Dr. Sungenis, If I understand the matter correctly, it is generally accepted that for any teaching of the Church to be considered de fide, the pronouncement must pertain to faith or morals. While reading over the documents of Vatican I, the first canon in the section on revelation caught my attention. It reads: If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. It seems safe to say that the canon has nothing explicit to say on morals. It also strikes me that this is not a pronouncement on faith either, since it says that God can be known by the natural light of human reason. The passage is a reference to Rom. 1:20, a revealed source, but, given the wording, the canon should be able to stand on its own, without needing to make reference to Romans. The canon tells us what we are able to know from nature, therefore, it is a pronouncement on epistemology, not faith. I have always understood that any pronouncement which has an anathema attached to it should be considered as de fide. My questions are, 1) is this de fide or not? 2) Does this in fact relate to faith or morals? 3) Can an anathema be attached to something that is not de fide? 4) Can the Church make a de fide pronouncement on a purely epistemological point? I appreciate any help you can give me to clear up these questions, Robert. Thank you for taking some time to consider these points with me. Gregory

R. Sungenis: Gregory, to #1, yes; to #2, yes. Since Scripture reveals to us that reasoning from the existence of the creation is a sufficient basis to know, honor, thank and be judged by God (Romans 1:18-21), then it is a matter of faith, since anything that is revealed by divine inspiration (as are the facts in Romans 1:18-21) is a matter of faith, especially those things dealing with the Last Four Things. As to #3, no; as to #4, no, but nothing in Scripture is "purely epistemological." To be purely epistemological there could be no Scripture addressing the point at issue.

Gregory 2: I was tempted to respond that your solution is overly fideistic, since you seem, at first glance, to be saying that the only way we can know that God is revealed through nature is by consulting Romans 1.  But you, of course, wrote that Scripture is sufficient, not necessary.  It is possible, and indeed probable, that one would come to this apart from revealed sources. 

A brilliant distinction and an elegant response.  That's why you're the teacher and I'm the student.  Thank you again, Robert.

Hello Robert.  Thanks for the info.  Now that I have searched around the net for Fr. Harrison, it seems that I may have crossed his work before.  I have also been listening to Albrechts debates with the Dimonds. 

One thing that is bothering me is that when I told you about the allegation of Pope John XXIII being a Freemason, you did not seem to deny it and also seemed to think it didn't necessarily matter (unless I misunderstood you).  The very day I spoke with you, I spoke with a local traditionalist (non-SSPX and non-sedevacantist) priest who said that he knew the late pontiff and had been with him on no less than 50 occasions.  While he spoke highly of Pope John XXIII, he also wouldn't deny (or affirm) that he may have been a Freemason.  I guess this brings me to two questions: Are the allegations of Freemasonry true and can a Freemason be a legit Pope? 

R. Sungenis: The only way he could possibly be convicted of Freemasonry is if a subsequent pope gathered the evidence against him and determined he was a Freemason. If that pope determined that John 23rd was a Freemason, he could then decide whether his involvement was deep enough that it nullified John 23rd's papacy, and he could then declare him an anti-pope and make null and void all his decrees.

But what you need to understand here is that this can only be done by a pope; not you, me or anyone else. Hence, all the accusations by popular enthusiasts of John 23rd being a Freemason don't amount to a hill of beans. If anyone other than the reigning pope had the authority to determine that John 23rd was not a true pope, then the whole Catholic Church would be in anarchy, and it would have dissolved a long time ago. Fortunately, the hierarchial structure of the Catholic Church is built in such a way that such anarchy can never happen. The pope is the last and only word on the fate of another pope. Don't listen to anyone else. Sedevacantists have assumed an authority they simply don't have, and if they do not repent of this before they die, they will end up in hell. Don't be part of them.

Dear Dr. Sungenis,

I found the attached article signed about the Tilma in the internet. Since I am a physicist myself and a Catholic, I am very much interested in what I have read about the star constellations to be seen on Our Lady’s mantle.

The published literature, however, is quite unsatisfying and even contradictory, I feel. Obviously, the scientific writing on the Tilma is not yet as developed as in the case of the Shroud of Turin. This gap should be filled, I believe. Also with your article, I have problems to verify what you are writing with respect to the star constellations and St. Hildegard’s cosmology.

If you do not mind, I would like to ask what the sources are you are using. Moreover, I sometimes read that the constellations are displayed as if seen in a mirror. And what is the precise astronomical argumentation in identifying the stars on the mantle with astronomic constellations? How certain can we are that we are speaking about facts with reference to the constellations on the Tilma?

I would be very glad if could give me some more detailed explanations or references to serious literature related to the star constellations.  

Yours sincerely, thanking in advance, and being united in Christo,

Wolfgang Koch    

R. Sungenis: Wolfgang, thank you for your inquiry. First, just for comparison’s sake, I would also say that the published literature on the Shroud is contradictory, but that doesn’t stop sincere Catholics from pursuing a positive view of the Shroud as representative of Christ. Our quest, of course, is to separate truth from fantasy, and thus, as a scientist (I was a physics major in college) and theologian (for the last 35 years), I have mental reservations about both the Shroud and the Tilma since, to be fair, we do live in a world that is replete with forgeries, deception and delusion. But those doubts are not enough to prohibit me from producing positive evaluations of both events in my published writings, especially considering the miraculous nature of the Tilma.

