MISCELLANEOUS—Q&A

Patron: John, I have a question regarding head coverings. Do women need to wear them in church? I searched and found an article on the EWTN website, as well as an article on Apologetics Int'l, refuting the EWTN "expert." There is a lot of talk about whether it is still the law of the Church. Can you address this? I guess I need to pray for wisdom, and use my head for something other than a veil "rack." Please let me know your thoughts. Blessings.

J. Salza: Hello. St. Paul says that a woman must cover her head when she prays or prophesies, which would obviously include covering up in church (1 Cor. 11:5-6,10). Head covering is an immemorial custom of the Church, with a 1940 year history. Canon law says that an immemorial custom not only has the force of law, but that canon law can't even abrogate it. We would need a papal or magisterial statement abrogating the head covering requirement because it is an immemorial custom. But the Church has made no such statement.

Those who argue against head coverings say that the 1983 code "abrogated" the 1917 code (the 1917 code expressly required head coverings in canon 1262, and the 1983 code is silent about the issue). There are problems with this argument. First, when we say the 1983 code abrogated the 1917 code, that only means that the 1917 has no jurisdiction; it cannot be relied upon as legal authority. But this does not mean that everything that came out of the 1917 code is abrogated. Quite the contrary. This is why the 1983 code says that if a previous law is not expressly revoked (paraphrasing), then it is still in force. The 1983 code did not expressly revoke head coverings, which means the head covering requirement is still in force. Of course, the 1983 code would not have such a law if it trumped every thing in previous law.

This shows the wisdom of the Church. We can't throw away immemorial customs at will, just because the culture wants to push them into disuse. All the previous legislators (the popes themselves) before Paul VI and John Paul II enforced the head covering rule. Paul VI and John Paul II have not changed this.

Patron: John, I received your book in the mail today... It must feel good to hold this in your hands! Thanks for your response on head coverings. After reading it I sent it to my advisor, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, and asked for his thoughts. I thought you might like to read them (below.) I know Dr. Fastiggi to be a holy man of God, who tends to be conservative and consistent in his theology -- always trying to "think with the Church”:

Dr. Fastiggi: Thank you very much for your good question. As I see it, a Catholic woman can still wear a head covering to Mass if she so chooses. In many respects, this could be a valuable sign of devotion and humility. Since what was prescribed in canon 1262.2 of the 1917 Code is not repeated in the 1983 Code, I don't believe we can maintain, as some do, that this requirement still exists. It is up to the Magisterium to interpret and enforce canon law not individual Catholics.

By way of comparison, we can note that the 1983 Code did not repeat the specific prohibition of membership in the Masons. Soon after the publication of the 1983 Code, however, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith made it clear that membership in the Masons is still forbidden to Catholics. I don't know of any similar ruling by the Holy See with respect to the requirement for head coverings for women at Mass.

In Fr. T. Lincoln Bouscaren's 1957 Commentary on the 1917 Code, he notes that "popular customs may modify this provision [of canon 1262] as the text indicates" (p. 691). This shows that even before Vatican II, there was recognition that canon 1262.2 dealt with liturgical law not divine law. According to no. 83 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we should distinguish unchanging Tradition from "the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time...In light of the great Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium."

Do St. Paul's instructions on women covering their heads in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 constitute unchanging Tradition? It is important to realize that in 1 Cor. 7:10-12 -- on the subject of marriage and divorce -- St. Paul distinguishes between his own instruction and that of the Lord. Perhaps a similar distinction applies to 1 Cor. 11:2-16. In this regard, I agree with the interpretation provided in the March, 1984 edition of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, viz., that St. Paul's main point in this passage is that "women should not attend the assembly in attire that would be considered improper in other public places" (pp. 67-68). This principle still applies.

If you wish further instruction on this matter, perhaps you should contact the Bishops Committee on Liturgy of the USCCB; this office could give you a more authoritative response than I can. I hope my brief thoughts are helpful as a start. Please let me know if more is needed.

J. Salza: I will briefly address Dr. Fastiggi’s thoughts regarding the head covering issue. First, in the 1983 code of canon law, canon 20 says that a later law abrogates an earlier law only if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. Further, canon 21 says, in case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be harmonized with them. Since the 1983 code is silent about head coverings (which means it did not expressly revoke the 1917 requirement, did not add anything directly contrary to it, and did not reorder the entire matter of the 1917 requirement), then we cannot presume that the head covering requirement has been revoked. In fact, there must be a presumption of harmonization, not revocation, with respect to the later laws. This is one reason why I do not presume that the head-covering requirement has been revoked.

Second, canon 28 says that a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs. Further, canon 26 says that a centenary or immemorial custom can even prevail against a canonical law which contains a law prohibiting future customs. Head-covering is an immemorial custom of the Church. We know this from Scripture (St. Paul devotes a lot of ink to this issue in his first letter to the Corinthian church because evidently women were not covering their heads) and Tradition (there are many Fathers who wrote about the necessity for women to wear veils, beginning with Pope Linus, the direct successor to Peter).

Thus, head covering is not only a centenary (100) year custom, but an immemorial custom of the Catholic Church. This means that not even a later law can revoke it. Canon law shows the wisdom of the Church by protecting her immemorial customs, even when the culture attempts to plunge those customs into disuse. This means that we have to presume the head-covering requirement, until the Magisterium says otherwise. But to date, neither the pope nor the Magisterium has expressly revoked the head-covering requirement. While some people argue that “Vatican II changed everything,” Canon 1262 of the 1917 code (which required head coverings) was in effect during Vatican II, and the council never changed it. Even Annibale Bugnini, after the close of the Second Vatican council, publicly stated circa 1975 that head-coverings were part of the Church's discipline and that this discipline has not changed.

Regarding Dr. Fastiggi's comments about the 1983 code not explicitly mentioning Masons, this only proves my point. The Church's prohibition of Catholic membership in Freemasonry has been taught always and everywhere, and this was expressly stated in the 1917 code. Just because a later law (1983) was silent about the Masons did not mean that the prohibition (1917) ceased (just like head coverings). It took the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to affirm this fact, which is precisely how we are to interpret later codes of canon law that are silent about previously existing law (I address this in my upcoming book about Freemasonry). The same applies to head-coverings.

I agree with Dr. Fastiggi that disciplinary and liturgical traditions of the Church can change. But, because canon law limits its power to change immemorial customs, such change can only come about through a specific mandate from the pope or Magisterium. We cannot presume that immemorial customs, liturgical or otherwise, have changed because the people in the pews no longer choose to follow them, and priests no longer choose to enforce them.

Regarding Dr. Fastiggi's comments regarding canon law and the liturgy, canon 2 says that canon law generally does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions, and liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the code. Thus, the 1983 code is admitting that it hasn't defined many of the things that take place in liturgical actions. Since veil-wearing is a liturgical action, which the 1983 code does not address (but which was addressed in the 1917 code in a liturgical context), then we can presume that the law of veil-wearing is "in force until now" and "retains" its force in the absence of canons contrary to it.

Regarding Dr. Fastiggi's query that there may be a distinction between Paul's teaching and the Lord's teaching regarding head-covering, I disagree. First, the Lord never addressed head-covering in the Scriptures, so this is a bit of a straw man argument, since no distinctions can be drawn. Second, I don’t know how anyone could argue that St. Paul, or any sacred writer, could ever contradict a teaching of Jesus Christ, since their inspired writings were dictated to them by the Holy Ghost. Third, Paul says that women must wear veils "because of the angels" (1 Cor. 11:10). This puts Paul's mandate in the realm of a divine command. The angels are intimately involved with the proceedings of the liturgy, and are observing our conduct as we participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If women must wear veils "because of the angels," this suggests that if they don't, the angels will have a reaction to it. Since elsewhere in Scripture the angels are known to report our behavior to God and bring out God's punishments, I don't believe the angels’ reaction to a woman not covering her head would be a good thing.

Moreover, in the whole context of veil wearing and the role of women in the church (being silent in church and submissive to their husbands), Paul backs up his teaching by writing "as even the Law says" and "what I am writing you is a command of the Lord" (see I Cor. 14:34-37). Therefore, Scripture itself is clear that Paul's teaching about the role of women in the Church comes from God Himself. To attempt to bifurcate Paul's teaching from that of the Lord flies in the face of Scripture.

Finally, since the March, 1984 edition of the Homiletic and Pastoral review that Dr. Fastiggi cites has no binding authority on Catholics, I won't address it, other than to say that its comments about veil-wearing as dealing with proper versus improper attire are way off the mark. Veil-wearing has nothing do with "attire." It has to do with symbolizing that women are under the authority of men, just as men are under the authority of Christ, whose head is God (1 Cor. 11:3). When properly understood (as I hope I did in my book), this is a beautiful blessing to families from our Lord. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Holy Catholic Church.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Top

2. Understanding God's anger (Messrs. Salza, Sungenis and Latar)

J. Salza: Robert, I saw a critique on your website authored by a certain Mr. Latar, calling your teaching that God has anger a "novelty." Mr. Latar even cited St. Thomas Aquinas to prove his point that God doesn't have anger. (I have also discovered other Catholic apologists advancing this novel view.) The only thing novel here is Mr. Latar's understanding of God as an emotionless deity who is not affected by human actions. I found Mr. Latar's critique troubling, not only because it lacks charity, but also because it demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of who God is - an intensely personal being who is deeply offended by sin (not to mention it contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture and the constant teaching Tradition of the Catholic Church on the nature of God).

When Aquinas says that there is no passion in God (the section of the Summa cited by Mr. Latar), he does not mean that God does not become angry at evil. Aquinas speaks of "passion" in the context of sensual appetite, which is a movement out of one's essential condition or connatural disposition toward a potentiality. Since God is pure actuality and is immutable, He can have no "passions" in this sense. Thus, Aquinas' teaching on the absence of passions in God cannot be used to demonstrate that God does not get angry at sin. If Mr. Latar holds the view that God does not get angry at sin, then he does not truly understand the atonement, and why God desires to continually see Christ's sacrifice in the Holy Mass.

In citing Aquinas, Mr. Latar evidently views anger only as a disordered passion (which it could be in certain circumstances), but not as a justifiable response to something that is contrary to truth. Jesus Himself burned with anger at the money changers in the Temple, and yet His divinity was not somehow compromised by His anger. We agree that anger, when it is a disordered passion, cannot be attributed to God because such anger desires the evil of another for vengeance's sake, as Aquinas teaches. However, anger is God's natural response to offenses against His nature, namely truth and justice. For God's truth to be upheld and His justice to be restored, God's anger must be propitiated. This is why Christ chose to die on the cross, and why God desires to see Christ's sacrifice sacramentally re-presented in the Holy Mass from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world. This is foundational for truly understanding the atonement.

