Dear Robert,

I understood everything you wrote.  I know very well that the Ordinary Magisterium is as Divinely Revealed as solemnly pronounced decrees and is to be believed under pain of mortal sin as was declared infallibly by the First Vatican Council.

All I am trying to show is that beliefs in Physics not concerning faith and morals, are not binding under pain of mortal sin.

As I mentioned earlier: Physics is a distinct science from moral science and not a sub-division.  Clearly the Church can not err in matters of faith and morals which it has authority over. I believe that the science of Physics is not necessarily an integral part of the teaching Authority of the Church, its Magisterium.

R. Sungenis: I never said it was, Roger. The matter of physics being binding or not binding is your addition to this discussion, not mine. And if I may say so, it is a red herring. I only asked you to use physics to prove your contentions about the earth going around the sun. Since you haven’t, then you are obligated to believe in geocentrism because that is what the Church has traditionally taught and has never rescinded it, as a matter of faith and morals.

Roger: Even science, that is, what we can conclude with our natural intellect and reason (philosophy), can not prove either way whether the Earth stands still in a revolving universe or not.  Since Philosophy can not prove this, then the issue remains a Mystery to us, because Theology deals with matters concerning faith and morals directly revealed by God. 

R. Sungenis: This is where you either go off the track or simply won’t accept how the Church has argued against your position. It is not a “mystery,” as you call it. The Church has never called it a mystery. That is simply your invention to escape the inevitable. The Church has plainly said in a consensus of the Fathers, the Tridentine Catechism, and by numerous popes that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is motionless. The Church based this conclusion on its traditional reading of Scripture. So where’s the “mystery,” Roger?

The only thing mysterious is why Roger Owen won’t accept the historical and scriptural evidence against his position when it is so overwhelming. Something is holding you back, and I think it’s the embarrassment of having to hold a position that 99% of the world rejects, including many of your “traditionalist” colleagues who won’t take the time to study the issue (I know because I’ve talked with many of them).

All your references to “philosophy” and “physics” don’t amount to much, since I’m not arguing that physics is faith and morals. I am arguing that believing Scripture for what it literally says is faith and morals. It doesn’t matter whether Scripture says the bread turns into Christ’s body or the sun goes around the earth. Both are difficult to accept, but we accept them because Scripture says so.

If you refuse to accept what Scripture says regarding geocentrism (as it was interpreted by the Fathers, medieval and popes), then you better have a good reason for doing so, that is, you better have absolute irrefutable scientific proof for your denial. But as far as I see, you not only have no irrefutable proof, you know very little about the physical laws of the universe.  

Roger: Saint Thomas also refers to "that which is revealable" in Theology from Philosophy; because of this, the issue still remains a mystery. An OPINION either way will not condemn us just as having an opinion on the nature of the smallest sub-atomic particle, also will not condemn us.

R. Sungenis: That kind of argument won’t save you, Roger, for the simple fact that Scripture says nothing about sub-atomic particles but it gives us reams of information about what body goes around what other body. The Church has said next to nothing about sub-atomic particles, but it has said reams for almost two millennia about what goes around what in outer space. Hence, you are entitled to hold any opinion you want about subatomic particles, but not about whether the Earth is motionless in space.

Roger: I am inclined to believe that every object in the Universe is in some kind of orbit, because of the property of inertia that all mater possesses, that objects tend always remain in motion or accelerate unless outside physical forces decelerate them to rest.  Because of the nature of time, objects are always changing position, just as emotions can move our soul toward virtue or sin, again due to the nature of time itself.

In +JMJ,
Roger

R. Sungenis: Yes, Roger, I’m also inclined to believe that every object in the universe is in some kind of orbit, but there is one unique place you haven’t considered yet. It is the one place of no motion, and there is only one place like that in the universe. It is called the center of mass. The very person you are referencing above to establish the principle of inertia (Newton) is the same person who said that there is no motion at the universe’s center of mass, and he said that the Earth could, indeed, occupy that position. If you are going to use physics to support yourself, Roger, then use it also where it may not support your preconceived notions.