As for Hildegard’s cosmology and its relationship to the orientation of the stars on the Tilma, that is my unique contribution to the discussion based on my thorough study of Hildegard’s geocentric cosmology as written in my book, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume 2, pages 327-363, fifth edition, 2008. Hildegard has the north-south axis of the universe on a horizontal plane, not a vertical. The Tilma has the same orientation. Both are opposed to modern science’s view that the star Polaris is in a vertical plane with our north pole.

As for sources, as you may already know, there are a number of books and articles written on the Tilma. I am merely taking the evidence in these numerous sources that the stars on the Tilma are representative of the stars seen in the sky on December 1516 and, if this evidence is true, I am suggesting a more accurate way of representing these stars on the Tilma by superimposing the Tilma on the actual star charts of December 1516. To my amazement, the two are very close if not identical. That, to me, is enough to keep the investigation going, and I’m glad other people are doing so.

As for your question about “certainty,” that depends on what degree of certainty one has in mind. I would say that, due to the miraculous nature of the Tilma, we have reasonable certainty that, since the star charts for December 1516 match the stars on the Tilma, the connection between the stars and the Tilma is credible enough to teach it as such, but with the qualification that the connection is not absolutely certain. My guide in something of this sort is that the adherents can testify to the connection unless both scientific and ecclesiastical authority say it is definitively fallacious.

I hope that helps in understanding my position and contribution.

Dear Robert Sungenis,

How can I respond to this email that a Protestant sent me which accuses the Catholic Church of violating a Greek Grammar Rule when we say that in Matthew 16:18 it is Peter that is the Rock on which Jesus built his Church? I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank You and God Bless You!

This is his email below:

Alan,
Let me go into “this” a little more in depth, and correct a slight error in my previous email. I had stated the TAUTH could be translated “that”….it really should be “this.” “that” would be a distant demonstrative pronoun, and here we have a “near demonstrative pronoun.” Here‟s a more full explanation.

Ôáõôç TAUTH (this)

Declension
Is in general, an ADJECTIVE, and in particular, it is a DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN type adjective. It is in the Dative case, Feminine gender and Singular in number. This is basic grammar, and I would expect Will would come to agreement on this basic point, if not let me know.

Basic Info on Adjectives
Now, we know generally what the character of an ADJECTIVE is.1 The character of Adjectives is closely related to a substantive (as opposed to, for example, a verb). It is a highly specialized use of a substantive. Furthermore, its use in Greek is highly specialized, much more specialized than, for example, its use in Latin (which the Catholic Church uses extensively). Quoting Winer, Machen observes:
“…there are „two sorts of nouns, substantive and adjective,‟ and that, though they are „distinct from each other in thought, yet the latter … enters the sphere of substantives far more abundantly in Greek than, for instance, in Latin.” (W.234)

Substantives & Nouns2
Noun A noun is a word that denotes a person, place, thing, or idea. A noun is also referred to as a substantive. Besides all the common nouns, such as "man", "son", "truth", "word", etc., there are also proper nouns, which are names of particular people (e.g. Jesus Christ, Paul), of particular places (e.g. Ephesus, Rome), or of particular things (e.g. Passover, Jews). Proper nouns are usually capitalized.
Substantive A substantive is a noun, pronoun, or any word functioning like a noun. This could include such items like an adjective, participle, or infinitive used as the subject or a direct object of the sentence. A substantive may be one word or a group of words.

1 This discussion is taken from Dana & Mantey, Manual Grammer of the New Testament Greek, §III The Adjective, pg 115.
2 Retrieved from http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/terms.htm 28 Feb 2010.

Direct Object
The direct object in a sentence is the substantive that receives the action of a transitive verb. For example: "... receive with meekness the engrafted word..." (James 1:21). The word which is directly receiving the action of the finite verb "receive", (answering the question "Receive what?") is the word "word", and therefore it is the direct object of this sentence.
Indirect Object An indirect object is the person or thing that is indirectly affected by the action of the verb. It is often translated in English by the phrase "to somebody" or "for somebody (or something)". For example: "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens" (Matt 16:19). The word "keys" is the direct object of the transitive verb "give", and thus receives the action of the verb. But the action of the verb is also indirectly affecting "you" and therefore "to you" is said to be the indirect object of this sentence. "To you" is answering the question, "give to whom?" or "for whom?"

Agreement of Adjectives
The fact that the adjective is closely related to a substantive is revealed by the fact that the substantive “regularly governs its form.”3 “The adjective agrees with the noun it qualifies in gender, number, and case.” (emphasis added).

Comment:
Thus the word “this” is an adjective (demonstrative pronoun type adjective) whose form is governed by the substantive that it modifies.

Question:
What is the substantive that “governs” the form of the adjective (and in this case, the demonstrative pronoun)?