Aquinas also teaches: "Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Kgs. 26:19): "If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice." And in like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner" (Article [1], ad 4) (My emphasis.) Aquinas also states, God has a "hatred of evils, for the things we wish not to be we are said to hate."

Aquinas clearly states that God was appeased by Christ's sacrifice for every offense of the human race, and has a hatred of evils. Of course, God would only need to be appeased if He were actually angry at the offenses He hates. There is absolutely nothing in Catholic teaching to suggest that God does not have anger, and that Christ's appeasement of the Father through His eternal sacrifice is anything less than turning the Father away from His anger and wrath to His mercy for the forgiveness of sins. When we understand how God grieves and is angered over our actions, we can enter into a deeper relationship with Him through His Son Jesus Christ. We are also able to more effectively and fruitfully participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the event that propitiates God for the very anger that Mr. Latar denies God has. This is the basis for understanding the atonement.

I hope this helps your patrons.

R. Sungenis: John, thank you so much for your excellent commentary. I am delighted that someone of your caliber can not only understand this truth, but articulate it so well. So often I see Catholic apologists, due to some prejudice they have built up, become, shall we say, very emotionally distraught over saying that God can truly become angry. They read it in Scripture but at each glance they have conditioned themselves to say "Oh, but that doesn't mean that God has anger, even though Scripture says he does." And that, as you have pointed out, is due in part to a misreading of Thomas on this subject. Although I intended to cover that area (but forgot), it is essential to understand that Thomas never says God does not have anger, rather, Thomas is clear that his concern is the sensual appetites of man, as he put it. When we put all of Catholic theology together, we should understand that God, indeed, has anger, and not at metaphor for anger. As our Marian apparitions have repeatedly stated, God is "offended" by our sins. We can't offend Him if He has no affectation.

Latar: Mr. Salza is mistaken here. I did not quote Aquinas to prove that God does not have anger. I quoted Aquinas to show that God does not have emotions.

J. Salza: But Aquinas does not say that God does not have emotions, he says that God does not have passions. So Mr. Latar's reliance upon Aquinas is misplaced. As I stated in my last post, when Aquinas refers to "passions," he is referring to the sensual appetite, which does not exist in God. Aquinas is not referring to anger or emotion. Mr. Latar is confusing human affectation with divine affectation.

Latar: I never said that God does not get angry. In fact, the Fathers and Aquinas believed that He did. The only difference is, is that Sungenis is holding a novel interpretation of "anger" as an emotion.

J. Salza: First, Mr. Latar did advance the position that God does not get angry in the Thomistic sense of "disordered passions," and we demonstrated that Mr. Latar's reliance on St. Thomas was misplaced. Second, Mr. Latar is attempting to divorce anger from emotion presumably because he believes that attributing "emotion" to God somehow undermines His immutability or imputes Thomistic "passions" to God. He thus concludes that God can be angry but not emotional. This means God would have "unemotional anger," or "anger without emotion."

Mr. Latar does not explain just what unemotional anger is, but he must conclude that it is part of God's affectation, which necessarily includes His immutability. The only thing Mr. Latar leaves us with is a semantical distinction without substance. Why should we be troubled by saying "God has emotion" if we have no problem saying "God has anger"? So long as we agree, as St. Thomas teaches, that God's affectation includes His immutability (just as His sovereignty includes our free will decisions), these attributions, properly understood, create no problem whatsoever for Catholic theology.

Latar: There is no consensus in the Fathers (his rule) to prove this.

J. Salza: I never said there was a consensus in the Fathers about God's emotion or anger, and neither did Mr. Sungenis. That also means that there is no consensus in the Fathers supporting Mr. Latar's position that God does not have emotion. We, therefore, are left with the plain meaning of Scripture, which we must interpret in the literal and obvious sense, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. Scripture is clear that God has anger. Scripture also teaches that God's anger may exist independently of His subsequent vengeance or punishment (in human language, we can understand such anger without vengeance as "emotion").

Mr. Latar refers to Augustine on the issue of God's anger, presumably because Augustine often uses God's anger as a metaphor for God's vengeance. If God's anger is always connected to a subsequent punishment, then Mr. Latar can limit God's anger to an action, and not something that exists in God per se (like an emotion). But Scripture does not support such a conclusion. In fact, Scripture also talks about God's anger existing indepedently of action (in cases where God's anger is not followed by punishment).

Latar: Mr. Salza misinterpreted my statements and if he read the last two posts, I have shown that although Sungenis wants to pretend that the Fathers taught that God has emotions, they do not.

J. Salza: First, some of the very few Fathers who addressed this issue did teach that God has emotions, so Mr. Latar's statement is not true (Lactantius is an example). Second, Mr. Latar seems sure of his position on the affectation of God, but the Church has never even addressed the issue, let alone settled it. It is part of the mystery of God, and we do our best to describe in human language what is indescribable (remembering also that Scripture itself uses words like "joy," "sorrow," "anger" to describe what God experiences in His immutable nature).

Of course, we must be clear that, when we attribute "anger" and "emotion" to God, we are not attributing to Him the irrational and passionate elements associated with human behavior. We are talking about God's response to human actions which are contrary to His immutable nature (namely, truth and justice). This is why God the Father requires to see Christ's sacrifice from the rising of the sun to its setting, to be propitiated for the offenses against His nature, so that His truth can be upheld and His justice satisfied. We can call anger an "emotion" or an "affectation," but the point is that it exists as part of God's immutable nature, which is affected by human action.

Divesting God of anger and emotion is dangerous territory because, when you do that, you also throw out God's need to be propitiated. This is precisely what the Reformers attempted to do to advance their novel theories of forensic/legal justification (as opposed to justification brought about by propitiation/infusion). If God, in eternity, was not affected by human action, then He would not need to be propitiated by the sacrifice of the Mass. Hence, Luther called the Holy Mass an abomination. The Council of Trent dogmatically repudiated these Protestant hypotheses by declaring that the Mass was not just a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but truly a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. Nowhere does the Church attempt to divorce "emotion" from "anger" when describing God's need to be propitiated. It is understood that these terms, when properly used, impute no imperfect qualities or characteristics to God.

Top

3. Jehovah's Witnesses and the torture stake

Anthony: Hi John, it's been a while. This is an exciting week here in Toronto for obvious reasons. The cross, another idol? Cross from the latin crux. the Greek word rendered 'cross' (torture stake) is stauros. This implied an upright stake or pale. An upright pole or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung. Not having a cross piece. In Jesus' time the Roman army would use a tree or a upright pole to perform executions. Logically a conquering or occupying army would use the most efficient and quick means to execute it's captives or rebelers. To build a cross as depicted by Catholics today would have required immense engineering and not an efficient use of time and resources.

J. Salza: This is another novelty of the JWs, and something that was never taught for 2,000 years. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, as only the WTS teaches, why does John 20:25 say "...unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS..." (plural), indicating that there was more than one nail used for his hands? Two nails would have been used if he was crucified on a cross. Crucifixion literally means affixed to a cross, not a stake. It is also an historical fact the Romans used crosses, not stakes, for their crucifixions.

Anthony: Interesting. You had mention to me that the scriptures are not the only source to learn about Jesus. You also said not to read scriptures out of context. The whole text of John 20:25 states as follows: Consequently the other disciples would say to him: "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them: Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe." This is Thomas speaking. Yes, more that one nail was used to attach Jesus to the stake. A nail was driven through his hands and one through his feet thus nails. Two nails causing four wounds. If we are to use your logic that the expression nails means a nail in each hand then when Thomas says that he want to stick his finger and hand both singular terms in Jesus' wounds does that mean that Thomas has only one finger and one hand? Of course not. I am at World Youth Day in Toronto, Canada and will return next week.

Cheers,

Anthony

J. Salza: Good to hear from you again. I pray for you that your participation in World Youth Day will fill you with God's grace as you walk with the Lord. I also pray that the youth will observe proper decorum during the liturgical celebrations, and that all measures will be taken to prevent any kind of profanation of the Eucharist during these gatherings.

You say: “A nail was driven through his hands and one through his feet thus nails. Two nails causing four wounds.”

John 20:25 says: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails.”

Therefore, NAILS were used to affix Jesus' HANDS to the cross.

Also as I have said, crosses were used for crucifixion, not stakes. Historical fact. Non-Catholics who become educated in history usually end up becoming Catholics.

It is fruitless to debate about isolated Scripture verses back and forth to prove I am right and you are wrong, or vice versa. You need to focus not on how many nails were driven through our Lord's body, but how much He loves you, and calls you to share in His Sacrifice, His Body and Blood, and His Church. I recommend that you buy the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a fairly inexpensive book that explains the faith of the 2,000 year-old Catholic Church. If you find something you disagree with in the Catechism, let me know and we can discuss.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Top

4. Has Russia been consecrated to Mary's Immaculate Heart?

Patron: John, I have read conflicting stories about whether Our Lady of Fatima’s request to consecrate Russia have actually happened. This is a scary topic because Our Lady warns us of wars and violence if her requests are not heeded. The world seems to be in chaos today. Can you share your thoughts about this topic?

J. Salza: I am an ardent believer in the message of Fatima, which includes some of the most ominous warnings that God has given us since the apostolic age. But as an attorney who has been trained to examine evidence, I cannot conclude, based on the facts at my disposal, that Russia has been consecrated as Our Lady of Fatima requested.

First, neither John Paul II nor any other pope has ever declared that Russia has been consecrated according to Our Lady’s specific requests. Given the enormity of the Fatima message and the grave consequences that will result if Our Lady’s requests are not heeded, one would think that the pope would issue a document or have a press-conference of sorts (like when JPII and Lucia met in Fatima in 1991), telling the universal Church that the consecration has been accomplished. Doesn’t this make sense? Since the Vatican knows this is such a contentious and confusing question with profound implications, why wouldn’t the pope clarify the matter for us?

In fact, after John Paul II performed his consecration of the “world” to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart in March 25, 1984, the pope reportedly made some very confusing statements about this consecration. Specifically, both the Italian newspaper Avvenire, as well as L’Osservatore Romano, reported that the pope declared that the consecration according to Our Lady’s request was yet to be performed. The pope was reported as saying “Enlighten especially the people whose consecration and entrusting you are awaiting from us.” The report said the pope made this statement only hours after his consecration of the “world,” to about 250,000 people in St. Peter’s Square.