Dear Robert,

If you can show me an Ex Cathedra pronouncement concerning the earth and the sun, I will believe.  I only believe what the Church teaches which is in matters of faith and morals.  It is a dogmatic principle that the Church can not err in matters of faith and morals.  Physics is a distinct science from moral science and not a sub-division.

In +JMJ,

Roger

R. Sungenis: Roger, the burden is not on me to show an ex cathedra pronouncement that the sun revolves around the earth, since the larger percentage of our faith does not rest on ex cathedra papal pronouncements. Papal ex Cathedra pronouncements are extremely rare and are only given when it is absolutely necessary to do so.

By the same token, however, I could turn the tables against you. As Cardinal Bellarmine argued against Galileo, the infallible Council of Trent declared that no interpretation can be accepted that goes against the consensus of the Church Fathers. Bellarmine, backed and approved by decrees of Pope Paul V, told Galileo that the Church Fathers were in consensus on geocentrism and they opposed, in consensus, the heliocentrism taught by Pythagoras, since the Fathers all believed that Scripture divinely revealed that the sun revolved around the earth. The Council of Trent was approved by the then reigning pope, and he did so infallibly, as I’m sure you would agree.  

So, there you have it – an infallible pronouncement regarding the necessity to believe in geocentrism. The logical question is, why do you hold it in contempt, especially when you have provided no scientific proof that heliocentrism is correct and geocentrism is wrong? At the least, you should be siding with the Church’s judgment until, if and when, you find scientific proof to the contrary (which, incidentally, was the same argument that Bellarmine gave to Galileo). Your position should be to accept geocentrism humbly and docily until you find irrefutable scientific proof against it; not automatically reject geocentrism based on the flimsy claims of modern science which you know relies on atheism for all its conclusions and interpretations.

More to the point, the burden is on you to convince us that the Holy Spirit would mislead all of the Fathers, all of the medievals, numerous popes and Trent’s catechism to proclaim officially by the ordinary magisterium for over 1800 years that the sun revolves around the earth, and do so by teaching us that Scripture cannot lie and must be interpreted literally unless there is irrefutable proof to the contrary. To claim that you will not believe unless you see an “ex cathedra” statement makes a mockery of our tradition, in addition to subjecting the ordinary magisterium to the most devilish and erroneous of beliefs in matters of faith and morals. In light of this overwhelming tradition facing against you, your demand for a “miraculous” ex cathedra pronouncement reminds me of the people in Jesus’ day who said, “show us a miracle and we will believe,” when, in fact, Jesus’ ordinary teaching was sufficient to show that he was who he said he was. They simply didn’t want to believe him because they had another agenda to promote.

While we are on the subject, let’s look a little close at Vatican I’s teaching on ex cathedra and ordinary magisterial teachings:

“Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.” Denz 1792

As you can see, in regard to “those things proposed by the Church,” Vatican I makes no distinction between a “solemn pronouncement” (an infallible, ex cathedra, definition) and the ordinary magisterium, insofar as it concerns the truth of a doctrine. Both sources are to be considered as “divinely revealed.” Hence, if the condemnations of heliocentrism, which were “declared and defined” as being “formally heretical” and “erroneous in faith” were not “solemn pronouncements,” it follows that they were then authoritative decisions from the “ordinary magisterium,” and are likewise to be understood as “divinely revealed.”

Let’s move on. Vatican I also said:

“By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known.” 

In this case, the matter of geocentrism, which, on one level, the Church proposed as a “matter of faith,” it is a fact that modern science, especially the relativistic forms, admits that it cannot determine whether the Earth moves or is stationary. In effect, the immobility of the Earth is something that can only be revealed by “divine faith.”