Consider:
If the substantive that “governed” the form of “this” was the man Peter, and thus the Greek ðåôñïò (petros: which is classified as a Noun; gender:masculine; number:singular), then the form of “this” would be driven by this same form, namely masculine, singular.4 BUT what we find is the form is NOT masculine singular, but instead is of the form, gender:feminine; number:singular. If one says that Peter/petros is the antecedent of “this”, then it would govern the gender of “this” and force it to be masculine….but it doesn‟t. Thus we must look elsewhere for an antecedent substantive. Now we recall that a substantive is “one word or a group of words” which are used as a noun, which describes a “person, place, thing, or idea.” Since “this” is feminine, it cannot be governed

3 Dana & Mantey, pg 116.
4 Note: the case is determined not by the antecedent, but by the use in the sentence and thus does not enter into the governance here.

by something masculine. Now knowing the basic difference between masculine5 and feminine6 uses,7 we conclude “this” cannot be governed by something that is tangible, concrete, physical, material, but must in fact be governed by something that is conceptual, theoretical, spiritual, immaterial and non-physical, but not „abstract‟8. The “group of words” capturing the “idea” embodied in the confession of Peter, qualifies.

Tentative Conclusion:
Thus we would come to a tentative conclusion that the “confession of Peter” does in fact qualify as the antecedent of “this”. But is this convincing?

Consider further—the Demonstrative Pronoun:
“Sometimes it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object … in the … the literary context of the writer.”9
If the speaker wanted to call attention to something that is “relatively distant in actuality or thought”10 the remote demonstrative is used—åêåéíïò (ekeinos:that). On the other hand, if the speaker wanted to point out something that is “relatively near in actuality or thought” the immediate demonstrative is used—ïóôïóò (outous or in this case tauth, the dative feminine singular form of outous: THIS).
Now we already know it can‟t be Peter (petros:masculine) because of the “governance rule.” The “relatively near in … thought” is the specific thing that Jesus has focused the entire conversation on, namely the confession of Peter that He (Jesus) was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Firm Conclusion:
Thus we now have two lines of thought and consequent proof that coincide to yield the conclusion that “this” refers to Peter‟s confession (the near conceptual idea and the very thing to which Jesus Himself has brought the focus of the conversation), namely, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and antecedent is NOT the (masculine) Peter (petros), which would violate the “substantive governance rule.”
QED.

5 See for example: Dana & Mantey, pg 118, (2), a. the adjective used as a masculine noun.
6 See further: Dana & Mantey, pg 119, (2), b. the feminine gender is generally in agreement with a feminine substantive understood.
7 Masculine describes things that are physical, material, concrete and tangible, while feminine describes things that are conceptual, theoretical, spiritual, immaterial and non-physical.
8 See Dana & Mantey, pg 119 (2) c. The neuter singular is ordinarily used as an abstract noun.
9 Dana & Mantey, pg 127. The Demonstrative Pronoun.
10 Dana & Mantey, pg 128, b.

R. Sungenis: Alan, the answer to this is rather simple. Greek grammar does not follow masculine/feminine matching when proper nouns are in use. Or, we should say more specifically, just because a masculine noun precedes a feminine adjective or noun does not mean that the masculine noun cannot be the antecedent of the feminine adjective or noun. Proper nouns are the exception to the rule because one cannot make a masculine proper noun into a feminine noun, nor can one make a feminine proper noun into a masculine noun. As such, “Peter” will remain a masculine noun no matter what the gender of the following adjectives or nouns. Hence, “rock,” even though it is a feminine noun, and “this,” even though it is a feminine adjective, can refer back to Peter regardless whether Peter is masculine. If this were not the case, then the use of “rock” in the feminine to describe “Christ” in the masculine in 1 Corinthians 10:4 would be erroneous, but there it is, nonetheless, written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who does not make mistakes in grammar. The real reason that “this” is feminine in Matthew 16:18 is because “rock” is feminine, and the rule is that the adjective preceding the noun it modifies must be the same gender. But again, that rule does not apply to proper nouns, such as Peter and Christ.

Dear Robert,

I respectfully disagree with the translations you use and your interpretation of Holy Scriptures and will confirm this with a solid Traditional priest. From my understanding, Galileo was not condemned for his particular scientific findings, but that he was attempting to prove that science had higher precedence over Holy Scriptures.  That was the heresy.

Sincerely in +JMJ,

Roger

R. Sungenis: Roger, you can respectfully disagree as you wish, but in order to have any substance behind your disagreement you will need to prove your contentions, not just assert them. And you will need to do so by examining the words, the grammar, and the context. To interpret "founded" in 1 Chron 16:30 as referring to God "finding" something on earth is not an interpretation that any Father, medieval or modern theologian has ever held to. If you want to assert such a novel interpretation of the passage, you need to back it up with a thorough exegesis. As to your assertion that "Galileo was not condemned for his particular scientific findings," I suggest you study the issue a bit more. If you do you will find that Pope Urban VIII condemned Galileo precisely for his scientific belief that the earth moved around the sun. Here are the two proposition that Pope Urban VIII approved:

“Che il sole sia centro del mondo et immobile di moto locale, è propositione assurda e falsa in filosofia, e formalmente heretica, per essere espressamente contraria alla Sacra Scrittura.”

(Translation: “The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture”)

“Che la terra non sia centro del mondo nè imobile, ma che si muova etiandio di moto diurno, è parimente propositione assurda e falsa nella filosofia, e considerate in teologia ad minus erronea in Fide.”

(Translation: “The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith”)

The decrees against heliocentrism included in the formal sentence against Galileo Galileo, approved and facilitated by Pope Urban VIII, June 22, 1633[1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Original Italian of the decrees, as cited in Galileo E L’Inquisizione, Antonio Favaro, 1907, p. 143.

