Questions and Answers

16. Is Oversleeping Gravely Sinful?

Dear Ben,

Is sleeping in gravely sinful? I don't have a job (looking for one), and I get up at like 10 or 11. In other words, is it ever possible to sleep yourself right into mortal sin?

Dia is Muire dhuit,
Chris

Dear Chris,

Glad to see you have taken a shine to Gaelic blessings. I just hope you don't pick up my affinity for Gaelic insults as well.

Sloth is only a mortal sin if, because of it, we refuse to fulfill some grave obligation. If my friend is suicidal and I say, "talking him out of this will be agonizing, and I'm tired, so I'm going to go back to bed," I sin mortally. On the other hand, if I sleep in on a Saturday and lose a few hours I would otherwise have spent reading Evelyn Waugh's Scoop, I do not sin mortally. At most, my oversleeping might evince a lack of charity, since I know that every waking moment is an opportunity to love and serve God which must be pressed to the full advantage, and that by sleeping unnecessarily long I am forsaking many such opportunities. This being the case, what I am saying to God by oversleeping is, "instead of doing the most good I could possibly do today, I prefer to do less good, because it is more comfortable." This might not be the highway to hell, but neither is it the way of perfection.

JMJ,
Ben

15. Does Sirach 24 Teach a Primordial Torah?

Dear Ben,

I've studied some of the teachings of Hebrew Catholics, among which is the Primordial Torah. They seem to declare it to be God. Do you believe in it, and if so, do you believe that it is God (as another name for the Holy Spirit or Jesus)?

To me it appears there is a primordial Torah, but that it is a creation, if not the first. Sirach 24 speaks of a personified, yet created wisdom which has existed from the beginning of time, which seems to be identified as the Bible.

"Before all ages, in the beginning, He created me, and through all ages I shall not cease to be."--Sirach 24:9

"All this is true of the book of the Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob."--Sirach 24:22

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

God bless,
Ronald

Dear Ronald,

I am inclined to apply Sirach 24 to Christ. It seems to be talking about the same Wisdom as Proverbs 8, and Proverbs 8 is of course a Christological passage as well.

There is indeed a difficulty in explaining how the Wisdom of Sirach 24 can be identified with Christ, given that Sirach describes this Wisdom as created. And, unfortunately, while we possess about 68% of Sirach in the original Hebrew, chapter 24 is one of the passages which we are missing. As such, it is impossible to evaluate the appropriateness of the Greek and Latin translations of Sirach 24:9 (ektise me, creata sum [v. 14 in the Vulgate]). But if, for example, the underlying Hebrew word were qanah, this would solve our dilemma, for qanah can mean both to create and to possess, and indeed in this latter sense is applied to Christ in Proverbs 8:22. The Lord did not create Christ, but He did possess Christ in the beginning, before His works of old.

Anyway, regardless how we are to solve this particular dilemma, I see several things in the text of Sirach 24 which point to a Christological interpretation. The following quotes are from the RSV-CE: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before all creatures. I ordained that an unfailing light should arise in the heavens, and I covered the earth like a mist" (v. 3). Since Christ is the Logos or Word of God, it is appropriate to refer to Him as coming forth from the mouth of God. Next, Sirach's description of Wisdom as "the first-born before all creatures" closely parallels St. Paul's description of Christ as "the first-born of all creation" (Col 1:15). Again, Sirach teaches that Wisdom ordained the creation of the sun. This parallels other biblical passages which teach that Christ was active in creation (cf. Prov 8:27-30; Col 1:16). Finally, Sirach teaches that during the creation of heaven and earth, Wisdom covered the earth like a mist. This seems to refer to Genesis 1:3, in which the Spirit of God is said to hover over the void, formless, and watery earth. The text of Genesis 1:3 may refer to the Person of the Holy Spirit, but we know from theology that all three Persons of the Holy Trinity are one in their operations ad extra, hence Genesis 1:3 is a proper description of Jesus as well.

Sirach continues, "I dwelt in high places, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud" (v. 4). This could refer to the pillar of cloud which guided the Jews through the desert, and in which the Lord took His throne: "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud" (Ex 13:21). Sirach again: "Alone I have made the circuit of the vault of heaven and have walked in the depths of the abyss" (v. 5). In Job 38:16-24, God, by means of a series of rhetorical questions, implies that He has walked "in the recesses of the deep" and "the place where light is distributed." If, as Sirach teaches, Wisdom "alone" has traveled to these places, then Wisdom must be God.