Second, many people claim that Sister Lucia stated that John Paul II’s consecration in 1984 fulfilled the Blessed Mother’s request. However, it is documented that on at least five separate occasions in the 1980s, Sister Lucia said that the 1984 consecration did not satisfy Our Lady’s request (the most notable statement was reportedly made to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Sante Portalupi). The rules of evidence refer to this as “inconsistent statements.” In a court of law, this would at a minimum neutralize Sister Lucia’s testimony, if not impeach her as a witness. (NB: If these facts are true, I don’t believe the saintly Sister Lucia was the one contradicting herself; I believe someone else was responsible).

Moreover, Our Lady never employed Sister Lucia to be the one to declare when a valid consecration would be performed. Since the pope is the one making the consecration and is the only person who knows his own intentions, it seems that the pope would have to be the one to declare whether or not the consecration has been completed. Make sense?

Third, we all know that John Paul II said the “world,” and not “Russia” in his 1984 consecration, even though Our Lady specifically requested that “Russia” (not the “world”) be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart. We also know that John Paul II did not have the participation of the world’s bishops in the 1984 consecration. Why is this so important? First and most obviously, because the pope did not follow verbatim what Our Lady requested. Second, and even more enlightening, previous popes effected similar consecrations that did not meet Our Lady’s request either (if they did, then John Paul II would not have performed his consecration in 1984 and would not have said the Russians “still await” the consecration).

In fact, previous papal consecrations were more in line with Our Lady’s requests than John Paul II’s consecration, and yet were still defective. For example, in 1942 Pius XII consecrated the “world” to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, in union with all the bishops. John Paul II’s consecration in 1984 was even less conforming because he didn’t have the participation of the world’s bishops. Pius XII effected another consecration in 1952, which means that Pius XII believed his consecration in 1942 didn’t qualify. If Pius XII’s consecration in 1942 (“world” with the bishops) did not qualify, how can John Paul II’s consecration in 1984 (“world” without the bishops) qualify? This does not make any sense to me.

As alluded to, in 1952, Pius XII consecrated “Russia” to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, but without the union of the world’s bishops. Again, this consecration evidently didn’t qualify either, first because Pius didn’t have the union of all the bishops, and second because Paul VI and John Paul II subsequently did their own consecrations in 1964 and 1984 respectively. These subsequent consecrations affirmed that Pius XII’s 1952 consecration didn’t qualify. Paul VI in 1964 did the same thing that Pius XII did in 1952, consecrating “Russia” without the bishops. If Pius XII and Paul VI’s consecrations (“Russia” without the bishops) did not qualify, then how can John Paul II’s consecration in 1984 (“world” without the bishops) qualify?

Based on the foregoing, I hope you can see that my questions and conclusions are reasonable. I am open to correction on this and any other matter, but based on these facts, I stand by my conclusion.

Patron: But what about the Great Wall of Communism falling? Our Lady promised that Russia would convert if the consecration would be performed properly. Doesn’t the fall of communism mean that the consecration truly has happened?

J. Salza: This can be considered a partial blessing from God, because John Paul II performed a partial consecration. God our Father is faithful and generous, even when we are unfaithful and selfish. We see God granting similar partial blessings in the past for the partial consecrations made by previous popes.

For example, after Pius XII performed his partial consecrations in 1942 and 1952, World War II ended, but the Korean War began. Similarly, after Paul VI performed his partial consecration in 1964, the Korean war ended, but the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam war (both instigated by Russia) began. After John Paul II performed his partial consecration in 1984, the Soviet Union collapsed, but the world is more dangerous than ever before.

Moreover, when Our Lady said, “If they attend to My requests, Russia will be converted and the world will have peace,” she was talking about a spiritual conversion of Russia to her Son, Jesus Christ. She was not talking about worldly, economic benefits associated with the fall of a political regime. Mary’s many appearances have only one purpose in mind: to lead people to Jesus for the purpose of saving their souls. Mary is the one who tells us, “Do whatever He tells you.”

Which brings us to the real issue: has Russia converted to Jesus Christ? Hardly. Russia is still a dangerously anti-Catholic nation, which forbids Catholic evangelization and imposes serious restrictions on establishing Catholic churches in the country. Today, less than one half of one percent of Russia’s population is Catholic. Russia also has the highest rates of abortion, divorce and alcoholism in the entire world. Russia is also a considerable nuclear threat, and still has nuclear arms pointed at the United States. In short, Russia is even more dangerous and morally bankrupt than it was 21 years ago when John Paul II performed his consecration to the world. Are these the fruits of a valid consecration of Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart? I cannot say that they are. It certainly is a far cry from the millions of Aztecs who converted to the Catholic faith through the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Top

5. Do you believe in the Rapture?

Patron: You must realize, that anyone who studies the book of revelation, even to just read it will receieve blessings. Blessings being wisdom and knowledge because God imparts knowledge to those who earnestly seek him. I am an ex-catholic, born again (you must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven - (eyes to see spiritually)) born once of water, which is our human birth and once of the spirit, with is our spiritual eternal birth. Those who have been born twice, will not be hurt by the second death. But back to the subject of the rapture, even though the word rapture is not in the bible, it translates to snathing up or being caught away, which are in the bible. The Holy Spirit imparts this wisdom to Paul as he penned the words, Don't be ignorant, the coming of the lawless one cannot happen until the restrainer is removed. Who restrains Satan from reeking full blown evil in this world? That would be the Holy Sprit (God) and the Holy Sprit indwells every true believer, thus making up the body of Christ on earth (the bride of Christ or the Church) and the Church will be snatched away (I believe the bible says with a trumpet blast and a loud noise (probably the loudest sonic boom you will ever hear, because millions of people will be instantly transported up and away creating a sound barrier. The 144 thousand are sealed (12,000 from from each of the 12 Tribes of Israel) this happens simultaneously with the rapture (see chapters 6 and 7 of revelation). Many are being deceived and will be deceived into thinking that the anti-christ is Christ, which is so important to understand the details of God's word which are a a blueprint for this life and the one to follow.

J. Salza: Anonymous, the "Rapture" is a false theory of eschatology that was developed by Protestant John Nelson Darby, and introduced to this country by Protestant Cyrus Scofield in the early 20^th century. You will not find the theory posited by any father, doctor, saint, medieval, pope, council or any reliable Christian scholar for 1800 years. This should give you pause. For a thorough, biblical refutation of the rapture theory, please see my link called “Zionism.”

The Rapture theory is not only unhistorical, it is also unbiblical. You, as a Rapturist, believe that certain Christians will be secretly taken up to heaven by Christ before the millennial period based on such verses as 1 Thess. 4:17. You also interpret the 1,000 year period of the Apocalypse literally, even though the Apocalypse is written in symbolic language. You then believe that Christ will reign with the Jews for this 1,000-year period before the consummation of the world. Thus, you believe that the Rapture occurs at least 1,000 years before the end of the world.

The Scriptures, however, say that the rapture occurs coincident with the end of the world, not a millennium before the end of the world. Turning to the “rapture” passage in 1 Thessalonians, Paul says: “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep” (v.15). In other words, those Christians living at the time of the “rapture” are not taken first.

Instead, “the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (vv.16-17). These passages clearly teach that the resurrection of the dead precedes the rapture. Therefore, to know when the rapture occurs, we must first know when the resurrection of the dead occurs.

Scripture teaches that the resurrection of the dead occurs on the “last day” of the world (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). Because the resurrection of the dead occurs on the “last day” of the world, and the rapture follows the resurrection, this means that the rapture also occurs on the “last day” (there can be no day after the “last day”). Since the rapture occurs on the “last day,” it cannot occur on any other day (that is, there is no “pre-millennial” rapture).

Therefore, the “rapture” occurs on the “last day” (John 6), and immediately follows the resurrection of the dead (1 Thess. 4:16-17). This necessarily means that the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised at the same time, because there is no day that can follow the “last day” where the unrighteous could be raised.

Scripture, of course, confirms this conclusion. In John 5:28-29, the Lord Jesus says:

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

Jesus says that the resurrection will occur at “the hour” (v.28). This is the same as saying the resurrection will occur on the “last day” because an hour is part of one day, and that is the “last day” per John 6, 11 and 12. Jesus also says that “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice” (v.28). This follows Paul’s teaching on the resurrection/rapture event when he says that the Lord will descend from heaven with “a cry of command,” and the “dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16).

Finally, Jesus is clear that at this “hour” both those who have done good and those who have done evil will rise at the same time. The good will be raised to life, and the evil will be raised to judgment. There is simply no exegetical basis for inserting a millennial period between the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust. Jesus says that the resurrection happens at “the hour,” when “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth.” Thus, Scripture teaches that the rapture of the living occurs coincident with the resurrection of all of the dead, both the good and the evil, at the same time, on the last day of the world.

The Protestant scheme of a rapture preceding the millennium and final coming requires “three” comings of Christ. First, Christ came at the Incarnation. Second, Christ would come at the “rapture.” Third, Christ will come at the end of the world.

This scheme is absolutely false and contradicts the perennial teachings of the Church. It is also refuted by Sacred Scripture. For example, Paul says in his letter to the Hebrews:

“And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Heb. 9:27-28).

Paul says that Christ will “appear a second time.” This second appearance of Christ is nothing short of His second and final appearance at the end of the world, when He will judge the living and the dead. Paul draws a parallel between our death and Christ’s death, and our judgment and Christ’s second appearance. Following the literary parallel, Christ’s second appearance is the very moment of our “judgment,” for Christ is the “lawgiver and judge” (James 4:2; 5:9).

Because this Second Coming of Christ refers to the end of the world, Christ will no longer “deal with sin” because He will have already rendered His judgments upon the wicked. In other words, at Christ’s second and final coming, the fate of all humanity will be sealed. For those who have done evil, it will be too late to repent.

Regarding being “born again,” every early Church Father interpreted John 3:5 to be a reference to baptism. Once again, your opinions contradict the constant Christian Tradition. I implore you to come home to the faith into which you were “born again” in baptism. Time is short.

John Salza

Top

6. Perfect love and fearing God

Paul: I am doing research on the following two subjects and need some help. Could you or your organization be so kind as to give me some insight as to my inquiry? If the scripture tells us that “Perfect love casts out fear,” then why are we to fear God? You can keep it short if you like. I don’t a lengthy explanation. Thank you.