Robert,

One can make a valid distinction between justification and salvation because such a distinction exists, as St. Paul suggests in Rom. 8: 28-30:

"We know that to them that love God all things work together unto good: to such as according to His purpose are called to be saints. For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified."

 As someone I know (who supports BOD) wrote:

 “There are two elements to consider here -- justification, and salvation. Both are necessary. Between the two, some time intervenes. During that time, many things are possible. One (at least) is necessary for salvation: the grace of final perseverance. Fr. Feeney probably considered that one way to scotch the liberal attempt to admit, not only heretics and schismatics ("in good faith") into Heaven, but also all the unbaptized, was to insist on the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation. He did not invent the situation, it is given in Catholic theology (i.e. Tradition). There is, as in other areas of dogma, a certain apparent inconsistency between the doctrines of the necessity of Baptism, and that of Baptism of desire. What Fr. Feeney did was to resolve this problem by holding that, along with the grace of final perseverance, God would provide, in case of any of the Elect not already baptized, actual sacramental baptism. Thus, all those entering Heaven after the promulgation of the Gospel (a group which does not include Dismas) would, in fact, have been baptized. Thus, Baptism of desire would suffice for justification, but not for salvation (wholly in the dispositions of God's free providence, as revealed).” 

 I would say that Fr. Feeney and the SBC also saw an inconsistency with the doctrine of St. Thomas who insisted that an explicit faith was an intrinsic necessity of means (a supernatural faith God provides for each of His elect without fail), while viewing the sacrament of baptism as an extrinsic necessity of means (though St. Thomas calls water baptism an “absolute” necessity).  

 I see no such contradiction (not any more), since without faith no one can please God; though, as I suggested, St. Thomas’ clear and concise definition of absolute necessity with respect to the sacrament of baptism (in the same manner that food is an absolute necessity of end) is difficult to reconcile if it is not really absolutely necessary. If the Church teaches that God does not bind Himself in each and every case to the sacrament of baptism in order to confer grace and the merit of His Passion (and to unite a soul to His Body through the bonds of faith and charity), I am in no position to argue with her.

 But, to your question, you presume that justification and salvation are the same; and we can agree, if it is understood that we are speaking of someone who dies in a state of sanctifying grace and the grace of final perseverance (always presumed, since without it, one could not remain in the state of grace). Drawing on this distinction, Fr. Feeney never said that such a sanctified un-baptized soul can be damned (which would be ludicrous); though he insisted that God would still provide the sacrament in this life … or the next (as He did innumerable times by raising un-baptized souls from the “dead” for the express purpose of water baptism).

 So yes, Robert, the distinction between justification and salvation, though valid, is somewhat forced in the context under discussion: that of a catechumen who, we presume, may die united to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity (in a state of grace) without benefit of the sacrament. While we are allowed to hold that God will still provide the sacrament (not because He “must”, but because He wishes to “perfect” the justified soul with the full benefit of the gifts only the sacrament can bestow), we are not allowed to accuse the Church of error or to deny the obvious sense and meaning of both the Catechism of Trent and the CCC (and other magisterial documents).

 That was a rather winding explanation as to why the SBC can properly hold the exclusive sense of “or”, while drawing a distinction between justification and salvation.  I agree with you that the difference is somewhat forced and misleading when it suggests that a state of grace is not sufficient for salvation; but, is it an error to hold that a state of glorification is not complete without the sacramental seal of salvation?  I believe one may hold this position by suggesting that God will still provide the sacrament (at His convenience and on His schedule), but not at the expense of denying the Church’s authority in confirming the common teaching that God does not necessarily bind Himself to the sacrament to affect His desired end.

 Mike

 Robert,

 Forgive me for dragging this out, but, with the preliminaries out of the way (I hope), let me be more direct in answering your specific question, the way I understand it, and the way I understand Fr. Feeney’s position.  

 Yes, it was Fr. Feeney’s position that water was absolutely necessary, and that “or’ was used as an exclusive disjunction, as it has always been understood. But this did not force him to make a distinction between justification and salvation since the subject of Session of 6. Ch. 4 is not salvation per se, but A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace, and not necessarily the additional conditions necessary for entrance into the kingdom, such as the grace of final perseverance. Fr. Feeney simply insisted that while one may be justified by the bonds of faith and charity, the fulfillment of God’s precept remains incomplete until, like the gift of final perseverance, the sacramental laver of regeneration is received. God will provide, but Fr. Feeney was at a loss to explain what happens to a justified soul who dies without the sacrament; or he simply felt he was in no position to answer such a hypothetical (which is why he said, when asked, “I don’t know, and neither do you”).  

 It’s interesting to note that Fr. Laisney teaches that the gift of justification is not just some “emergency” substitute for baptism for a soul who is at the point of death and who does not have access to the sacrament, but is often conferred well before the sacrament is actually received. He taught that for such a sanctified soul, the sacrament remained a necessity of simple precept since the conditions for justification and salvation were already met (though we of course would never know if such a condition exists … which only begs more questions).

 But what assurance do we have that the hypothetical soul sanctified by faith, charity and desire will remain in such a state until the sacrament is received? What assurance can the soul have, in other words, that he will receive the gift of final perseverance?  