Sirach again: "In every people and nation I have gotten a possession" (v. 6). As the Greek text of this verse stands, it is difficult not to see a parallel to the description of Christ in Revelation 5:9: "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Furthermore, the Christological meaning of this verse is even clearer in the Vulgate. "In omni gente primatum habui" (v. 10, corresponding to v. 6 in the Greek). "In every nation I have had preeminence." The Syriac of this verse agrees with the Vulgate against the Greek, so the Vulgate translation is probably the authentic representation of the Hebrew. In this case, it is quite probable that Sirach is St. Paul's source for his statement in Colossians 1:18, "[Christ] is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent." So argues T. Francis Glasson, "Colossians 1:18, 15 and Sirach 24," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 86, No. 2 (June, 1967), pp. 214-216. There truly is a lot of Sirach 24 in Colossians 1!

I could go on, but for the moment will offer only one last observation. Verse 25 in the Vulgate text calls Wisdom the way and the truth and the life, and we of course know Who that is (cf. John 14:6). The cumulative weight of this evidence seems conclusive that Christ is the Wisdom of Sirach 24.

Now, regarding your question on the primordial Torah. I am reticent to identify "the book of the covenant of the Most High God" (Sir 24:23) with the Wisdom who has been described in vv. 1-18. Rather, I would identify "the book of the covenant" with the series of commands and counsels which Wisdom delivers in vv. 19-22: "Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce... Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame, and those who work with my help will not sin." These words which Wisdom speaks in vv. 19-22 could well serve as a summary which captures the essence of the Law of Moses.

On the other hand, if Hebrew Catholics want to call Jesus the primordial Torah as a synonym for St. John's Logos, albeit with a more Jewish flavor, that is their prerogative.

JMJ,
Ben Douglass

14. Do Orthodox Jews Pray Daily for the Destruction of Christians?

Ben - Do you know if the accusation here is accurate? (That Orthodox male Jews must pray daily this prayer for the destruction of Christans?)
Fr. B

And for Christians let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed are you Lord who breaks enemies and humbles sinners. (Birkat HaMinim, "Benediction" #12 of the Shmone Esreh (18 Benedictions) mandated by halacha to be prayed by every Orthodox Judaic male three times daily).

Dear Father,

Jews do recite the Birkat HaMinim frequently, but that prayer exists in many recensions and only one manuscript (Cairo Geniza) has ever been discovered which specifically targets Nazarenes, i.e., Christians. As such, "Christians" is a dishonest translation. No Jews name Christians in the Birkat HaMinim today and few have over the past 2000 years.

The prayer's original wording, which some Jews might retain today, targets minim, or heretics/sectarians. This would be inclusive of Jewish Gnostics, Sadducees, Reform Jews, and yes, Jewish, but not Gentile, Christians. Other versions of the prayer target apostates, Epicureans, slanderers, or all doers of iniquity. You would have to talk to someone more knowledgable than me to find out the relative popularity of the various versions of the prayer among Jews today.

JMJ,
Ben

13. Clarification on the Knowledge of Christ

Dear Ben,

You said recently:

"While on earth Christ's human, rational knowledge grew the same way ours does: by abstraction from sense data. He would have started out with no rational knowledge at His conception and grown steadily throughout His life as He continued to observe things and think. Therefore it is understandable that He would not know the end of time by means of His human knowledge."

What you are saying seems to neglect the knowledge Christ had (in his human intellect) by means of the beatific vision as well as his infused knowledge. I think it would be better to say he started out with no experimental knowledge. In fact, what he learned by means of his experimental knowledge he already knew by means of his beatific and infused knowledge. Even here the only progress was in the mode cognition, not content.

I'm sure you'd be aware of this and did not mean to deny this. Of course, I agree with your explanation of the verse which follows Gregory the Great that Christ did not have this knowledge from his human nature.

Matthew

Dear Matthew,

I should have been clearer. By "rational knowledge" I meant experimental knowledge. Nevertheless, it is correct to say that Christ had no rational knowledge at conception. This leaves room for beatific and infused knowledge, because Christ's beatific and infused knowledge are intuitive, not rational, i.e., they are not gained through discursive reasoning.

JMJ,
Ben

12. Was Christ Omniscient while on Earth?

Recently I was very troubled when a Catholic student claimed that Christ was not omniscient while on the Earth. Hasn't this been condemned by countless fathers of the Church and even marked as modernism? How can this fit with Christ being "fully God?" Can a Catholic believe this?

Dear Sir,

Yes, to deny the omniscience of Christ is modernism. The decree Lamentabili Sane of the Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X condemned two propositions held by the modernists who deny the omniscience of Christ:

32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.

34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.

With good reason did St. Pius X condemn these propositions. To posit that Christ does not know all things is, as you suggest, incompatible with His being fully God. In order to be both fully God and fully man Christ must possess, wholly, naturally, and intact, every faculty proper to both His human soul and His divine soul. Therefore He must possess a human will and a divine will, and human intellect and a divine intellect, human knowledge and divine knowledge.