Paul
Latrobe, PA

J. Salza: It says "perfect" love casts out fear. But who has "perfect" love this side of heaven? Since we are not perfect, we will not have a perfect love for God until He perfects us in eternity. This means we will always have an element of holy fear for God, and rightly so. He is our lawgiver and judge, and will determine our eternal destiny. The Scriptures also say that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of the divine judgment moves us to contrition for our sins, and this is healthy. But we should strive for attrition, which is a fear of committing sin and losing heaven for love of God. Both fear and love of God are graces from God, so we should be grateful for both, while trying to be "perfect as our heavenly father is perfect."

Grace be with you.

Paul: Great!!!! Just what I was looking for. Thank you so much for your answer and having your website available to those whom are caught up in the fog of understanding God’s Word.

In Him Who Loves Us All,

Paul

Top

7. Thoughts on Vatican II

Kristen: Hello! First of all, I thank you for your website! It is a wonderful way to quickly and easily find thorough Scriptural references for our Catholic Faith! I do, however, have a concern. I see that you have many wonderful links. There is one in particular that interested me, the link to dailycatholic.org for the information on the ecumenical councils. I have concern because the final council listed, Vatican II, is there presented as having let “Satan into the Sanctuary”, and the popes since that council considered invalid. I do not believe this to be true, nor did I find the same attitude in the information on your site, or in the other links on your site that I had the opportunity to explore. I wonder if you have an official stance on this, and I also wonder if there is another website that might have information on the ecumenical councils which does not bash Vatican II and the popes since. I know that you must be incredibly busy, your website must require a lot of work! Just a thought… Again, thank you for providing this wonderfully helpful information!

In HIM,

Kristen

J. Salza: Kristen, I am not aware of any link on my site that criticizes Vatican II. I only post the documents of the council. If you have found something to the contrary, please let me know and I will remove the link posthaste.

Paul VI did say that the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Church after the council had closed, so this is what you are probably referring to. This is because many liberal prelates in the Church began to interpret some of the councils' teachings in a manner that did not comport with the Sacred Tradition, and the pope who closed the council recognized this. This is still a problem in the Church today. This does not mean the council erred, only that some interpretations of the council’s documents have been erroneous.

The reason why Vatican II has been controversial is because its documents were not written like the documents of the previous 20 councils. They do not contain legal canons with accompanying anathemas, but are written in essay form, which makes them subject to misinterpretation.

One of the best examples of this can be found in Dei Verbum, chapter 3, no. 11, where it essentially says that God gave us the Scriptures for the sake of our salvation. The modernists say that DV is teaching that Scripture is only inerrant when in teaches about matters pertaining to salvation. This, of course, contradicts twenty centuries of Catholic Tradition. The correct interpretation is that Scripture was dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost for the sake of our salvation, and is inerrant on all it teaches - history, science, math, geography, etc. When we interpret Vatican II’s teaching in light of Tradition, there is no problem at all.

Nostra Aetate 2 is another example. It teaches that Buddhists “explore and express the divine.” The modernists interpret this to mean that non-Christians can find God equally in other religions. This interpretation is heretical because it espouses indifferentism. NA is simply saying that Buddhists search for God and express that search in their worship. NA does not say that Buddhists truly find God, or worship the true God. It simply acknowledges that human beings have a longing for God written on their hearts. In fact, NA’s teaching is really an impetus for evangelization. We want to help the Buddhist not only “explore” the divine, but actually “find” the divine, which he will only be able to do in Jesus Christ (which is why NA2 refers to the evangelism of Paul in Acts 17). Again, the council’s documents must be interpreted in light of Tradition.

To summarize, Vatican II was not a doctrinal council, which means it did not define any doctrines (although it did reiterate many doctrines defined by previous councils). That is why Paul VI said that the council did not contain any “extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility.” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) essentially said the same thing in 1988.

But Vatican II was a pastoral council that reaffirmed certain infallible doctrines of the Church (e.g., the sacrifice of the Eucharist). Remember, the Church can teach infallibly in its ordinary and universal Magisterium (such as in a pastoral ecumenical council like V2), and we must likewise accept these teachings with divine faith (de fide). This is the case when the teaching affirms the Sacred Tradition. When the teaching is pastoral (e.g., issuing disciplines, directing liturgical changes, etc.), then the teaching is not infallible. Thus, the pastoral directives of Vatican II are reformable. Vatican II is distinguishable from the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium, which is not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error, but which nevertheless requires our assent (like encyclicals, for example).

So, let me make my position very clear. Vatican II is a legitimate ecumenical council, and although it was not an extraordinary council that issued any dogmatic teachings, it did not teach error on faith or morals. Period. The people who pit the council’s teachings against Tradition are the ones teaching the error. To accuse an ecumenical council, led by the Holy Ghost and approved by the pope, of teaching error is to separate oneself from the Catholic Church.

Kristen: John, thanks for your answer. I think I understand but want to be sure. You are saying that Vatican II was a “pastoral” council that taught infallibly only to the extent that it reaffirmed the Sacred Tradition. But Vatican II was not a “doctrinal” council that provided infallible definitions on its own. Correct?

J. Salza: That is correct, and that is why Paul VI said that Vatican II did not issue “any extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility.” Vatican II’s statements on Catholic dogma are infallible because they reaffirm the infallible dogma already defined by previous councils (such as its statements on the Eucharistic sacrifice). They are not infallible because they were issued by the council per se, since the council was not dogmatic. As I said before, Vatican II’s pastoral directives (such as its directives on liturgical reform, ecumenism, etc.) are not infallible.

For those who argue that Vatican II was a “doctrinal” council, I refer to a post I sent to Robert Sungenis:

Hi Robert. I just read your article regarding Mr. Likoudis' interpretation of Vatican II as a "doctrinal" Council. In your next dialogue with Mr. Likoudis, you should ask him exactly what the Council doctrinally defined? If Vatican II was a doctrinal Council, as Mr. Likoudis claims, that means it defined doctrines, just like all the previous Councils did. Yet, when you read through the 16 documents of Vatican II, you discover that no doctrines were actually defined by the Council.

When Mr. Likoudis claims that the Council took "doctrinal positions…on Ecumenism, religious liberty and non-Christian religions," ask him to explain the doctrinal positions the Council took. After all, a "doctrinal position" must be based on a "doctrine." What is the doctrine of ecumenism? What is the doctrine of religious liberty?

The fact is, the Second Vatican Council never defined these terms, so it could not have taken any "doctrinal positions" with respect to them. The Council issued no such doctrinal definitions. This has led many in the Church to interpret these and other teachings of the Council in ways that are incompatible with the Tradition of the Church.

If the Council did not define the doctrines of ecumenism and religious liberty, then Traditional Catholics cannot be accused of going against the Magisterium when it challenges the Church's pastoral initiatives concerning these non-defined teachings. This means the Church's implementation of these initiatives is still subject to debate and reform.

Top

8. My brief response to a Muslim

Mohammed: John, you teach untruth. Allah said, "And the Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah,' and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.' This is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth. They took their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah and (they also took as Lord) the Messiah, son of Mary. But they were commanded only to worship none but One God. Praise and Glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate with Him." [at-Taubah 9:30-31]

That shows that they are polytheists who associate partners with Allah. In other verses, Allah has made it clear that they are disbelievers: "Surely in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary." [al-Maidah 5:17 and 72]

"Surely, disbelievers are those who said, 'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." [al-Maidah 5:73] "Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary." [al-Maidah 5:87]

"Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the idolaters will abide in the Fire of Hell." [al-Bayyinah 98:6]

Many verses and hadith express the same meaning. The one who rejects the idea that the Jews and the Christians who do not believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him) and deny him are disbelievers is, in fact, denying what Allah has said. Denying what Allah has said is blasphemy. How could that man be pleased to say that it is not allowed to say that they are disbelievers when they themselves say that Allah is one of a Trinity? Their Creator Himself has declared that they are disbelievers.

J. Salza: Mohammed, I would not put any hope in a man who was deceived by Satan like Mohammed was. He wasn't sure if he was receiving the Word from God or Satan. That is because he is a false prophet. He also advocates the beating of women and the murder of infidels. This is not from God. God desires all men to be saved through genuine conversion, not coercion. God also gave women equal dignity. That is not what your religion, which came over 600 years after the Catholic religion, teaches. Islam is a self-contradiction. It claims that Jesus was a prophet and a good man, but not God. Tell me, how can Islam claim that Jesus was a good man, when Jesus claimed that He was God? This is the fallacy of Islam. Either Jesus was God or a mad man. There is no in-between.

Islam also has no central authority. It is just like Protestantism. God did not leave Muslims and Protestants a book to let them figure it all out themselves. Why? Because we are fallible beings. God instead gave us a Church, which He guides into all truth. This is the Holy Catholic Church that Christ Jesus purchased for us with His blood on the cross. His sacrifice propitiated the Father's wrath, and restored us to friendship with Him. There is salvation in and through no one else but Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.

God bless you.

John Salza

Another Patron writes:

I read with interest the article entitled, "ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY--TWO RELIGIONS OF PEACE? By Michael Forrest, and just wondered if you thought there was a contradiction between the article and the Catechism of the Catholic Church #841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." It seems to me that there is a discrepency between this article and the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church. I am distressed that your site seems to be saying that the Catechism is not correct. Isn't the Catechism was the best place to find official teachings of the Catholic church? Who should I believe?

J. Salza: There is no discrepancy. The Catechism accurately presents the Church's teaching tradition. But the Catechism and the article are about two different things. The Catechism merely says that Christians and Muslims share a belief in the Monotheistic God, the shared faith of Abraham. The Catechism does not go beyond that. It doesn't get into the errors of Islam. Mr. Forrest's article does. Forrest's article points out that the Koran condones the killing of infidels and the beating of women. The Catechism doesn't get in to these issues because it is unnecessary. The natural law alone tells us that these are atrocious errors worthy of God's condemnation. So it is important for us to make the proper distinctions.

God bless.

John Salza

Top

9. Speaking in tongues

John: Hello,

Do you know of any Catholic Saints who spoke in tongues? Also, I can't find in the catechism the stance the church takes on Speaking in Tongues, In today's world. Thanks John

J. Salza: John, I have put a page on my website about tongue-speaking, but will briefly summarize my thoughts on the topic.