 Perhaps that helps place Fr. Feeney’s doctrine into some perspective, but for me; it is quite simple: The Church teaches that one may be sanctified through the bonds of faith and charity, and if someone dies in that same state when the sacrament is impossible to receive, his salvation, as the Catechism of Trent and the CCC teach, is assured, and that’s all we need to know. Whether our Lord chooses to confer the sacrament on this soul at the time of His choosing is open to speculation; though it is not at all foolish to suggest that He will, as even Trent seems to suggest when she declared:

 Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting. (Sess 6, Ch 7)

 Mike

R. Sungenis: Mike, forgive the delay in responding.

Regarding the issue of a difference between Justification and Salvation, my position is that this so-called difference is at best a victim of semantics in theological jargon, and at worst, an subtlety that is exploited by Fr. Feeney that ends up distorting the theological and scriptural truth of the matter.

Granted, Romans 8:29-30 makes a difference between Justification and Glorification, but there is no difference stated specifically between Justification and Salvation. "Salvation" is a general term applied to any stage of the Justification process, as well as to Glorification.

I also grant that Fr. Feeney had a legitimate position that held that merely because one is Justified now does not mean that one will make it to heaven in the future (hence the timely distinction between Justification and Glorification in Romans 8:30). One can lose his Justification but he can't lose his Glorification.

The problem comes in, however, when Fr. Feeney arbitrarily applies the distinction between Justification and Glorification to Chapter 4 of Trent's dogmas on Justification. Chapter 4 has no concern whatsoever whether the person will eventually make it to heaven. Chapter 4's only concern is what, precisely, makes the person Justified (and thus "saved") at the present time. Chapter 4's concern is: what is it that allows a man under the bondage of Adam to be translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ? The answer to that question is Baptism. That's it. There is no discussion about what that man will eventually do with his Baptismal graces. That kind of discussion is reserved for other parts of Trent's dissertation.

Hence, for Fr. Feeney to apply a distinction between Justification and Glorification to Chapter 4's discussion on the water or the desire of water to procure Justification, is simply taking Chapter 4 totally out of context. The fact of whether the man will make it to heaven or not is totally foreign to what Chapter 4 is trying to teach. And because Fr. Feeney imposed this foreign element on Chapter 4, he believed he was then justified in using it as a criterion to interpret Chapter 4, which was his second mistake.

That second mistake forces him to the position that, if the desire for the water is not eventually fulfilled in actually receiving the water, then he cannot be saved, and if he cannot be saved, then Fr. Feeney reason that there is a distinction between Justification and Salvation. No, this is distorting the purpose of Chapter 4.

Granted, if the desire for water is not eventually fulfilled by the penitent actually receiving the water, we could say that the person is deliberately going against the commands of God to have actual water applied to him. But that is a matter for the Church to decide in another venue, not Chapter 4 of Trent's dogma on Baptism.

Chapter 4's only concern is: if, at that specific time (perhaps an emergency situation), there is no water available and the person desires to be Baptized, can he receive Baptism by desire and still be Justified, and thus permitted to enter heaven if he should die immediately thereafter? The answer is yes, he can receive the Baptism by the desire for the water.

Once the emergency is over and this person returns to normal life is not the concern of Chapter 4, for that is a totally different discussion. Chapter 4 is only concerned with the state of the person, at that particular time, in receiving baptism by desire.

Dear Robert,

For many months now I have been completely open to the fact that if Holy Scriptures teaches that the earth stands still, I will firmly believe that. It is only now that I have come to understand what the following verse truly means.

1 Paralipomenon 16:30 "Let ALL the earth be MOVED at His presence: for he hath founded the world immoveable."

Let all the PEOPLES of the earth be spiritually moved, that is let their hearts and minds be spiritually moved to the grace and presence of the Lord, because the Lord has found the PEOPLES of the earth stubborn in their hearts and minds.

For example in Acts 17:5 the word MOVED denotes a movement in the soul, "But the Jews, MOVED with envy..."

Movement of grace in souls is opposed to an immoveable (stubborn in heart) world as is denoted in: Psalms 94:8 "To day if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts"

1 Paralipomenon 16:30 is not saying that PLANET earth stands still, but that the peoples of the earth are stubborn and immoveable in their hearts and minds.

Sincerely in +JMJ,
Roger

R. Sungenis: Roger, I’m glad to hear that you are open to whether the Holy Scriptures teach that the earth does not move. That’s more than I can say for most Catholics. That being said, you need to remember that it is not only me who is saying that Scripture teaches geocentrism. This position was an absolute consensus among the Fathers and medievals, which was the very argument that St. Robert Bellarmine told to Galileo, and which he confirmed by citing the Council of Trent’s teaching that when the Father’s are in consensus we cannot deviate from them. This stance of Bellarmine’s was confirmed by Pius V’s Catechism which confirms geocentrism in four separate places; by Pope Paul V in 1616 and Pope Urban VIII in 1633, the latter confirming that heliocentrism was a “formal heresy.” So, when you venture to the position that Scripture does not teach geocentrism, you are moving against a great tide of Catholic witness, to say the least.

Second, in order to confirm a position that Scripture does not teach geocentrism, you would have to tackle a lot more in Scripture than 1 Chronicles 16:30 (1 Paralipomenon 16:30). There are over two dozen passages that explicitly teach geocentrism. 1 Chronicles 16:30 is, unfortunately, one of the shortest, and this often lends itself to being abused and distorted.