If one denies Christ any of His attributes or faculties as man, then He has a mangled human nature. This is why the Church condemns monotheletism. On the other hand, if one separates Christ from any of His faculties or attributes as God, one separates Him from his divinity, since God, being simple, IS His attributes. God's intellect, will, wisdom and knowledge are all identical with His essence. Denial of the omniscience of Christ therefore leads directly to Arianism or Nestorianism.

The key to orthodox Christology is the principle of predication. Everything which can be truly said of Christ in one of His natures can be truly said of His Person. God knows all things. Christ, as God, knows all things. Therefore Christ knows all things. It works in the other direction too. Christ, as man, suffered and died. Christ suffered and died. Therefore God suffered and died. Keep this principle in mind and you will be safe from all Christological heresies on all sides of the spectrum.

This student who claimed that Christ was not omniscient while on earth was probably confused by Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, which state, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." The Church understands this passage in the sense that Christ did not know the day or hour of the end of the world by means of His human knowledge. While on earth Christ's human, rational knowledge grew the same way ours does: by abstraction from sense data. He would have started out with no rational knowledge at His conception and grown steadily throughout His life as he continued to observe things and think. Therefore it is understandable that He would not know the end of time by means of His human knowledge.

For further treatment of these and other questions, see St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica and Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's commentary.

JMJ,
Ben Douglass

11. Can the Church Command Us to Celebrate Christmas?

Romans 14 seems to contradict the idea that one must celebrate Christmas. What does the chapter say?

Dear Sir,

In Romans 14, St. Paul is only dealing with the question of whether Christians should observe the Mosaic dietary laws and the Jewish Sabbath and holy days. His answer is to leave the question up to the conscience of the individual Christian. It does not follow from this passage that the Church has no power to command Christians to observe certain fasts or holy days. We see in Acts 15:28-29 that the Church does have the power to command Christians to fast from certain foods. To command Christians to observe certain holy days is part of the same power, the power of binding and loosing confided to the Church by our Lord (Matt 16:19; 18:18).

God bless,
Ben Douglass

10. Do Protestants Think that Justification and Righteousness are Synonyms?

Ben,

Do you think that this statement is accurate?

Protestants think that justification, salvation, and righteousness are synonyms. Catholics say that we were redeemed by Christ’s death on the Cross. We are justified by God’s action in the sacraments of Baptism and Penance. We grow in righteousness (holiness). We reach our final purpose by salvation in heaven.

Fred

Dear Fred,

Protestants don't believe that justification and righteousness are synonyms. In the Protestant view of salvation, justification consists in God crediting you with a righteousness you do not ontologically possess. In justification God decides that He is going to judge you as if you were Christ, which God is able to do because He already judged Christ as if He were you. This alien righteousness of Christ is the grounds based on which you are admitted to heaven. Your first bit of personal righteousness comes concomitantly with justification, and then grows gradually throughout your Christian life. But that righteousness is in no way the basis of your salvation. In the Catholic view, on the other hand, justification and sanctification are synonyms, because our personal righteousness is the grounds for our justification. God judges us for who we are, not as if we were Christ. Thus, it is when God sanctifies us, when he makes us righteous by His sovereign and efficacious grace, that he justifies us, because that sanctity is the grounds on which we are saved.

JMJ,
Ben

9. Do Ancient Codices Support the Protestant View of the Canon?

Ben,

I wanted to get your response to my family Pastor’s response in regards to a codex found. I have not seen codices really come into play with regards to the canon before. In our Sunday School class, he made a Protestant argument for the canon based on Jamnia and a codex found in 100 A.D. with the NT as today in it. I then emailed, which is seen below. I am getting the full court press from our Pastoral staff as my journey continues.

Leon

Leon,

A Canon and a codex are two separate things. A codex is a bound volume of pages or a “packaged” set of books. From the study of the numbers and types of scraps of scripture that archeologists have dug up there were bound volumes of Paul’s letters and the Gospels circulating (and numerously) by 100 AD and the earliest know codex of NT books as we have it today has been dated to 100-130 AD. In addition textual criticism experts assert that (with the exception of 5 books) a NT codex was circulation in Asia Minor and the eastern provinces as early as 70 AD. They have determined this by the number of bound and unbound fragments.

REMEMBER the Protestant view does not seek to determine the canon so much as it seeks to collect and preserve books that have the mark of canonicity. In addition, the Protestant church reserves the right to be flawed in its judgment. The Muratorian fragment does contain a list of books that it’s writer (unknown) considered to be canonical; this document is dated at 170 AD. Of course, if you wanted to use the church fathers, Athanasius had the entire bible as we have it today as early as 293 AD (he used his own “codex” for the NT and the Jamnia councils Jewish OT) and Irenaeus had all but 4 books of the bible and quoted them “as scripture” in his writings. BUT NEITHER THE CHURCH FATHERS NOR LISTS MADE BY FLAWED MEN DETERMINE WHAT IS SCRIPTURE.