Vatican I then says:

“But, although faith is above reason, nevertheless, between faith and reason no true dissension can ever exist, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed on the human soul the light of reason; moreover, God cannot deny Himself, nor ever contradict truth with truth. But, a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this, that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church, or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations of reason. Therefore, “every assertion contrary to the truth illuminated by faith, we define to be altogether false.”

In regards to the issue of geocentrism, both of the above warnings come into play: (a) Cardinal Bellarmine informed Galileo that geocentrism was a “matter of faith” and that the Church, based on the consensus of the Fathers, could not interpret Scripture in opposition to the same literal interpretation that had been passed down to it through the preceding centuries. In essence, Galileo was accused of not interpreting Scripture “according to the mind of the Church”; (b) since false claims of scientific proof for heliocentrism were consistently being advanced (e.g., Foscarini, Galileo, Kepler, Bradley, Settele, Boscovich, Newton, Bessel), and from which many people became convinced that heliocentrism was correct, these would have to be classed as “deceitful opinions [that] are considered as the determinations of reason.”

Vatican I also says:

“Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine Providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” [1Tm 6:20], “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” [Cl 2:8]. Wherefore, all faithful Christians not only are forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.”

Obviously, Galileo was “forbidden to defend opinions” of “knowledge falsely so called,” concerning the claims of science that asserted the Earth revolved around the sun.  Galileo was reminded in 1633 that heliocentrism, as early as 1616, had already been “declared and defined as opposed to Scripture,” and was now declared to be “formally heretical” and “erroneous in faith” in 1633. Hence, the Church made it known that heliocentrism was, in the language of Vatican I, “known to be contrary to the teaching of faith,” since it had clearly “been condemned by the Church,” even though it was commonly believed to be a “legitimate conclusion of science.” These “legitimate conclusions,” the Church warned, could “present a false appearance of truth,” which is certainly the case for heliocentrism since geocentrism can be demonstrated to work just as well on a geometric basis. It is quite clear that the ordinary magisterium can, without invoking infallibility, declare these theoretical beliefs of science as propping up a “false appearance,” and are thus “formally heretical” and “erroneous.” It is clear that this was done in 1616, 1633 and 1664, and these teachings against heliocentrism were never officially and formally rescinded or reformed.

Vatican I then says:

“And, not only can faith and reason never be at variance with one another, but they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illumined by its light, perfects the knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge. Wherefore, the Church is so far from objecting to the culture of the human arts and sciences, that it aids and promotes this cultivation in many ways. For, it is not ignorant of, nor does it despise the advantages flowing therefrom into human life; nay, it confesses that, just as they have come forth from "God, the Lord of knowledge" [1 Samuel 2:3], so, if rightly handled, they lead to God by the aid of His grace. And it (the Church) does not forbid disciplines of this kind, each in its own sphere, to use its own principles and its own method; but, although recognizing this freedom, it continually warns them not to fall into errors by opposition to divine doctrine, nor, having transgressed their own proper limits, to be busy with and to disturb those matters which belong to faith.”

If, for example, “right reasoning” was employed in 1887 when the Michelson-Morley experiment was preformed, it would have shown that a slight impedance of light’s velocity would be due to the rotation of space around a stationary Earth and not because matter shrinked when it moved or that time slowed down. In that case “reason” would have worked very well with “faith.” But Einstein, being an atheist, had no faith. He ridiculed Christianity. Therefore, he would consider the rotation of space around a stationary Earth as “unthinkable,” and his colleague Edwin Hubble, a like-minded atheist, even though he saw through his telescope evidence that the Earth was in the center of the universe, rejected it as a “horrible” conclusion and something that must be “avoided at all costs.” Faith in Scripture could have provided the necessary boundaries for the crucial interpretations of the scientific experiments of the late 1800s and 1900s. Science would have been spared the wild goose chase it was forced to run as it began inventing a world in which twins age at different rates, clocks slow down at will, matter shrinks upon movement, where one is forced to say that up may be down and left may be right in order to have at least some answer to the crucial experiments. As Thomas Aquinas put it:

The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology, must be condemned as false. (Summa Theologica, I, Ques. 1, Art. 6, ad. 2.)