The Bible says that the gift of tongues would cease. Tongue-speaking is the only gift of the Holy Spirit that Scripture says will "cease" (in Greek, pauomai). It is also enumerated as a lesser gift of the Spirit, relatively speaking. There were a handful of saints who spoke in tongues over the last 2,000 years (Dominic, Anthony of Padua, Francis Xavier, John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola), but many of the early Church fathers testify that the gift had already ceased in the early Church. In fact, Paul mentions tongue-speaking in his early letter to the Corinthians, but not in his later letters. This means the gift could have actually been fading away during the period of revelation.

Paul warns us that the gift of tongue-speaking may not be of God. Where you have a huge assembly speaking in tongues, we can be assured that it is not. It is simply emotionalism. The tongue-speaking in the Bible generally referred to speaking in other languages, which was necessary so that the infant Church could spread the gospel to all nations.

There were also some apparent incidents of ecstatic, unintelligible utterances as well, but note what Paul says. He says that there must be an interpreter for those utterances, so that it edifies the Church. The psycho-babbling that goes on in these Protestant churches is not tongue-speaking. It is pure emotionalism, as far as Paul's teaching goes. Paul says that only 2 or 3 should speak in tongues, each in turn, with an interpreter, and for the edification of the Church. Paul also warned that tongue-speaking could actually be a sign of God's judgment for sin and unbelief. Just like God confused the speech of Babel when they rejected Him and wanted to make a name for themselves, God can bring about these confusing utterances as a sign of His displeasure and judgment for unbelief. This appears to have been what was happening at Corinth, at the time of Paul's letter.

Top

10. Is the SSPX in schism?

Anonymous: John, please give me your thoughts on whether or not the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism. I have friends who attend an SSPX chapel, and they claim that Catholics are allowed to fulfill their Sunday obligation at these chapels. However, other Catholics have told me that attending such chapels is sinful and worthy of excommunication. This is very confusing to me.

J. Salza: In his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (July 2, 1988), John Paul II declared that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by illicitly consecrating four bishops and thus incurred latae sententiae excommunication. The pope also said that anyone who formally adheres to the schism is subject to the penalty of excommunication. John Paul II didn’t change his mind for 17 years. Because the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, we must conclude that Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated were in schism.

As a person who loves the Holy Father and the Traditional Latin Mass, the SSPX situation brings to my mind many troubling issues. According to the 1983 code of canon law (promulgated by John Paul II), illicitly consecrating a bishop is not a schismatic act. That is most likely why the Holy See gave Lefebvre a canonical warning only about excommunication, not schism, before he consecrated the bishops. Lefebvre’s action seems to be one of disobedience, but not schism. Disobedience of a papal command does not give rise to schism; the person must actually deny the pope’s authority to be guilty of the crime of schism. I understand that Lefebvre – unlike a true schismatic - never denied Pope John Paul II’s authority as the Vicar of Christ. In fact, he believed his actions were actually serving the pope and the Church at large. Nevertheless, because the pope is the supreme legislator, we are obligated to conclude that Lefebvre’s consecration of the bishops was a schismatic act because the pope said so. Only another pope could overrule him.

The issue is not as clear with respect to the priests of the SSPX and the faithful who attend their Masses. Certainly, the SSPX priests are not automatically schismatic or excommunicated simply because of the actions of Lefebvre. Lefebrve's actions are not imputed to the other SSPX priests either canonically or theologically. For example, I am good friends with a number of priests of the relgious order The Priests of the Sacred Heart. If their Provincial were excommunicated for schism, that would not mean all the other priests of the order would be excommunicated as well. That is not how the Church handles disciplinary matters. Same thing with any other action of any leader in just about any sphere.

The problem with John Paul II's motu proprio is that it never provided a definition of "formal adherence" to the schism. Presumably, if a person formally supports Lefebvre's disobedience and attends the SSPX chapel as a manifestation of that support (or a priest joins the SSPX to manifest such support), that person would presumably be "formally adhering" to Lefebrvre's schism. However, if a person merely attends Mass at an SSPX chapel out of love for the Traditional Latin Mass, including the piety it fosters and the theological clarity it provides, then such a person would not be in schism.

The Ecclesia Dei commission that John Paul II instituted has said the same. The commission declared that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Masses offered by SSPX priests. If the priests of the SSPX were in schism, the Ecclesia Dei commission would presumably not allow Catholics to frequent their Masses, since they would be allowing Catholics to worship outside the Church. This indicates that SSPX priests are not in fact in schism (for example, Catholics could not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending liturgies offered by the schismatic priests of the Eastern Orthodox churches). The same commission has said that, so long as Catholics attend SSPX chapels out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (and not because they want to separate themselves from the Roman Pontiff), such conduct is not sinful.

Many in the Church have stated that the SSPX situation is an internal matter of the Catholic Church and that the SSPX is not a counter-diocese or separate ecclesial structure. That the Church regards the SSPX situation as an “internal matter” also suggests that SSPX priests are not in schism (unless, of course, they deny the authority of the Holy Father which they do not). The case of the Hawaii six also bears this out. Those excommunications would not have been lifted if those six Catholics were attending Masses offered by schismatic priests. Moreover, if the SSPX priests are “suspended,” and thus still subject to the Church’s disciplinary laws, they cannot be schismatics who are outside the Church. You cannot be outside the Church and still subject to her canon law. This is a legal impossibility.

Of course, all of this does not change John Paul II’s declaration that Lefebvre and the four bishops were in schism (why didn’t the pope include Lefebrve’s co-consecrator Antonio de Castro Mayer?). Again, I am only speaking to the lay Catholics’ attendance at SSPX chapels and the canonical status of the rest of the SSPX priests. If SSPX priests join the society out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass and do not intend to sever their union with the Holy Father, it is difficult to conclude that such men are schismatics. Most men become SSPX priests because of their devotion to tradition and the fact that their diocesan bishops would never let them celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass (which they have every right to do according to St. Pius V’s Quo Primum), or put unjust restrictions upon it (which is against the directives of John Paul II). How can such priests be in schism? It is obvious that we need further guidance from the Church on this matter.

When there is ambiguity in the law (which there seems to be regarding the status SSPX priests – but not Lefebvre and the four illicitly-consecrated bishops), we need to look to other situations for guidance. When you look at the facts surrounding the communist-founded, abortion-supporting Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) in China, it is hard to conclude that the SSPX priests are in schism. The Chinese government established the CPA in 1957 as a substitute for the Roman Catholic Church in order to sever Catholics from the true Church and the successor to Peter. The first CPA bishop was ordained in 1958 without a mandate from the Holy See. Pius XII condemned the CPA and declared the election of the CPA bishops invalid and their consecrations illicit. The CPA has since ordained nearly 100 bishops, all without any mandate from the Holy See, and in defiance of the pope’s authority, which they all reject. And the Holy See has not declared the CPA to be in schism! Nor does the Vatican any longer call the Orthodox, who also reject the authority of the Holy Father, schismatics.

How in the world can this be? How can illicitly consecrated bishops who reject the authority of the Holy Father and the moral teachings of the Church not be in schism, while priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass, embrace the Holy Father, and live the moral and doctrinal life of the Church be in schism?! Something is wrong in the Church.

Note also that the canonical provision used to punish Lefebvre in 1988 was actually enacted to punish the illicit consecrations of the CPA, but the Church didn’t use the provisions to punish the CPA consecrations in 2000 as it did to Lefebvre in 1988! Again, something is wrong in the Church.

We recall that Pope Saint Pius V’s Quo Primum gives every Latin Rite Catholic the right to attend the Traditional Latin Mass, and every priest the right to celebrate the Traditional Mass, forever. The Traditional Latin Mass is an immemorial custom of the Church, dating back to Saints Leo and Gregory the Great, and the Holy Ghost would never allow it to be obliterated. Even Paul VI stated that the Novus Ordo did not repeal, no, could not repeal, the Traditional Latin Mass. Many historians (Fortescue, Jungman, Buonerotte, Gamber, Thommasi, Davies) demonstrate that the Roman canon goes back to apostolic times. It developed organically under the direction of the Holy Ghost over the centuries, with very few changes. It is the most authentic expression of Catholic theology and piety. It is the greatest thing this side of heaven.

My family and I attend the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday, First Saturdays and holy days. Pope Saint Pius V has definitively declared that Catholics should not have “any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure” for attending the Traditional Latin Mass. Again, we need more guidance from the Church on the situation of the SSPX. In the meantime, let us hold fast to Tradition.

God Bless,

John Salza

Top

11. Catholic Answers' Voters' Guide

Brigid: Do any of you belong to any parish other than St. Anthony's (Mitchell)? Here's why I ask. Have you seen "The Voters Guide For Serious Catholics"? It's great. My mom got permission from her parish to distribute these after mass (St.Anthony's Menomonee Falls). They are out of town this weekend so I agreed to help them. I asked our own parish, St. clare/St.John North Lake and the priest told me no. Sad, but no big surprise from him I guess. Anyway, my mom ordered 1,000 and rush delivered them so that we could try to get these out this weekend. I am wondering about St. Mary's Elm Grove? Any others? St. Anthony's on Mitchell already has them available. Please let me know if you have any ideas or would be willing to call a parish priest. It is critical that these things get out. Thanks!

J. Salza: Brigid, thank you for the email regarding the vote. Let's also thank God that life has prevailed in this vote. I am sure our prayers and fasting moved our Lord to respond to America's most urgent need. Now we need to pray daily that the Supreme Court will be changed during the next term, and the deadly law will be overruled. We believe that our Lady's Immaculate Heart will prevail.

One comment on the Voters’ Guide. While the Voters Guide had noble intentions, I believe it has confused the issue. The Guide says it is permissible to choose between the lesser of two evils, so as to prevent greater evil. This is true, and it is consistent with Catholic moral theology. However, the Guide goes on to say that a Catholic can actually choose the greater evil, if the Catholic believes that the person condoning the greater evil will have a less likely chance at legislating the evil. This instruction has no precedent in Catholic moral theology. It is obvious why the Voters Guide did not cite any precedent for its instruction (papal, conciliar, catechetical, etc.) That is because there is none. Such an instruction makes the selection purely subjective, and even arbitrary.

On what basis is a Catholic suppose to decide the likelihood of the candidate's ability to legislate? The Guide provides no answers. Such a rationale would actually condone voting for the greater evil on purely subjective grounds. This is not a Catholic answer. But it has shown how far we have come as a society. The "non-negotiables" have actually become negotiable, and we can even base their negotiability upon our purely subjective reasoning process to prognosticate who has a better chance at legislating the evil. And when we cast our vote, we won't even know the make-up of the House and Senate to formulate our opinion, but I suppose we also need to prognosticate about that as well.