Your mistakes concerning the issues of canonicity evidence your bent toward Catholicism.

You repeat the same flawed thinking when you mention the Counsel of Jamnia. “The removal of authority from within the Jewish Community” has nothing to do with their ability to understand chain of custody. AUTHORITY of a body of people does not DETERMINE what is SCRIPTURE.

Yes, Jamnia was a Jewish counsel (and probably quite anti-Christian) and, their primary focus was not NT or Christian writings. Their focus was on which Jewish literature had a clear “chain of custody” to men who were confirmed as prophets of God. What is relevant to the Christian community about this group is twofold: their dedication to scripture coming from a known prophet and their proximity in time and place to the chain of custody (100 AD). What is significant is that they could easily have chosen the apocryphal books but quickly eliminated them as “baseless” when it came to authenticity.

If you are going to argue the Catholic view logically, pretty quickly you are going to be arguing Apostolic Collegiality. Logically speaking, to have an “infallible set of infallible books” (the Catholic View of the Canon) you must have someone who can speak infallibly on the subject after the last writings of the NT have been written.

Do you believe that any person’s judgment can be considered infallible?

Personally, I believe that if you collected the greatest textual critics in the world and made them argue until they reach 100% agreement about a passage that I would then have a highly trustworthy opinion; which might still be flawed. In fact I might not even be able to tell that it is flawed seeing as their skill and perspective exceeds my own. Frankly this is how Protestantism views the counsels and their judgments concerning the Canon: highly trustworthy opinions, which might still be flawed but are to be trusted as true because their skill and perspective exceeds our own.

Vinny

Dear Leon,

If someone had actually found a complete codex of the New Testament dating to 100 A.D., the whole world would be blaring with the wonderful news. This would be the happiest find ever for Christian apologetics and textual criticism. I think what your Pastor meant is that, based on scholarly reconstructions of the fragmentary evidence available, we can conclude that the New Testament was first bound in one volume around 100-130 A.D. That may very well have been the case. However, I don't see what relevance this has to Catholic-Protestant debates on the canon. There may have been complete NT codices in existence in the 2nd century, but people who did not believe that Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were Scripture would have had their own codices without them. Who was right? That is why you need a Church guided by the Holy Spirit to make that judgment.

Your pastor is right that no body of men can cause Scripture to be Scripture. The Church does not "create" the canon when it defines the list of biblical books. Rather, God inspired a certain number of books, and no others. All the Church does is accurately relate to us the historical fact of which books God has inspired. It does so infallibly, but this in no way makes the Church the master of the canon. It can only canonize whatever books God has inspired and told her to canonize.

Your pastor's appeal to the alleged dedication of the Pharisees to Scripture is laughable. He's read the Gospels, so he should know that these rabbis were not at all devoted to Scripture. They were devoted to their traditions of men, and they were not adverse to grossly abusing Sacred Scripture in order to make it conform. The Pharisees at Jamnia were the spiritual blood-brothers of those who killed the prophets and killed Christ. So, it should not surprise us that they unjustly excluded several prophets from their canon of the Bible. To base one's argument, as your pastor does, on this group of Jews supposedly being scrupulously devoted to faithfully preserving all the legitimate writings that had come down from approved prophets, is ludicrous. Jesus told this school of rabbis that their father was the devil. Thirty years later, they did not suddenly become the sort of godly men who would never, heaven forbid, suppress authentic divine revelation.

Finally, your pastor makes a good observation that human learning and the strength of rational arguments can never give you anything more than a relative certainty as to the contents of the canon. It can never give you the certainty of faith, i.e., the certainty which accepts that such and such books are Scripture on the authority of God.

He doesn't realize it, but this leaves him in an epistemological quandry. How can he have divine faith in the Bible, how can he believe everything it contains on the authority of God Himself, with the same faith wherewith he believes that God could never lie, if he cannot know, on the authority of God, which books are in the Bible? How can he read Jude and say he believes it as on the authority of God, if he doesn't know for certain if it is from God? If all he has is highly trustworthy human opinion, which could be wrong, that Jude was written by God and not by man alone, I submit that he cannot say, "I believe in the contents of Jude on the authority of God." He can only offer Jude a conditional submission, i.e., "if you are inspired, I believe everything you say, although I'm not certain whether you are inspired." The same would apply by extension to each book of the Bible. He cannot believe the contents of the Bible with divine faith, with the unqualified adhesion of intellect and will to the authority of God revealing, if all he has is a human authority to tell him which books are in the Bible. He is always going to profess his faith with a caveat, "if you're Scripture, I believe you, and I think you're Scripture, but I'm not sure." Therefore he cannot simply say to Ezra, Nehemiah, Jude, or Peter, "I believe what you have written on the authority of God." I'll pray for the day when he will be able to say this.

God bless,
Ben Douglass

8. Does the Epistle to the Hebrews Destroy the Mass?

To whom it may Concern @ "The Dagger of Faith".....