Lumen Gentium

Perhaps the most significant reason why the doctrine of geocentrism should be considered infallible comes, quite surprisingly, from one of the more modern declarations concerning the teachings of the Church. Earlier we quoted from Lumen Gentium 25 to show that Catholics are required to give obedience to both infallible and non-infallible teachings of the Church. Yet Lumen Gentium contains an even more significant requirement for obedience in regards to geocentric doctrine, and it certainly seems to make the doctrine infallible. It is stated in Paragraph 12:

The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15).  The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27)  cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei)  of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful”  they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13),  the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3).  The people unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.

Since it is a fact that the “People of God,” which includes “the bishops to the last of the faithful,” have believed unanimously, firmly and without equivocation in the doctrine of geocentrism from the beginning of the Catholic Church and throughout two millennia, and who were “guided by the sacred teaching authority” to do so, this belief necessarily fulfills the criteria of Lumen Gentium 12 that these same People of God “cannot err.” It is an undeniable fact that all the Fathers, all the medievals, all the bishops, priests, saints, doctors, theologians and the remaining Christian faithful of every nation believed in the doctrine of geocentrism. Additionally, three popes and their Holy Offices officially confirmed this absolute consensus in the 17th century against a few men who, because of their own misguided convictions, sought to depart from that consensus, making the attempt in the wake of unproven scientific claims with the express purpose of reinstituting a novel and subjective interpretation of Holy Writ.

As we have seen, even many years after modern science began to treat heliocentrism as a scientific fact, the Catholic faithful still maintained their vigilance for geocentric doctrine. It has only been in the last one hundred years or so that this consensus has waned.

Because of the waning consensus, some objectors might themselves appeal to the principle of Lumen Gentium 12 and posit that the Holy Spirit is now teaching the “People of God” that heliocentrism has been correct all along. But that notion, of course, is impossible, since the “People of God” could not have been “aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth” into believing that geocentrism was correct for 1900 years and then have the Spirit suddenly change His mind to teach them the opposite. It would make the Holy Spirit a liar, which is certainly impossible. The reality is, if the “People of God” were led to believe that geocentrism was the truth, and which was, according to the stipulations of Lumen Gentium 12, “guided by the magisterium” to confirm their consensus, then there is simply no possibility that a change in their belief could be understood as a movement of the Holy Spirit.

The above facts, sadly enough, leave open only one other possibility for the shift in thinking against geocentrism, yet a shift that is taught and confirmed by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Quite simply, for the present people of the world to depart from the previous consensus of the “People of God” means that the people have been led astray by false teachings. Is such deception possible on a mass scale? According to Scripture and Tradition, it is not only possible, it is predicted to happen some time before the return of Christ. A worldwide apostasy from the faith predicted by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 may be the only possible reason why the masses could depart from almost two millennia of consistent personal belief and magisterial decrees, not only concerning the doctrine of geocentrism, but every doctrine that is affected by the same non-literal and “historically critical” hermeneutic foisted on the Church in the last hundred years. As we noted earlier, the new hermeneutic, spawned as it was by insisting that Scripture could be interpreted figuratively where it was once interpreted literally, coupled with the idea that Scripture could err when it addressed non-salvation topics, has totally undermined man’s docile belief in Holy Writ in the modern age.