For these reasons, I believe the Voters’ Guide has confused the issue.

May God bless America.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

John Salza

Top

12. Beatification, infallibility, and private revelation

Glenn: John, doesn't the fact that Anne Emmerich has been beatified by the Pope mean that it was because of her visions, isn't the Pope beatifiying someone "ex cathedra" would the Pope beatify her if the visions aren't true? Therefore is it not binding on Roman Catholic?

By the way I am not a RC. Thanks anyway.

J. Salza: Glenn, first, no pope or council has ever infallibly declared that a pope’s canonizations are infallible. However, it has been the pious belief of Catholics that the pope’s canonizations are in fact infallible.

The beatification does not mean that her private revelations are binding on all Catholics. Such private revelations would only be binding on the one to whom the revelations were directed. Nor does the beatification mean that her private revelations were the reason she was beatified. Instead, she was beatified for her life of heroic virtue (not because of her visions or writings). Also, the beatification required proof that her intercession led to a miracle (not that she had mystical revelations). It does, however, mean that Catholics must believe in her revelations as true. This would be permissible. But Catholics are not obligated to believe they are true. I hope that helps.

God bless.

John

Top

13. The Jews and the Old Covenant

Nina: Thank you for your valuable website. I visited for the first time today and will return often. One observation -- on the "What is the history of your Church" webpage the first thing I noticed is that Judaism is not mentioned. I realize your aim is not to represent every religion ever established. Still, I have been thinking about it ever since I looked at the list, especially given that Jesus is the promised Messiah. I don't know how that could be presented on the webpage effectively, though, without causing confusion.

Well, thank you again for such a wonderful website. I am grateful to have discovered scripturecatholic.com.

Best Regards,

Nina

J. Salza: Nina, thanks for the email. Judaism really began about 2,000 B.C. when God gave circumcision to Abraham. Circumcision served as a sign of the covenant God entered into with Abraham. Judaism was abolished with the New Covenant in 33 A.D. with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am posting some pages in the next few weeks that deal with issues concerning Judaism (specifically, Zionism, the Old Covenant being revoked, etc.)

Nina: Yes, thank you for your response. I would just propose that Judaism was not so much abolished as it was fulfilled in Jesus, our High Priest. We received the grace of being grafted into the Vine. For instance, there was a Vatican document issued several years ago -- authored, I think, by Cardinal Ratzinger (now of course, our Pope) -- that said Christians and Jews both share the wait. Jews believe they are awaiting the first Coming, Christians await the Second. But we are both waiting for the same Messiah.

Thank you again for all your very hard work and for your kindness responding to my email.

J. Salza: Nina, thank you for the email. Please let me clarify a couple points. First, Judaism has been abolished, not fulfilled. The New Covenant has completely superseded the Old Covenant. The only thing that Christ has brought to fulfillment is the fullness of His grace through the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has replaced the whole system of Jewry, with all of its legal, moral and ceremonial edicts. But, while the New Covenant has abolished the Old, it has incorporated the moral principles of the Old Covenant into itself. Thus, although we are no longer legally bound under the Ten Commandments as an entity, we are morally bound by their principles, even to a greater degree.

This is why, for example, Jesus says that while adultery was condemned in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant even looking lustfully at a woman is adultery. We are held to even higher standards now, because in the New Covenant, God peers into our hearts and judges are secret motives. This is because we have become His adopted sons and daughters through baptism. Where there is a greater familial relationship, there are greater rewards, but greater responsibilities. In Christ, we have gone beyond a mere legal relationship with God, and now have a filial relationship with Him. Those who join the Church become fully grafted onto the vine, which is Jesus Christ (the “vine” is NOT Israel, or the Jewish people).

It is also very problematic to say that the Jews await the first coming, while Christians await the second coming. That is not official Magisterial teaching. The second coming will be the second coming, for all people, period. Such a view exempts the Jews from bending the knee to the risen Christ and joining the Catholic Church right now, which they have a moral obligation to do. The Jews must renounce their Judaism and join the Church, as St. Paul repeatedly commanded them to do in the Scriptures. If not, when Christ comes a second and final time, the Jews will be among those who "will look upon Him whom they have pierced and wail on account of Him" (Apoc.1:7). It is no way to evangelize Jews by telling them that they are somehow off the hook, that they can by-pass the sacraments of the Catholic Church and receive their inheritance at the "first" coming. Christ has already come a first time to establish the New Covenant with His Catholic Church. At the second coming, Christ will no longer come to establish covenants and forgive sins. He will come in judgment.

Nina: I think you misunderstand what I intended to express. I'm sure I must not have explained myself very clearly. When I quoted the document that says the Jews await the first coming it is to mean that they did not understand or recognize the true first coming. So whether or not they realize it, both we and they are awaiting the very same Person -- not different Gods.

And yes, the old system of laws and sacrifices was abolished. But there is still a spiritual High Priest who continually offers His perfect and eternal sacrifice before the Lord for our sakes. I may be expressing myself in a clumsy fashion, I am not intending to be argumentative. I was trying to express the continuity between Judaism and Christianity. The earthly/imperfect is replaced/superseded by the Spiritual and perfect. I think my problem may be with the connotation of the word "abolished". For it is true that the old, imperfect system was abolished ... but the first covenant was not abolished. That is, a covenant is not merely a contract -- it is a relationship, just like a marriage or an adoption is a relationship. We belong to the new covenant, but that does not abolish God's relationship with the Jews established in the first covenant. If I thought the first covenant was abolished that would be like me saying God got a divorce. So again, I am not so adept at expressing myself clearly. Perhaps we are -- as they say -- in violent agreement with each other. It just seemed important to separate the practices of Judaism (abolished) from the covenant relationship (eternal).

J. Salza: Nina, I hope the following clarifies things for you.

1. The Old Covenant refers to the covenant God entered into with Moses, the Mosaic law (2 Cor 3:14). This covenant has indeed been abolished (see 2 Cor 3:14; Heb. 7:18; 8:7; 10:9). In fact, in Hebrews 10:9, Paul uses the word "abolish" (in Greek, anaireo, which means "to annul"). In Hebrews 8:7, Paul uses the phrase "set aside" (in Greek, aphetesis, which also means "to annul"). That means the Old Covenant has been abolished, annulled, superseded. This happened when God tore the Temple curtain in two at Christ's crucifixion. Now, all people must come to the Father through the Son in the waters of baptism.

2. The covenant that God entered into with Abraham, however, has not been abolished. It has been incorporated into the New Covenant. This is the covenant of promise to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Remember, God entered into this covenant with Abraham when Abraham was still a Gentile. This covenant was incorporated into the New Covenant because it was a covenant of grace, based on faith. The Old covenant was a covenant based on law.

Thus, there is a distinction between the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. The former has been abolished, and the latter has been incorporated into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Jesus Christ.

Nina: Thank you again. I appreciate your time and effort to explain so thoroughly and helpfully your understanding of this topic.

Top

14. Hindi Chants in Catholic Worship?

Victor: Hi John. Some church leaders in India are encouraging the usage of Hindi chants, specifically the word "OM" or "AUM" in catholic prayer. What is the Church's position on this? Is it acceptable?

God bless you

Victor

J. Salza: Victor, this is absolutely unacceptable, but it just goes to show us how apostate many in the Church have become. These Hindi chants are nothing less than invocations to devils. As St. Paul said, what they sacrifice they sacrifice to devils, but our sacrifice is to God (1 Cor. 10:20). As David said, “all the gods of the nations are devils” (Psalm 96:5). This deliberate mixing of the profane with the sacred warrants God's most severe condemnation. Have nothing to do with it.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Victor: Thank you very much John for the quick reply!

Is there any church teaching on this I can quote to my leaders when I take it up with them? Any web links which deal on this subject would be helpful too! Thank you again for your assistance.

Regards

Victor

J. Salza: Victor, the Church has consistently taught that Catholics cannot participate in non-Catholic worship because it promotes indifferentism (the belief that all religions are equally valid) and syncretism (the blending of different religious beliefs). See, for example, Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, 1928.

The liberals try to argue that Vatican II changed the traditional teaching. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the 16 documents of Vatican II, "prayer" is mentioned about 200 times, and the ONLY time the council mentioned that Catholics can participate in non-Catholic worship was in the context of Christian worship when the intention was to convert Protestant Christians (“separated brethren”) to the “grace of unity” which exists only in the Catholic Church! (Unitatis Redintegratio, No. 8). There is NEVER any allowance for introducing pagan chants into Catholic worship. Such would be gravely offensive to God and a violation of the First Commandment.

Victor: Thank You John! That was a superb reply!! God bless you and your ministry abundantly. Thanks & regards

Victor

J. Salza: Victor, you may also want to take a look at these encyclicals in detail:

-Pius VIII, Traditi Humuilitati, 1829, No. 4

-Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, 1846, No. 15

-Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928, No. 2

-Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950, No. 2

These are papal encyclicals that address the problem of indifferentism.

Victor: Thank you again John

I will read them too.

Regards

Victor

Top

15. Can Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty be reconciled with Tradition?

Patron: John, there is a lot of debate on Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty) and whether it can be reconciled with Tradition. The document appears to go beyond what the pre-conciliar popes have taught regarding religious freedom. For example, DH says: “This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits..

This suggests that someone can publicly teach error, and no pope has ever made such a statement. Can you please provide me your comments?

J. Salza: The fact that volumes have been written evaluating whether DH is compatible with tradition demonstrates that the document is prima facie ambiguous, if not problematic. Never before in the history of the Catholic Church has a conciliar document caused so much angst and confusion. That being said, any attempts to reconcile DH with pre-conciliar teaching must ultimately be resolved by the pope who is our final authority on earth. In light of the foregoing, I will respond to your inquiry.

The first part of this declaration can be easily squared with traditional Catholic teaching. The council says religious freedom “means that all men are to be immune from coercion” in acting against their own beliefs. The Church has always taught that man cannot be coerced to believe against his will. For example, Leo III in Immortale Dei (1885) said that “No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will.” DH is simply reasserting the obvious.