As a Protestant, I am convinced that the Mass is nothing more than a theatrical presentation utterly opposed to sacred scripture. Now let's get right to it. Hebrews 9:17-18 utterly destroys the mass as a sham and a hoax and transubstantiation as a fiction. First of all, it is official Catholic doctrine that at the Last Supper, Christ Jesus offered up His body and blood in sacrifice to God. The Council of Trent states, "That He might leave...a visible sacrifice..at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed...(He) offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine..."(chapter 2). Thus we note, astonishingly, that the RCC claims that the Lord Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice BEFORE the sacrifice on the cross!

Next we must remember that when Moses confirmed the Book of the Law, he ratified it by sprinkling both the book and the people with the blood of the sacrificial animal, saying, "This is the blood of the (Old) Testament." (Heb 9:19). There can be no doubt that Jesus picks up on this episode by saying, "This is my blood of the new testament" (Matt 26:28). Here is the point: The blood from either testament had to be blood from a sacrifical victim and NOT a living person! Since Christ had not yet died, that ipso facto means it would be IMPOSSILE for the contents of the cup to be His actual blood. It will do you no good to say God could do it if He wanted to, as is so often tiresomely alleged. No! We are to come to reasonable conclusions with the facts He has provided and this is where Hebrews 9:17-18 swings the wrecking ball at the Mass in general and transubstantiation in particular.

"FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS....[and remember, Jesus was indeed instituting 'my blood of the new testament"] ...THERE MUST ALSO OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. FOR A TESTAMENT IS IN FORCE [only] AFTER MEN ARE DEAD; OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVETH."

Think of your own will and testament. It is a worthless piece of paper which only becomes valuable AFTER you are dead. Therefore, we have the irresistable logic from the mind of God to REJECT Catholic claims because Jesus Christ was still alive, and the "new testament contents" of the cup He was holding, had "NO STRENGTH AT ALL" according to Hebrews 9. And "no strength" = NO transubstantiation! Thus, He was not initiating any future theatrical presention to be performed in a "Mass"; He did not offer Himself in sacrifice BEFORE the events at Calvary; He most certainly did not EAT Himself at the Last Supper per His desire to "eat this passover with you" (Luke 22:15); the bread and contents of the cup remined just as they were, and transubstantiation, of course, turns out to be a trick of the devil.

Jesus absolutely MUST have been speaking figuratively, but I won't go into that now. What say you, oh noble Catholic apologist regarding Hebrews 9:17-18??? I dare you to answer this in a manner that will satisfy any thinking brain in your audience.

MOST sincerely yours,
Jonas B.

Dear Jonas,

You seem to be offering two distinct arguments here: first, that it is impossible for one to be a sacrificial victim before one has died, and second, because the New Testament was not "in force" prior to the Cross, New Testament rites carried out before the Cross would have had "no force", or no strength, as you prefer to say.

1) Your first premise is false. The levitical priests were able to bear the iniquity of the congregation (Lev 10:17) without themselves dying. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit" (Psalm 51:17; cf. Phil 2:17; 4:18; Heb 13:15-16; 1 Pet 2:5). Anyone who offers one's merits (e.g., patient bearing of physical or spiritual suffering) to God as a gift offers himself as a sacrificial victim, and this, incidentally, is precisely what Christ did. The merit of Christ's sacrifice is not in His death per se, but in His obedience unto death. From this perspective, it is easy to see why Catholic theology holds all of Christ's sufferings, from conception to death, to be an efficacious redemptive sacrifice. So long as He was offering His sufferings to God in love, He was acting as a sacrificial victim and redeeming humanity.

2) That the New Testament was not yet "in force" prior to Christ's death simply means that the New Testament had not yet been established as a complete juridical and sacramental system, had not yet replaced the Jewish Law. It does not mean that no New Covenant rites could be performed or have any efficacy before the Cross. The Catholic Church recognizes an interim period during the life of Christ, in which the Mosaic Law was still "in force", but Christian rites, for example baptism (cf. John 3:22), were being introduced in preparation for the transition.

God bless,
Ben Douglass

7. Where Is the One True Church?

BEN:

I'm sure you are going to get tired of hearing from me, but I struggle with trying to find the ONE TRUE CHURCH. I mean, is it made up of the elect only and invisible, or is it visible and made up of the wheat and the chaff, has it (the church) been corrupted beyond recognition and Luther brought it back to the purity of doctrine or is the Orthodox Church the ancient church and has maintained purity and it's the catholic church that split from the Orthodox in 1054. I mean it is difficult.