Another possibility is that the current rejection of the Church’s original teaching on both cosmogony and cosmology is following the pattern of blindness to which Jesus alerted us in the Gospels. For example, in Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees about divorce, we learn that the practice was common in Israel, so much so that almost all the populace believed that it was one’s God-given right to divorce one’s spouse. For a long time, the illusion of the freedom to divorce seemed to be a positive societal development permitted by God, even as heliocentrism and evolution presently enjoy the same apparent freedom today. So confident were the people in their lifestyle of divorce that they brought the issue to Jesus even though they already knew He had condemned divorce. They reasoned that they could catch Him denying both the Mosaic law and ultimately God’s law which inspired Moses to allow divorce. Jesus, as He always managed to do when He was being tested by hypocrites, turned the tables on them. Little did the divorce advocates realize, until Jesus opened their eyes to the stark reality, that their belief in divorce, which opposed the original decree of God, was given to them not because God discovered a better way for them to manage marital conflicts, but for nothing more than the “hardness of their hearts.” In other words, Moses, under God’s direction, allowed them to divorce because the people were spiritually destitute. It is a divine principle that is often displayed in Scripture – God turns the rebel over to his own desires as a punishment for his rebellion.  Similarly, many today are enjoying the illiusion that they have permission to believe and practice many things that were once condemned, claiming that modern science has enlightened them to a new way of life (contraception, artificial insemination, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, eugenics, abortion, same-sex marriage and child adoption, etc.). They believe that society has been enlightened as never before to wonderful inventions and increased knowledge for the benefit of the human race. But in reality, nothing has changed in Scripture, Tradition or the Catholic Magisterium. The inventions and knowledge only make them sin faster than they ever did before. They believe in false notions and engage in immoral practices because they have been deceived by the hardness of their own hearts.  

These examples, however, are not to say that those who do not believe in geocentrism are either no longer individually faithful to the Catholic Church or that they are an integral part of the apostasy. The masses cannot be blamed for what they have been taught by their authorities. It only means that one of the signs of the general apostasy predicted by Holy Scripture will be a general and pervasive turning away from the previously accepted truths of Scripture and Tradition. The mass rejection of geocentrism is just one sign of that eventuality.

In the words of Catholic scientist, author, and professor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Wolfgang Smith:

Today, four centuries later, what lay concealed in that beginning has become clearly manifest, for all to see; as Arthur Koestler has said, it is “as if a new race had arisen on this planet.” Could this be the reason why St. Malachy, in his famous prophesies, has characterized the reign of Pope Paul V (1605-1628) by alluding to the birth of “a perverse race”? One needs to recall that what is sometimes termed the first Galileo trial took place in the year 1616. What, then, could be the “perverse race” to which the saintly prophet refers? Given that Galileo is indeed “the father of modern science,” one is compelled to answer that it is none other than the race of modern scientists, and by extension, the community of individuals imbued with the modern scientistic outlook….

As everyone knows, Galileo was formally tried in 1633 and forced to recant his Copernican convictions. The proposition that the Sun constitutes the immobile center of the universe was declared to be “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures.” And so the matter stood until 1822, when, under the reign of Pius VII, the Church commenced to soften its stand with regard to what it termed “the general opinion of modern astronomers.” Thus began a process of accommodation with “the new race” which came to a head in 1979, when Pope John Paul II charged the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to re-open the Galileo case, and if need be, to reverse the verdict of 1633. Given the mentality which came to the fore in the wake of Vatican II, the outcome of that inquiry was never in doubt: Galileo was exonerated – some would say, “canonized” – following which Pope John Paul II in effect apologized to the world for wrongs committed by the Church. Could this be the reason, perhaps, why St. Malachy alludes to this Pope in the enigmatic words “De Labore Solis”? To be sure, the phrase, which traditionally refers to the movement of the Sun, does relate to Galileo, the man who denied that the Sun does move. Could it be, then, that St. Malachy, having previously signaled the birth of a “perverse race,” is now alluding to the fact that some four hundred years later the Church has reversed its stand and relinquished its opposition to that “race,” which is to say, to that new philosophy? Certainly St. Malachy’s allusion can be interpreted in other ways as well; for example, “De Labore Solis” might be taken as a reference to the fact that this Pope, who has traveled far more extensively than any of his predecessors, has so many times “circled the globe” in his papal airliner (named, interestingly enough, “Galileo”).