Third, in order to make any legitimate conclusions on 1 Chronicles 16:30, you will first have to do a much more thorough study of the words it uses and compare those findings to how these words are used in other similar contexts. This would require a knowledge of the Hebrew vocabulary and grammar. I cover all these aspects of the passage in my book, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume 2.

Before I copy and paste that section for your perusal, I’ll just make a few preliminary remarks:

You wrote:

"1 Paralipomenon 16:30 "Let ALL the earth be MOVED at His presence: for he hath founded the world immoveable." Let all the PEOPLES of the earth be spiritually moved, that is let their hearts and minds be spiritually moved to the grace and presence of the Lord, because the Lord has found the PEOPLES of the earth stubborn in their hearts and minds."

Apparently, your interpretation is based on your assumption that “he hath founded the world immoveable” is speaking about the hearts of the people on earth that are hard-hearted. If that were the case, then why does the next verse speak of the heavens and the earth rejoicing? They certainly can’t be rejoicing over hard-heartedness.

Second, there is nothing in the context that backs up your interpretation that “he hath founded the world immoveable” are referring to hard-heartedness. Beginning in verse 8 after the making of the text for the Ark, David makes a song of God’s exaltation which carries through to verse 36. The entire section is dealing with God’s great deeds and the salvation of Israel. There is nothing about hard-heartedness.

I think the major reason for your misinterpretation is that you are interpreting the word “founded” as if God was searching the earth’s people and “found” them in some kind of disbelief. Although this idea may be true in other passages, that is not the message in 1 Chronicles 16:30. The word “founded” is the Hebrew KUN, which simply means “established.” It does not mean that God “found” something after he looked for it. You are simply confusing the word “found” (as in finding something) with the word “founded” (as in establishing something). They are two totally different concepts. If the verse had said “he hath found the world immoveable” you might have some credence to your idea, but it says “founded,” as in God doing something to the earth, not observing something in the earth.

With that, allow me to give you the portion of Galileo Was Wrong that deals more in depth with 1 Chronicles 16:30:

1Chronicles 16:30

Tremble before him, all the earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalm 93:1-2 

¹The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

²thy throne is established from of old; thou art from everlasting.

The point of these passages is to portray the Lord’s majesty and strength, as a king who wears his royal robes signifies that he reigns supreme over all the land and has subdued all his enemies. One specific display of the Lord’s power is that he has established the world so that it cannot move. Like the throne of a king that does not move unless by his order, so the world has been set and will not be moved.

Although the comparison between the strength of God and the stability of the world is quite evident in the passage, there are very few options available regarding the meaning of the “establishment of the world” if one seeks to make a legitimate comparison to God. The world cannot refer to the political machinations of the nations, for they shift quite frequently. It could not refer to the whole universe, since if the universe were moved, to where would it move? The best way the Psalmist’s analogy can have its intended effect is if an object exists that is unmoved in the midst of all other objects that are moving. For example, if the Psalmist were referring to an unmoving Earth, then the image displayed by Ps 93:1 would be most accurate, for the Earth would be the only body at rest in the midst of a sea of moving bodies in the heavens. The Earth would be the only foundation point; the only immovable object, and thus the best example to picture of the immutability of God himself. More to the point is that Ps 93:2 adds that God’s throne is also “established.”[1] Logically, if his throne does not move then the world cannot move. The intended imagery would be identical to passages that call the Earth the “Lord’s footstool,” since footstools are understood to be at rest, not moving.[2]

Some might object that the phrase “shall never be moved” could also be translated as “shall never be shaken.” If that is the case, then one could argue that a “shaking of the world” could have some political overtones. This might be true, except for the fact that the political systems of the world are inherently unstable, and thus they would not make a good comparison in displaying the strength and throne of God almighty. Conversely, the physical world, marked as it is by times and seasons that have been repeating themselves in exact precision for eons, is the only possible “world” that could be compared to the infinite stability of God.

In actuality, if the proper translation were “shaken” rather than “moved,” this would only enhance the imagery of an immobile Earth, for this interpretation would require that the Earth be so firm in its position that it would not only be prohibited from rotating or revolving, but it would also be prohibited from shaking. As we learned in the science portion of this work, the Earth is held in space by the combined torque of the whole universe. To move the Earth would require that it overcome the combined torque of the universe. Consequently, we can see why this particular Hebrew word (mōht) for “move” or “shaken” was chosen, since it includes the Earth’s resistance to even the slightest outside movement.[3] If vibration occurs, it will occur within the internal structure of the Earth but not with respect to the Earth’s position in space. In fact, the reason earthquakes occur is that the internal movements within the Earth are rubbing against the external forces that are keeping the Earth immobile in space.

The only other detail of Ps 93:1-2 regards the meaning and usage of the word “world.” As it stands, the Hebrew consistently uses the term in reference to the earth, not the universe at large.[4] Hence, it is the Earth alone that is kept immobile, not the universe.

Psalm 96:9-11

⁹Worship the Lord in holy array; tremble before him, all the earth!

¹⁰Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.”