The second part of the declaration, which presumably recognizes a person’s right to publicly teach error, also can be harmonized with traditional Catholic teaching, but admittedly with more difficulty. First, as the council will later clarify, it is referring only to the civil, but not moral, right to religious freedom. DH never says that a person has the moral right to teach error in public. The Catechism affirms that such freedom is not a license to adhere to error (CCC 2108). I address this in Masonry Unmasked, pages 40-42. Second, even within the realm of the civil right, such freedom has limitations. This is why the council says that acting in accordance with one’s own beliefs must be “within due limits.” In other words, no one has an unrestrained civil right to teach error in public.

It is true that no pope before Vatican II ever stated that a person has a civil right to teach error in public (DH also does not explicitly say this; it only implies it). However, the popes have said that the government can tolerate religious error for the sake of avoiding greater evil or preserving greater good (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1885) and Libertas (1888)). Thus, DH can be harmonized with traditional Catholic teaching if it is saying that people have a civil right to religious freedom, including teaching error publicly, if it avoids a greater evil or preserves a greater good.

If the greater good is harmed, then the religious freedom falls outside of “due limits” imposed by DH and must be restrained. Because the “common good” is a relative condition based upon the evolution of culture, the Church’s approach to religious freedom and the common good is a policy that can change, not a doctrine that cannot change. The Catechism in paragraph 1906 defines the “common good” as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” Thus, because “social conditions” change, the “common good” and policies relating to it can also change.

Even if one argues that DH has deviated from traditional Catholic teaching in regard to permitting religious error in public, the change would be only a policy position, not a doctrinal position, since it concerns the common good. Thus, DH’s statements do not come under the realm of infallibility and can be reformed in the future.

Patron: Look what Pius IX said in Quanta Cura: “As a consequence of this absolutely false idea of social government, they do not hesitate to favor that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, which Our Predecessor of happy memory, Gregory XVI, called a delirium, namely, “that the liberty of conscience and of forms of worship is a right proper to every man; that it must be proclaimed in every well-established State, and that the citizens have a right to full freedom to manifest their opinions loudly and publicly, whatever these may be, by word, by printing, or otherwise, without the ecclesiastical or civil authority's being able to limit it.”

J. Salza: The “liberty of conscience” that Pius IX condemns is that liberty which leads to manifesting erroneous opinions in public “without the ecclesiastical or civil authority’s being able to limit it.” DH likewise says that religious freedom (liberty of conscience) must be exercised “within due limits.” Pius IX is not condemning the “liberty of conscience” which leads a person to the Catholic religion. Everyone has a moral right, nay, a moral obligation to seek religious truth and become Catholic. DH recognizes the same. Without this moral right, people would have no guilt before God in refusing to become Catholic. Thus, the “liberty of conscience” condemned in Quanta Cura is an unrestrained civil liberty that allows a person to manifest their opinions “loudly and publicly, whatever these may be.” DH never allows for the unrestrained civil right to manifest religious error in public. Such rights must be exercised “within due limits.” Moreover, DH never says that a person has a moral right to worship outside the Catholic religion.

Patron: Pius also says: “Furthermore, contrary to the teaching of Scripture, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, they do not fear to affirm that “the best government is that in which there is not conceded to the authorities the duty of curbing the violators of the Catholic religion with the sanction of penalties, except when public tranquility demands it.”

J. Salza: Notice that Pius is condemning the view of what the “best” government is. Pius is declaring that the “best” government is not one that curbs violators of the Catholic religion only for the interest of public tranquility. The “best” government is one that is subject to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, as Pius XI declared in Quas Primas. Thus, the best government would be one that curbs violators of the Catholic religion because Catholicism is the religion of the state which works with the Church to save souls. While DH is extremely weak in affirming this doctrine of the Catholic Church, it does declare: “Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

Allow me to address some of the other teachings of Pius IX that often come up when evaluating Dignitatis Humanae.

-Singulari Quadam (1854): Pius IX says that the light of reason alone is insufficient for the attainment of truth. We also need heavenly grace and the divine religion, the Catholic faith. DH affirms this teaching.

-Quanta Cura (1864): the following is false: “the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting violators of the Catholic religion except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it.” In other words, governments should have the right to correct those violate Catholicism because it is morally wrong, not just because it is harmful to the common good. DH affirms that all men have a moral duty to the Catholic Church and that it leaves this traditional teaching untouched. Thus, DH can be read to be consistent with this teaching.

-Quanta Cura (1864): condemned: “The liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man which should be proclaimed by law.” DH seems to flirt with contradicting this condemnation, but it can be reconciled with some effort. DH does not say that the government should proclaim liberty of conscience as “a peculiar or inalienable right.” It says only that people should have a civil right to religious freedom such that they should not be coerced to believe against their will. Further, DH affirms that public manifestations of religious expression can be constrained. If the rights were inalienable, they could not be lawfully constrained by civil authorities.

-Syllabus (1864) 15. “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” This is false because it addresses embracing a false religion, not simply seeking truth. This is also false because it implies the light of reason has not been illumined by Catholic truth. DH does not contradict this if DH is understood to be talking about civil rights only to practice false religions. If a person did not have a civil right to practice religion, he would most likely never find the Catholic religion. Moreover, DH affirms that the public expression of false religions can be constrained, and that everyone has a moral obligation to the Catholic religion.

77. “In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” DH affirms this in its introductory comments, but agreeably does not do a very good job at affirming the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ over all peoples and nations.

79. “It is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.” This suggests that there can be no unrestrained civil liberty to religious freedom, as the pope says “every form of worship,” “full power given to all,” any opinions whatsoever.” These are broad statements. DH does not encourage unrestrained religious liberty. It encourages religious liberty “with due limits.”

Let us also examine some of the teachings of Leo XIII:

-Immortale Dei (1885): No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will. In other words, God respects the dignity of the human person and invites a voluntary and uncoerced adherence to religious truth. DH reaffirms this traditional Catholic teaching.

-Immortale Dei (1885): the Church does not condemn rulers who, for the sake of securing some greater good, tolerate false religions. DH seems to go beyond “toleration” of false religions (especially because it doesn’t use the word), but remember that DH is concerned only with the civil (not moral) right of citizens, and this civil right is to be curbed “within due limits.”

-Immortale Dei (1885): we are bound to worship God they way which He has revealed. DH affirms that everyone has the moral obligation to the Catholic faith.

-Immortale Dei (1885): it is not lawful for the government to hold in equal favor all religions or to disregard all religious duties. DH says that the government cannot engage in “the unfair practice of favoritism” This appears inconsistent with Immortale Dei. The word “unfair” saves DH because it implies some favoritism can be practiced, so long as it is not unfair (i.e., against the common good; coercive).

-Libertas (1888): Right is a moral faculty that cannot belong naturally and without distinction to truth and lies, good and evil. Again, DH affirms everyone’s moral duty to the Catholic faith.

-Libertas (1888): Civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and must obey and reverence His power and authority. The state cannot be godless. This is the thrust of DH, however, it could have avoided a lot of confusion by affirming the Kingship of Jesus Christ as the one and only authority that must be obeyed by the state.

-Libertas (1888): “While not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil or of obtaining or preserving some greater good.” DH doesn’t say “tolerate” so it appears that DH goes beyond this to recognize a more general civil right to religious freedom. But since the common good is a relative condition based upon the evolution of cultures, the Church’s teaching here is about policy which can change, and not doctrine which cannot change. Moreover, the civil right is not an unrestrained right to religious freedom, but one that must be exercised within due limits.

In Ci Riesce (1953), Pius XII said that no government can give a positive mandate or positive authorization to teach or to do that which is contrary to religious truth or moral good. DH never gives a positive mandate to teach what is contrary to the Catholic faith. It only gives a general civil right to practice religion within due limits and not to be coerced against one’s will.

In Mirari Vos (1832), Gregory XVI said that liberty of conscience springs forth from indifferentism and leads to the absolute and totally unrestrained liberty of opinions. Absolute and unrestrained liberty of opinions should not be guaranteed for everyone. He is obviously talking about a conscience that has not been illumined with Catholic faith. He is referring to those whose consciences are illumined by the light of reason alone. DH affirms the moral duty of all people to the Catholic faith, and the civil right to a limited and restrained religious freedom.

While a lot more could be said about this topic, I would summarize the traditional framework on Religious Liberty as follows:

Moral Rights

1. Everyone has a moral right to seek religious truth.

2. Everyone has a moral duty to the Catholic Church as the one true religion.

3. No one has a moral right to practice a false religion.

DH can be reconciled with the foregoing.

Civil Rights

No one can be forced to act against his conscience in private.
No one can be forced to act against his conscience in public.
No one can be prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private
One can be restricted from acting in accordance with his conscience in public. False religions can be tolerated by the state to preserve the common good.

DH can be reconciled with the foregoing.

Top

16. What is the Church’s teaching on “Limbo”?

Patron: John, what is the Church’s teaching on Limbo? Is this still a teaching of the Church? What does the Church definitively say about the destiny of unbaptized babies?

J. Salza: The common teaching and traditional catechesis of the Church has always included the belief in “Limbo.” While the Church never made the teaching a dogma that is binding on the faithful, it has been around for centuries, and popes, councils and fathers have advanced the teaching as part of the Catholic faith. Thus, it cannot be casually dismissed.

The word “limbo” comes from the Latin word limbus which means “on the margin.” Two ecumenical councils (Lyons and Florence), Pope Innocent II (1201), Pope John XXII in his Epistle to the Armenians (1321), Pope Sixtus V (1588) and Pope Pius VI (1794) all teach that limbo is the border of hell. These authorities teach that those babies who die in original sin go down into hell but suffer different punishments from those who die in mortal sin. That is, if hell is the exclusion of the beatific vision, limbo (which also excludes the beatific vision) is the “margin” of hell itself. These teachings are based on Christ’s own teaching: “Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5); “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

Pope Sixtus V in his Constitution Effrænatam (1588) said: “For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God's image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.”

While the exclusion of unbaptized babies from the beatific vision has been taught by the Church for centuries, whether these babies actually suffer has been debated. Augustine said they are excluded from the beatific vision and suffer in hell, but their suffering is the mildest. He also said that we cannot even conclude that they wouldn’t want to exist in such a state. Aquinas, on the other hand, said they are excluded from the beatific vision but enjoy natural happiness. As with most things, I side with Aquinas. A just God punishes only those who commit deliberate sin. A baby who dies in original sin has not committed a deliberate sin (although his parents who failed to baptize the child may certainly have).