One other thing. I've read as much as I can in purgatory and I for the life of me, cannot see where the church gets that doctrine from. For one thing, 1 cor. 3:9-15 is taking about this CURRENT life, not the after-life. To maintain the latter takes some torture of the passage in order to maintain the idea that Christians go on for thousands of years being tortured until they are PURE enough to enter heaven. That's why Luther said that we are NEVER PURE enough on our own and must have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us. And if His righteousness is imputed to us there is no need for purgatory.

Also, it would seem to me that when Jesus told the thief on the Cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise," that settles that question. The thief was not an upstanding member of the community but by the grace of God he was INSTANTLY transported to heaven--paradise. He didn't have to stay in purgatory for a million years sitting on a cinder block. I don't get it. Nothing that I've read of the Catholic defense for this doctrine holds water. (so to speak).

Wondering
Don Fahrenkrug

Dear Don,

I don't mind hearing from you at all. Feel free to write as much as you like.

You should be able to rule out one of your contingencies with respect to the One True Church immediately: the Church became corrupted beyond recognition until Martin Luther revived it. Christ promised that the Church He established would be indefectible, so this situation is clearly impossible. Furthermore, if you have been convinced by Sungenis' three books of contra-Protestant apologetics, you can already see that Luther's main allegations of corruption (e.g., denying the supposed biblical doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide) were baseless.

As for the Orthodox, they cannot be the true Church because the gates of hell, exercised through human sexual passion, have prevailed against them. They have apostatized from traditional Christian sexual morality, in that they accept contraception and three-strikes-and-you're-out divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox Church also has a long history of toadying to Caesar, and the circumstances of their departure from Catholic Communion are simply indefensible. I highly recommend the article on Photius which Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia. You might also want to read the life of Pope St. Martin I.

Lastly, the Church is a high mountain to which all nations converge (Isa 2:2ff; Mic 4:1ff). Mountains are visible things. That should exclude an invisible Church.

As for your second issue, Purgatory, I don't see why it is necessary to refer 1 Cor 3 to the present life. St. Paul mentions the Day, and I think it is fairly non-controversial that the "Day" refers to judgment day.

About purity, in both Catholic and Protestant theology, men have to become ontologically (not just legally) pure in order to enter heaven. The difference is that Protestant theology says that this final sanctification happens immediately, whereas in Catholic theology it is a painful process. I actually don't see a necessary logical connection between imputed righteousness and the denial of Purgatory, since imputed righteousness is a doctrine about justification, and doesn't speak to the process of sanctification. Imputed righteousness leaves room for sanctification by fire on this earth, so why not in a place after death? I think it would be possible to construct an internally consistent theology which accepted both imputed righteousness and Purgatory.

About St. Dismas, he died right after being baptized.

God bless,
Ben Douglass

6. Is the Latin Church Schismatic?

Good Morning:
The Latin church is schismatic. Christ's true Church is The Holy Orthodox Church. The Latins attacked us at Constantinople where they raped our nuns and cut the heads off of our priests. In the 2nd world war the Ustasha in Croatia under the control of Latin priests slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Orthodox christians. The Latins changed the creed by adding the filioque, added The Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility in the 18th century etc. etc. etc. All of this is madness. Christ promised to be with His church always. The Orthodox Church is unconquerable. Glory to Christ.

Dear Mr. Danford,

If your only argument against Catholicism is that Catholics have committed murder in the past, you're also refuting your own religion. Perhaps you may have heard of the Chmielnicki pogroms or St. Andrew Bobola. You might also note the shameful cooperation of the Orthodox Churches in the Soviet Union in the Soviet persecution of Catholics, and the Eastern Church's reprehensible treatment of Pope St. Martin I.

The Orthodox Church has already been conquered. It was conquered by human sexual passion. Your Church has apostatized from basic Christian sexual morality in allowing contraception and 3-strikes-and-you're-out divorce and remarriage. That is madness.

God bless,
Ben Douglass

5. How Can We Prove the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

What about the Assumption? That is not written is Scripture, so how can we prove this?

Dear Sir,

Several arguments for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary can be drawn from Scripture. Let's start with Psalm 45. Verses 6-7 read: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows.” Clearly, this Psalm is addressed to Christ, since it speaks to "God", and refers to Him as having a God (cf. John 20:17). There are only two Persons who both are God and have a God, and since this Psalm does not address the Holy Spirit, it must be addressing Christ. It is interpreted, "Your throne, O God [the Son] is forever and ever... therefore God [the Father], your God, has annointed you..."

This having been established, let's move on to verse 9: "At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir." Given that the King in this Psalm is Christ, the Queen in this Psalm can justly be seen as Mary. Indeed, several of the greatest exegetes in Christian history have applied this Psalm to Mary; Edward Sri, in Queen Mother (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2005) p. 33, mentions Sts. Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas. Further, in addition to the authority of these Doctors, we may note the similarity between God's words in Psalm 45:17 and Mary's words in Luke 1:48: "I will cause Your name to be remembered in all generations; Therefore the peoples will give You thanks forever and ever" (Psalm 45:17). "For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed" (Luke 1:48). Mary seems to be alluding to Psalm 45 as being fulfilled in her, which is not surprising, since the Magnificat consists almost entirely in quotations and allusions to the Old Testament. Thus, we may with good reason see Mary as the Queen who stands at the right hand of Christ "in gold from Ophir."