¹¹Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it;

Here again the Hebrew ,wK kun and fwm mōht appear in tandem. Although it would be proper to interpret kun (“established”) and mōht (“moved”) as words conveying the idea that the Lord’s reign over the nations is such that it will be uninterrupted and always produce justice, the unavoidable dimension of this passage is that the Lord’s reign is being compared to the already known fact of the world’s immovability, and it is the Hebrew poetic form that brings these two dimensions into comparison. Without the poetic form, the passage could have simply stated: “The Lord’s reign is established and it shall never be moved, he will judge the people with equity,” and the salient point of the Psalmist would have been accomplished nonetheless. But within the poetic form, the Psalmist is drawing on facts he and other authors have stated elsewhere about the world’s establishment and immobility, such as Ps 104:5: “Thou didst set the Earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken” or 1Ch 16:30: “tremble before him, all the Earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” In other words, he is using the scientific fact of the Earth’s motionlessness as the basis for the analogy as to why the Lord will always reign and judge with equanimity. Both states will always be true: (1) the Lord will reign with equity, and (2) the world will never move. One verifies and supports the other. If one fails, the other fails also.

We can imagine how difficult it would have been for the Psalmist to prove his point if, indeed, the world was constantly moving through space. If it were a fact that the Earth was moving, the Pslamist would, instead, have had to make a comparison between the stability of the Earth’s orbit and the stability of the Lord’s reign. In actuality, however, he cannot do so, because previously he had made a comparison between the stability of the Lord’s reign and the orbit of the sun (e.g., Ps 19:4-14), and thus it would not be permissible now to compare the Lord’s reign to the orbit of the Earth, since obviously both the sun and the Earth cannot be orbiting around each other.[5]

On a theoretical basis, one might object that since the Psalmist regards the sun as orbiting the Earth he could just have easily regarded the Earth as orbiting the sun, since both systems are equivalent, geometrically speaking. But although the geometrical reciprocity between the two celestial models is true, the Psalmist is working from a perspective of propositional truth that will only allow him to appeal to the actual celestial model and force him to discount its geometric or mathematical equivalent. That is, since the Psalmist’s major point concerns the eternal stability of God’s reign, he can only communicate that important truth analogously if he knows which celestial model is actually true, the heliocentric or the geocentric. Any false information will necessarily negate his analogy.

To say it another way, although one could argue that from a relativistic perspective the Psalmist has the option of using the stability of an orbiting Earth as the analog to the Lord’s stable reign, the fact remains that he, in the general scope of his Psalmic writings, chooses an immobile Earth (Ps 96:10) and a moving sun (Ps 104:4-6). This choice is significant, since in order to make the analogy he is proposing valid, the Psalmist must base it on an incontrovertible scientific fact. If he chooses the wrong celestial model, his very purpose in creating the analogy is defeated, for the Lord’s reign cannot be compared to something fictitious. Either the Earth is fixed and the sun moves around it, or the sun is fixed and the Earth moves around it. Both cannot be true, and the Psalmist must adopt the correct one in order for his analogy to be genuine.

In retrospect, we can see why the Psalmist does not state cosmological truths as mere brute facts. Rather, to make the strongest argument, he purposely compares the immobility of the Earth to the unshakable reign of the Lord, since in serving as witnesses to one another, both must be absolutely true, or, consequently, both are absolutely false. Similar to instances in which God swears to Himself because he can find no one greater to serve as a witness (cf. Hb 6:13-18), so here in the Psalms we have the Lord comparing his unflappable divine justice to a divinely-set immovable object.

Some might object, however, that passages such as Ps 82:5 (“They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken”) contradict the above conclusion that the Earth does not shake. A careful comparison, however, will show that Ps 82:5 specifies that the “foundations” of the Earth, not the Earth itself, are shaken, while Ps 96:10 says that the world, in its totality, will not be shaken or moved.[6] As noted earlier, the “foundations” of the Earth are part of the inner structure of the Earth which lie beneath its surface. The foundations may shake but they will not move the Earth itself out of the position in space God has given it.

Psalm 75:2-4

²At the set time which I appoint I will judge with equity.

³When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars. Selah

⁴I say to the boastful, “Do not boast,” and to the wicked, “Do not lift up your horn.”

Here the “tottering” refers to the Earth’s land mass, not the Earth’s position in space. Although the land mass may totter, and perhaps even vibrate its pillars, ultimately God holds the pillars in position and the Earth’s surface remains firm. The Hebrew word for “totters” is gwm (moog), which refers mostly to “melting” or some kind of structural weakening.[7] Similar to all the other Psalms that speak in this same way, the movement attributed to the Earth refers to its internal structure, not its spatial position in the cosmos.     

Psalm 104:5, 19

⁵Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

¹⁹Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.

This Psalm makes an important distinction from the other Psalms that speak of the foundations of the Earth shaking, particularly Ps 82:5 (“They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken”). Ps 104:5 is very similar to Ps 96:10: “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved,” since both passages are speaking about the Earth’s position in space. The word for “foundations” in Ps 104:5 is not the normal word used for “foundations of the Earth,” but the Hebrew ,Wkm (mahchon), which refers to a fixed place.[8] As such, it is referring to the fact that the Earth is positioned in its spatial foundation (e.g., Jb 26:7: “he…hangs the Earth upon nothing”) from which it cannot be moved or shaken. Additionally, in contrast to the Earth’s spatial immobility, the Psalmist speaks in vr. 19 of both the moon and the sun moving in space to accomplish their particular tasks.

Psalm 119:89-91

⁸⁹For ever, O Lord, thy word is firmly fixed in the heavens.

⁹⁰Thy faithfulness endures to all generations; thou hast established the earth, and it stands fast.

⁹¹By thy appointment they stand this day; for all things are thy servants.