Nevertheless, running the risk of excluding a child from the beatific vision for all eternity by failing to baptize the child is a consequence that is beyond comprehension. The fact that limbo is a debatable issue with such grave consequences underscores just how important baptism is. Baptism is objectively necessary for salvation. Baptism removes the doubt. There is nothing wrong with the Church saying that we have a “hope” of eternal life for unbaptized babies, based upon the justice and mercy of God. But we cannot be assured they these babies are saved, particularly in light of what popes and councils have said about the matter.

The bottom line is that, in the absence of a revelation or dogmatic statement by the pope, we will never be certain about these babies’ eternal destiny. Based upon the foregoing authorities, one can reasonably conclude that exclusion from the beatific vision is more likely, and eternal bliss in heaven less likely. But we just don’t know. We need to commend these children to the mercy of God who is not bound by His sacraments. We should never underestimate His mercy.

Top

17. Evolution and “faith and morals”

Patrick: Mr. Salza,

I would just like to say that I have been looking at your website for several years it seems, and I really like the many articles and scripture verses you have provided. Your site even helped in the conversion of a friend from Protestantism to Catholicism. Thank you for your service.

Also, I am a person who values scientific knowledge and research as a tool given to man by God. So many scientists, the vast majority in fact, have long since accepted the Theory of Evolution. Even the Pope has allowed this scientific theory, like gravity, to be true. While the method of evolution is and probably will always be debated, there is no doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, that certain organisms have evolved in specific ways, and that this "evidence" is a compilation of facts and scientific observences. From one point of view, it can be argued that there is more evidence for the evolution of man than there is evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

I believe in creation and original sin of course, but I believe that God made this happen through a more complicated means than simply snapping his fingers. God said, "Let there be light." The beginning of the universe is described as a "Big Bang," and explosion of light. God said that in the beginning the earth was desolate and formless. Science tells us that the earth was once a molten ball of lava and gas, without land or water.

Why must the first part of Genesis be taken literally? The writing style is different, more like a parable than a historical record. God on many occassions chose parables and stories to impart truths that we could not at the time understand. Only recently did our knowledge of the world allow us to understand that we are just a small part in God's great creation.

I am not trying to argue evolution vs creation, especially since I think both are 100% correct. But I think perhaps you should find out a little more about evolution and the creation of the world. Evolution does not have to discount God's hand. In fact, science says there is no observable reason why the big bang suddenly occured, we just know it did.

Anyway, thanks again for your site, it's a gem. I hope it's around for many more years.

God bless,

Patrick

J. Salza: Patrick, thank you very much for your email. It really encourages me to know that the site is helping win souls for His Church. I hope it continues to do so.

Regarding your comments on evolution. First, no pope has ever accepted evolution as a scientific fact. To the contrary, if you read the Magisterial statements on my website, you will see just the opposite. The popes have condemned the notion that God didn't create everything in the world ex nihilo (from nothing). Only Pope John Paul II allowed evolution to be debated as a theory, but that is it. It is only a theory, and theories can be true or false.

You say that "there is no doubt the world is billions of years old." Says who? The problem you have is that there is no scientific proof that the world is billions of years old. The scientific proof is actually against such a conclusion. Second, if you read the Scriptural chronologies which I piece together on my website, we instead conclude that the earth is only about 14,000 years-old. Again, in the absence of scientific proof to the contrary (which there is none), we as Catholics must stick to the Scriptures, the Fathers and the Magisterium, none of whom ever taught that the world is billions of years old.

To say that there is more evidence for the evolution of man than of the existence of Jesus Christ is an incredible statement, especially from a Catholic. Please let me put you to the test. Provide the evidence for the "evolution of man." There is absolutely no evidence that man evolved from apes, which evolutionary theory holds. It is contrary to every papal statement on the creation account. Yes, species adapt to environmental conditions, but there is no evidence that one species evolves into another species. If evolution were true, there would be millions of transitional fossils out there. The fact is, there isn't one. This is a fatal scientific blow to the false theory of evolution, and the evolutionists have so much as admitted it.

Regarding your comments on the "Big Bang," no, Scripture does not say that there was an "explosion of light." Scripture says that God said "let there be light," and "there was light." No evolutionary process. No billions of years. Nothing of the sort. Science can hypothesize all it wants about what the earth once was, but if it doesn't comport with God's revealed Word in Scripture, then it is false. Second, these "scientists" who hypothesize about such matters (most of whom are agnostics who abhor the Catholic faith and revealed religion) weren't there at the beginning. So they don't know any more than you or me about what actually happened. That is why God decided to open up His revelation with a detailed account of how He put things together. He knew in advance that atheistic scientists would attempt to discredit the faith with their scientific theories, and so revealed to us the creation account.

Regarding interpreting Genesis literally, all of the early Church Fathers did so (Augustine had an alternative interpretation that everything was creating instantaneously, never over millions of years). You should know that the Church dogmatically teaches us (Trent and Vatican I) that we are not to depart from the interpretation of the Fathers when there is a consensus, because the consensus means the Fathers' teaching came from the apostles. All the Fathers believed in a six-day creation, and thus no Father ever believed in evolutionary theory. This means that we are not to depart from their interpretation. The Church also teaches that we are to interpret the Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense, unless the interpretation is untenable. Interpreting Genesis literally is not only not untenable, it reflects the faith of our Fathers which are are bound to follow. That, coupled with the papal teachings against evolution, require us to reject the false theory of evolution.

I hope this helps. If I can be of further assistance, please write.

God bless.

John Salza

Patrick: John,

Thank you for your timely and elaborate response. It is obvious that you work diligently for the Lord and His Truth. You said you would like to "put me to the test." I accept, and I will be drafting a response to each point you made in your reply. This may take some time, but I will work on it as quickly as possible. Since I happen to be on vacation this week, perhaps I will be able to send it to you in the next few days.

Before I send you the response, please know that I have noted the following of your letter to me. I have heard your arguments, and I understand them, but I think that the problem is not that your arguments are false, but rather they are, for the most part, arguments about things that are irrelevant (pardon my word usage here). It would be like a Protestant arguing that Catholics worship the pope, and thus can't be right. The argument would hold weight if the premise, that Catholics worship the pope, were true.

Therefore, I will demonstrate each point and question with the upmost care to fully explain my point of view.

Thank you again for your response and arguments.

In Christ,

Patrick

J. Salza: Patrick, I will be on vacation starting Friday until Sept 5, so I may not get back to you for weeks. However, before you do respond, please consider what I have written below.

The main point you have to understand is the dogmatic teachings of Trent and Vatican I which require us not to depart from the teachings of the Fathers when they are unanimous. This requirement to adhere to the unanimity of the Fathers is infallible, dogmatic Catholic teaching. As regards a six-day creation, the Fathers were unanimous. The Church has NEVER, in any papal or conciliar pronouncement, ever made any statements supporting the evolutionary theory.

To the contrary, Vatican Council I, the same council that bound us to the literal and unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, issued an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “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, let him be anathema.”

Thus, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation. In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing).

If you would like to respond, please address the teaching of Vatican I and the unanimity of the Fathers, and why Catholics are free to dissent from same.

God bless.

John Salza

Patrick: John, the principal reason why the pronouncements from Trent and Vatican I don’t apply is because evolution does not involve faith or morals. If you read Trent and Vatican I’s teachings, they require us to follow the unanimity of the Fathers only when their teachings regard faith or morals. Evolution is about science, not faith or morals. Therefore, we are not bound by the Fathers’ interpretation on a six-day creation.

J. Salza: Patrick, in order to get out from under the Church's dogmatic teaching about interpreting the Scriptures with the unanimity of the Fathers, you have pursued the only road you could: trying to argue that the creation account does not concern "faith." Unfortunately, this is not going to work for you.

First, the creation account concerns the faith for a number of reasons. Here are ten:

1. It is where we get the doctrine of Original Sin.

2. It is where we get the doctrine of Marriage.

3. It is where we get the Protoevangelium.

4. It is where we get the doctrine of ex nihilo creation.

5. The NT teachings on the faith appeal to the creation account as true history (2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 4:4).

6. The OT teachings on the faith appeal to the creation account as true history (Ex 20:11).

7. The Fathers and the medievals considered it a matter of the faith.

8. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, endorsed by Pius X, considered it a matter of the faith.

9. Popes Pelagius I, Leo XIII and Pius XII considered it a matter of faith; as did Lateran IV, Cologne and Vatican I.

10. The Church defines faith as an assent of the intellect to the truths revealed by God. Since the creation account is one of the truths revealed by God, it is a matter of faith.

Second, the Church teaches us that we must interpret the Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense, unless the interpretation is unreasonable or necessity requires otherwise (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893; Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950; the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116). Because science has not (and cannot) disproved a six-day creation and evolutionary theory, we must interpret the Scriptures literally. That means a six-day, ex nihilo creation.

Third, the Fathers were unanimous in their belief in a six-day creation period, and many of the quotes you provided prove my case. Only Augustine offered an alternative theory: that God created everything instantly, and fashioned it over six days so that the angels could comprehend His work. This is the antithesis of the evolutionary theory. Moreover, Augustine also viewed a six-day creation period as a legitimate interpretation of the Scriptures. In fact, it was from Augustine that the Church derived her literal approach to the Scriptures. The only Father that deviated from a six-day creation account was Origen, but he allegorized almost everything and so is an irrelevant exception to the rule.

Fourth, two infallible councils eliminate evolution as a legitimate theory of creation. Lateran Council IV stated that “God created both orders out of nothing from the beginning of time, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly.” The Lateran Council infallibly proclaims that God created the spiritual (angels) and corporeal (humans, animals, plants, heavenly bodies) “out of nothing” (ex nihilo).

Unlike what you have argued, ex nihilo means "from nothing," not "from God alone." That God used dust to create Adam does not contradict ex nihilo creation, for human cells do not come from mud. That means Adam was created out of nothing, and God's use of dust wasn't necessary. In fact, God's use of dust has a theological, yes "Faith" element to it, for it prefigured man's destiny while in sin - that we return to the dust from whence Adam came.

In 1870, Vatican Council I issued an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “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, let him be anathema.” Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation.

In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing). Pope Leo XIII affirmed the same in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae. John Paul II has never (and could never) contradict this infallible teaching. Statements from the Pontifical Academy of Science (made up primarily of non-Catholic agnostics) have absolutely no authority.

Therefore, you are back to square one - explaining why we are not bound by the mandate of two infallible councils that we must interpret the creation account according to the unanimity of the Fathers, when they concern faith or morals.

MayGod give you His wisdom to hear the Faith of the Fathers, not the enemies of God and His Church.

John Salza

Top