It is also helpful to examine the symbolism of "gold from Ophir." This gold was the finest known to the Jews, such that "gold from Ophir" became a proverb for "the finest gold" (cf. 1 Chron 29:4; Job 22:24; 28:16; Psalm 45:9; Isaiah 13:12). Similarly, today we might refer to Russian caviar, French wine, or a German car, when we wanted to evoke the image of the most excellent caviar, wine, or car. Anyway, in order to obtain this gold, one had to go to extraordinary lengths; one had to build large ships and travel great distances (cf. 1 Kings 9:28; 22:48). Thus, when we read (Psalm 45:9) that Christ has exalted Mary to His "right hand" and has clother her with "gold from Ophir", we know that Christ has gone to extraordinary lenghts to grant His mother the highest possible honors. This does not seem to be compatible with the supposition that Christ allowed Mary's body to rot in the ground.

I'll try to publish an essay on this topic soon, which will lay out additional biblical arguments, and address the history of the Assumption tradition in the early Church. I have already translated an article by a Spanish Jesuit on historical evidence for ancient Christian faith in the Assumption, which is available here.

God bless,
Ben Douglass

4. Does Psalm 69:8 Refute the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Psalm 69:8 says "sons of my mother", suggesting that Mary was not ever-virgin. How does that come out?

Dear Sir,

The "mother" refers to Israel, and "my mother's sons" refers to Jesus' fellow Jews, children of the same nation, not of the same immediate biological mother.

God bless,
Ben Douglass

3. Will the Jerusalem Temple Be Rebuilt in the Last Days?

Ezekiel 40-47 talks about a temple. Will a temple really be built at the end of the days?

Dear Sir,

There seem to be two basic schools of thought in Christian interpretation of the vision of Ezekiel 40-47. The first is that it was fulfilled within the Old Testament, when the Jews rebuilt the Temple after returning from the Babylonian captivity. Furthermore, according to this school, the vision has an allegorical application to the Christian Church. The second school of thought is that the vision doesn't refer to a physical Temple at all, but is entirely an allegory of the Christian Church. I tend to favor the second interpretation, since the Temple in Ezekiel 40-47 is described as much larger than Zerubabel's Temple ever was. I commented on Ezekiel 47 in one of my articles, mostly just paraphrasing the commentary in the haydock Bible:

The Temple is the body of Our Lord, and the waters represent the Sacraments of the Church, which flowed forth from His right side when he was pierced with a lance by St. Longinus while he hung dead on the Cross on Calvary. Ezekiel adds moreover that trees (that is, Christian virtues) will grow in abundance where they are watered by this river (v. 7), and that this river will be filled with fishes (that is, Christians). For these waters heal and vivify all things that they touch. The fishermen (v. 10) are the apostles, who catch the fish “according to their kinds”; they make Christians from every race and nation under heaven. But what is most germane to the present discourse is that the waters flow east, into the Dead Sea (v. 8), and make it live. This expresses the truth of which we are treating on two levels. (1) No fish can live in the Dead Sea, but no matter how noxious it may be, these waters can cure it. (2) This was the location of Sodom and Gomorrah; even those who have fallen into that detestable crime of Sodom may be saved. God is able to restore even a festering corpse, yet more, even bare bones, yet more, mere dust, to the supernatural life of grace and communion with the thrice holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom be all glory and honor through all ages of ages. Amen.

I don't know whether the Jerusalem Temple will be rebuilt in the last days. However, if it is rebuilt, it will not be a good thing. God has fulfilled and completed all sacrifices in Jesus Christ, so it would be senseless and even offensive to God to return to animal sacrifice. The book of Hebrews is very clear on this point.

God bless,
Ben Douglass

2. Does Exodus Condone Abortion and Slavery?

Dear Ben/pugiofidei staff:

I have questions on two Scripture passages. I have not been able to find any commentary concerning these passages. If you could, please help with the following:

1. I am troubled that it seems it could be argued a child in the womb is not given the same status as a person in the Bible because in Exodus chapter 21 verses 22-23 a miscarriage due to an assault is penalized with a monetary fine, but if the woman dies the assaulter is punished with death.

2. It seems it could be claimed the Bible condones slavery and even beating ones slaves according to Exodus 21.20-21, so long as the slave does not die.

Thank you so much. I have had these questions for a long time.
GA

Dear GA,

On the abortion issue let me recommend the excellent article by Dr. Gary Butner "Exodus 21:22-25: Translations & Mistranslations." I'll quote his main points.