There are several interesting features to this passage. First, the phrase “stands fast” is from the Hebrew dme (amad), the same word appearing in Joshua 10:12-13 in reference to the sun and moon that temporarily had no spatial movement in the sky. But here in Psalm 119 it is applied to the Earth that is always without movement. It does not refer merely to the existence of the Earth, since the preponderant usage of amad in Hebrew refers to the lack of motion or the deliberate cessation of motion.[9] Amad is also the word behind the phrase “they stand” in vr. 91, although it is in the plural since it is referring to both “all generations” and the “Earth.” By the same token, the Psalmist is careful not to imply that the “heavens” themselves stand fast like the Earth; rather, the heavens are merely an indication of the general steadfastness of the Lord’s word.[10] As was the case in Ps 96:9-11, the Psalmist is comparing the very character of God to the scientific fact of the Earth’s motionlessness. One fact supports the other. 

[1] Ps 93:1 and 93:2 use the same Hebrew word for “established,” the word ,wK (kun), which appears over a hundred times in the Old Testament in most of the Hebrew tenses. In vr. 1 it is utilized in the Niphal imperfect and in vr. 2 in the Niphal participle, which is the simplest of the passive tenses. Although kun includes the concept of an original founding date (e.g., “the building was established in 1955”), it also includes the concept of stability and longevity (e.g., “the rock of Gibraltar was established”). Kun also refers to rest or immobility (Jg 16:26: “and Samson said to the lad who held him by the hand, ‘Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests’”; 16:29: “And Samson grasped the two middle pillars upon which the house rested”; Er 3:3: “They set the altar in its place”).

[2] Is 66:1; Mt 5:35. In all of these passages the notion of “rest” for the Lord’s footstool is emphasized: Is 66:1: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?”; 1Ch 28:2: “I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God”; Ps 132:7-8: “Let us go to his dwelling place; let us worship at his footstool! Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might” (see also Ac 7:49). “Rest,” of course, refers to motionlessness, which is appropriate in the Earth’s case only if it is not moving through space.

[3] Hebrew: fwm (mōht) appears 39 times in the Old Testament, 20 in the Psalms. The Qal form appears 13 times, 23 times in the Niphal, and one each in the Hiphil and Hithpael. It can refer to things as simple as slipping with the foot (Dt 32:35; Ps 17:5; 38:16-17) to moving the earth (Ps 82:5; Is 24:19). Mōht, in the physical sense, refers to the transition from a state of rest to a state of movement; in the figurative sense, from a state of stability to a state of instability. Of all the words in Hebrew referring to movement (e.g., ;pj, ;rj, ddn, ewn, qwp, [jr, et al) fwm (mōht) is used when any, even the slightest movement, is in view. Hence, it can refer to a shaking or vibration as well as a change of location.

[4] Hebrew: lbt (tebel) appears 38 times in the Old Testament. It is often a poetic synonym of ;ra (erets) referring to the “earth” (e.g., 1Sm 2:8; Ps 33:8; 77:18; 90:2; Is 34:1; Lm 4:12), but in non-poetic contexts it sometimes has a larger focus than the physical world and may include the more abstract notions associated with existence, such as the totality of human consciousness (e.g., Is 24:4; 26:9). In the non-poetic passages that tebel is used without erets, tebel always refers to the earth or that which is inhabited by mankind (e.g., 2Sm 22:16; Is 13:11; 14:17, 21; 18:3), not to the universe at large.

[5] Moreover, mutual orbiting around a common center of mass will also not satisfy the Psalmist since in that case neither the sun revolves around the Earth nor the Earth revolves around the sun.

[6] The same emphasis on the “foundations” is noted in the following passages: Ps 18:7: “Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations also of the mountains trembled and quaked, because he was angry.” Similar rationale can be applied to Ps 46:2; 60:2; 68:8; 97:4; 99:1; 104:32.

[7] Hebrew gwm (moog), appears 17 times in the Old Testament, mostly as “melt” (e.g., Ex 15:15; Ps 46:6; Am 9:5), sometimes “faint” (e.g., Js 2:9; Jr 49:23). Ps 75:3 is in the Niphal participle (“when the Earth and its inhabitants are melting…”).

[8] Hebrew ,Wkm (mahchon) appears 17 times in the Old  Testament, and refers to a settled and immovable place. In 16 of the references it refers to God’s dwelling place that is impenetrable and immovable (e.g., Ex 15:17; 1Kg 8:13, 39, 43, 49; 2Ch 6:2, 30, 33, 39; Er 2:68; Ps 33:14; 89:14; 97:2; Is 4:5; 18:4). The only time God’s “place” is moved is in the apostasy (Dn 8:11). The word ,Wkm is applied to the Earth once (Ps 104:5), which states that the Earth is set into its ,Wkm, from which it cannot be shaken or moved. A similar word is hnWkm, the feminine form of ,Wkm, which appears 24 times and is normally translated as “stands” or “base” (1Kg 7:27-43).

[9] Hebrew dme (amad) appears over 500 times in the Old Testament, usually denoting the conscious decision of the individual to cease motion and remain in a certain position (e.g., Gn 19:27; 41:46; 2Ch 34:31).

[10] The RSV’s “firmly fixed” in Ps 119:89 is the Hebrew bxn (nahtzab), a frequently used word in the Old Testament referring to something built or erected with firmness or authority.