to judge it differently. The magisterium is his judge, not you.

Mario: You are saying that "Unless our next Pope is a Catholic......." It is a matter of divine law, as shown by Pope Paul IV, that a non-Catholic cannot be Pope.

R. Sungenis: No, I'm not saying that. You are reading into my words and creating a straw man.

Mario: Now you speak of losing office, but I say go back further and look at Wojtyla before his "election," and you will see he was already not a Catholic and therefore unable to obtain the pontificate to begin with.

R. Sungenis: Unless Cardinal Woytyla was proved in a canonical court of law to be a manifest heretic, then his ascension to the papal throne is legitimate. Your opinion carries no weight in this argument. It is only what the magisterium determines that counts.

Mario: Again, Pope Paul IV is clear on a non-Catholic being unable to be elected Pope (as is the Catholic Encyclopedia).

R. Sungenis: Certainly, if it can be proved in a canonical court of law that he was not a Catholic prior to his election. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not endorse lay people as vigilante judges.

Mario: I agree no one has the authority to *legally declare* JPII a non-Pope, but no one is doing that. We're talking about DISCERNING his status, not about making a legally binding declaration that by itself binds other Catholics. Whether JPII is Pope or not is first of all a matter of fact, and only secondarily a matter of law. Remember how St. Robert speaks of the fall of Nestorius. Before any official condemnation, the people *discerned* that he had lost his office of bishop because he was no longer a Catholic.

R. Sungenis: Then you're on my side, since what we "discern" is not necessarily what the magisterium discerns. Until if and when the magisterium validates the consensus of "discernment," then it remains just that -- a popular opinion of discernment. Your "discernment," as I said in my essay, can be used to protect yourself, but you have no right to turn your "discernment" into a indisputable legal indictment against the pope, as for example, you do on your website, stating as fact that John Paul II is an anti-pope.

Mario: Didn't Pope Leo II clarify the anathema about Pope Honorius? In any case, I don't think Pope Honorius could be compared in any way to John Paul II. JPII's denial of the Faith is all over the map.

R. Sungenis: I'm not comparing Honorius to John Paul II. I used the example of Honorius only to show that a pope can err in matters of the faith, but not lose his office because of it.

Mario: The authority of St. Robert Bellarmine -- Bob, I can't believe you wrote he has no authority because he is not the Magisterium. Neither was St. Thomas Aquinas the Magisterium and yet his authority is great. St. Robert Bellarmine was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI -- just in time, I would say. :) I know of no other Doctor who has written about the papacy in such detail as St. Robert. I think he is very much an authority on the subject, for he is a Teacher of the Church. I don't see why a Catholic could not listen to him on the issue of heretical "Popes."

R. Sungenis: St. Robert is my patron saint. If anyone would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, it would be me. But the fact is, whether it is St. Robert or St. Thomas, neither of them were the magisterium, and they would both admit to that fact, and did on several occasions. In fact, St. Robert was censored by the reigning pope for a disagreement they had over a point of doctrine.

Mario: But you write that if a Pope can err in statements not ex cathedra, then of course he won't lose his office if he errs. But Bob, Vatican I also teaches the Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. John Paul II teaches, and the bishops in union with him do as well, that religious liberty is a human right. This falls under the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and therefore proves JPII and his hierarchy to be bogus.

R. Sungenis: Vatian II teaches that religious liberty is a CIVIL human right, not a MORAL human right. I haven't seen John Paul II contradict that teaching, at least not in any official statement. And even if he did, such an error would not mean that he loses his office, since Honorius and many other popes have already shown us that papal error does not mean the pope loses his office.

Mario: Fr. Cekada has done an excellent job putting together the Church's laws and principles about papal elections and loss of office:
http://www.stjosephschurch.net/pope.htm

R. Sungenis: I have read Fr. Cekada's material. I believe he is in error. He simply has not thought out all the issues.

Mario: But let me ask you something:
--DO Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, as JPII and VII teach? (it says they ADORE Him; not just they PROFESS to do so)

R. Sungenis: I've already answered this question at length. You will find it in my dialogues with John Pacheco.

Mario: --Does man as man indeed retain the image and likeness of God, as JPII perfidiously teaches in Redemptor Hominis? This is what JPII teaches in his ordinary Magisterium.

R. Sungenis: I don't know anywhere this has been defined by the Church. If you know of something, I'd be interested to see it. As far as I understand, man retains the image of God but it is a marred image. James 3:9 understands the "likeness of God" as applying to mankind in general, but there is also the perfected image we attain as Christians (Romans 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18)

Mario: Concluding with St. Robert: "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic." (http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm)

R. Sungenis: Unfortunately, one piece is missing, and that is verification of the magisterium. As it stands, anyone who "judged" Pope Liberius as an illegitimate pope would have been wrong, since it is clear from history that he was indeed a legitimate pope.

Mario: If you have not seen it yet, please see http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Bob_Sungenis.html
I do not think too highly of the Dimond Brothers and think they are a scandal to the Faith in some ways, but they are right on quite a few issues.

R. Sungenis: The Dimond brothers are precisely the epitome of the vigilante judges I condemned in my essay. They are quite deceived. Stay far away from them, Mario. They will corrupt your soul.

Top

Question 40- Tsunami and Spinning

Hello,
I keep hearing in the news that the tsunami earthquake has sped the earth up in its rotation and caused a wobble. If there is a slight speeding up of the earth from the tsunami does this disturb the geocentric theory of a non spinning earth. What have you heard about this? Thank you
LS

R. Sungenis: LS, it's all theory. No one has measured an increase in anything and there is no wobble.

Top

Question 39- Is Fatima Relevant for Today? Part II

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Thank you for responding. Allow me a few more thoughts.

There are only two kinds of revelation: public and private. Public revelation ended with the Apostles. Private revelations are the only thing to be expected now. Hence, Fatima cannot somehow be more than a private revelation, no matter how many people claim to have seen a miracle. Neither is there any sort of "middle-ground" revelation for it to occupy.

R. Sungenis: I didn't say there was a "middle ground." The fact is that the Church has understood Fatima to be the most important private revelation ever received. The mere fact that six popes felt in someway obligated to respond to the message of Fatima over the course of 70 years, some responding (or refusing to respond) due to more "private" revelations urging them to respond. So, if it is your thesis that Fatima is a revelation that assumes no priority, then why are all these popes rushing to obey its dictates? Why would John Paul II some 60 years later perform a consecration in obedience to Fatima, and do so acknowledging that his predecessor, Pius XII, did not fully accomplish said consecration? Why would the present Vatican go overboard in trying to convince the world that they have finally accomplished what they were told to do, and seek Sr. Lucia's approval of their efforts, if, as you claim, it holds no obligation for them and is merely a private revelation like all other non-Apostolic revelations?

Gregory: "Approval" by the Church does not require the assent of theological faith; it merely guarantees that one can credibly believe in the private revelation with a human faith. Since theological faith cannot be required, how much less could obedience from the hierarchy be required?

R. Sungenis: Who is talking about "theological faith"? Certainly not I. Fatima is just a simple command from heaven to consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate heart. We either accept it as it is or we don't. If we don't, as even the present Vatican admits, then there will be temporal consequences for the whole world, which may also lead to eternal consequences for those same souls who are victims of