(1) "The Hebrew word translated child or fruit 'yeled' is plural, hence children. The woman might be pregnant with twins. This is the same word used for babies and young children throughout the OT (Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3)." Therefore the translation "fetus" is gratuitous.

(2) "The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is 'yatsa,' which actually means to 'come out' or 'give birth.' This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth."

(3) "It is very important to note the same writer used the normal word Hebrew word for miscarriage 'shakal' just two chapters later in Exodus 23:26. This clearly indicates the writer had something besides miscarriage in mind for the Exodus 21:22-25 passage."

(4) "The Hebrew doesn't indicate if the injuries in question are those sustained by the woman or the child(ren). A reading, just by glancing at the order of the words (not a strong argument for Hebrew) and by the force of the case of the pronouns (a stronger argument) would indicate that the possible injuries are relative to either. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, wrote, 'But if any mischief happen, that is, if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, etc.'"

(5) "A literal translation for the whole sentence really should read, 'And when men struggle together and strike a pregnant woman [or wife] and her children come forth, but there is no injury, he shall certainly be fined, as the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall give [or pay] in [the presence of] the judges; but if there shall be an injury, then you shall pay eye for eye, life for life.'"

So, clearly, when properly translated this verse says nothing which supports the idea that unborn lives are worth less than born ones. If a man accidentally strikes a woman and causes her to go into labor, but neither the children nor the woman are injured, he pays a fine. If he causes injury to either, he must pay an eye for an eye.

Regarding slavery, let me quote the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the same:

From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century. We may take as representative de Lugo's statement of the chief argument offered in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses, is not in itself contrary to the natural law.

Slavery consists in this, that a man is obliged, for his whole life, to devote his labour and services to a master. Now as anybody may justly bind himself, for the sake of some anticipated reward, to give his entire services to a master for a year, and he would in justice be bound to fulfil this contract, why may not he bind himself in like manner for a longer period, even for his entire lifetime, an obligation which would constitute slavery? (De Justitia et Jure, disp. VI, sec. 2. no. 14.)

It must be observed that the defence of what may be termed theoretical slavery was by no means intended to be a justification of slavery as it existed historically, with all its attendant, and almost inevitably attendant, abuses, disregarding the natural rights of the slave and entailing pernicious consequences on the character of the slave-holding class, as well as on society in general. Concurrently with the affirmation that slavery is not against the natural law, the moralists specify what are the natural inviolable rights of the slave, and the corresponding duties of the owner. The gist of this teaching is summarized by Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802):

Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not viol;ate any right of the slave. For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the dominion of another to the extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely (Comp. Instit. Civil., L, vii).

Finally, Exodus does not condone the beating of slaves; it says that the master is not punished by the Law for it. There are many things which the Law does not approve of, yet for which it stipulates no punishment (cf. Exodus 21:18-19).

JMJ,
Ben Douglass

1. Does Goyim Mean "Cattle"?

Hi Ben Douglass,

I was interested to read your writings concerning the Talmud. I don't wish to enter into any controversies, but I was always under the impression that according to reliable sources the word goyim means "cattle". Now isn't it the case that in the Talmud gentiles are referred to as goyim? So if they are goyim, then how can they be human?

Please understand that my goal is not to dispute any matter, but simply to clarify this one small point. I would be very grateful for your input.

Thanking you in advance and hoping to hear from you soon,
Marija Svilans

Marija,

Goyim in Hebrew means "the nations." It is used in the Old Testament to refer to non-Jewish peoples (i.e., Gentiles) collectively (cf. Num 23:9). In Isaiah 65:1, Israel itself is called "goy", i.e., nation. The Septuagint Greek Bible and the New Testament both translate goyim as ethnoi (cf. Matt 4:15, which translates Isaiah 9:1; Luke 2:32, which translates Isaiah 42:6; Romans 2:24, which alludes to Ezekiel 36:20-21).

In so far as the Jews have developed racist prejudices against Gentiles, the word goyim has taken on a pejorative sense. This comes out very clearly in the Yiddish insult "goyishe kop", which literally translates as Gentile head, and means "stupid." The medieval Kabbalistic litterature probably represents the most racist the Jews ever got, as goyim are indeed called cattle, foreskin, and derivatives of the demonic realm in the Zohar (Be-Reshit I:47a). But I haven't found any clear statement in the Talmud which indicates that its sages thought the same way. I have even found some quite explicit affirmations of the humanity of Gentiles, such as Rabbi Meir's suggestion that a Gentile who studies to Torah is like a High Priest (Sanhedrin 59A). Of course it's possible that some of the Talmudic sages regarded Gentiles as sub-human, since the Talmud is not a monolith. But there is scholarly argument over this, and I'm not prepared to state any conclusions. See the articles I referenced in footnote 73 of my Talmud article.

JMJ,
Ben Douglass