But be that as it may, the fact remains that the Church has now joined the rest of Western society in adopting a scientistic worldview; during the reign of Pope John Paul II, and with his sanction, a Copernican Revolution has finally taken place within the Church itself. Yet, to be precise, it is not the Church as such that has undergone change – that has “evolved,” as the expression goes – but what has changed is simply the orientation of its human representatives: it is Rome, let us say, that has reversed its position. Humanly speaking, the ecclesiastic establishment may have opted for the only viable course: given the sophistication and prowess of contemporary science – given the “great signs and wonders” that could deceive even the elect – it may not indeed be feasible to stem the mounting tide of scientistic belief. Nonetheless one must insist, in light of our preceding analysis, that the contemporary cosmology, in any of its forms, is not in fact compatible with Christian doctrine. To the extent, therefore, that Rome has embraced a scientistic outlook, it has compromised the true teaching of the Church: this is the crux of the matter. Call it human failing, call it “political correctness,” call it apostasy – the fact is that Rome has become “a house divided against itself.” (Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology: Contemporary Science in Light of Tradition, 2003, pp. 180-181.)

In addition to all this evidence, you must also face the fact that the Church, neither in its extraordinary or ordinary magisterium, has never rescinded the canonical judgment either against Galileo or against heliocentrism as “formally heretical.” According to the magisterium and the code of canon law, canonical judgments are binding unless lifted. The weight against you is overwhelming, Roger. As Jesus said to Paul, why do you kick against the pricks?

Dear Robert,

I spoke with a Traditional Catholic Pilot, and he told me that planes have navigational inertial computers such that longitude and latitude are entered and the rotation of the earth about its axis is compensated for in travel calculations.

R. Sungenis: Roger, vague and ambiguous claims don’t mean anything. Before you make any conclusions about this, ask the pilot what he means when he says “the rotation of the earth about its axis is compensated for in travel calculation.” What is being compensated for, and how is it compensated, and by what means is it compensated? If he is merely talking about the different rates of rotation he must calculate at the equator as opposed to other latitudes, then that doesn’t prove anything for you. See below.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roger: This can be demonstrated by comparing the time it takes to walk the same distance at the same speed, against a tread mill compared to walking with(opposite direction) the tread mill.

R. Sungenis: Analogies with tread mills don’t prove the earth is rotating, since tread mills don’t have gravity and centrifugal forces significant enough to affect your body. A plane traveling east or west is heavily influenced by both.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roger: Also he said that the earth's rotation about its axis is calculated for, in re-entry of space craft such as the space shuttle, into the earth's atmosphere to determine landing position.

R. Sungenis: But it doesn’t prove the earth is rotating. It only proves that the space shuttle has to calculate where the landing spot will be before it lands. Whether the earth is rotating (against the shuttle) or the universe is rotating (with the shuttle) is not something that can be determined by the space shuttle. If the universe, with the space shuttle in tow, is rotating around the earth, it will appear to the astronauts in the space shuttle that the earth is rotating.

Moreover, the same centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler forces will be present whether the universe is rotating with the shuttle around the earth or the earth is rotating in fixed universe against the shuttle. There is no difference between the two systems. Unfortunately, you are not grasping that fact, and this misunderstanding leads to your use of tread mill analogies that don’t prove your point.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roger: If the sun were orbiting the earth, then the earth's gravity would have to be so tremendously strong to keep the sun in orbit, causing the moon to orbit around the earth at a phenomenal rate (faster than one orbit per hour) and no one would be able to walk but people would collapse into the earth.

R. Sungenis: No, and unfortunately, this is the most misunderstood aspect of the whole discussion. Granted, if you had only the sun and the earth in the system, the sun could never revolve around the earth. That’s called a “two-body system” in physics. But our universe is not a two-body system. There are trillions of stars, each with its own gravitational pull, that affect our earth-sun system.

Popular science has already admitted this, since it believes the sun revolves around stars in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way revolves around other systems. Hence, if the center of the Milky Way galaxy affects the sun, you can depend upon it that the stars surrounding the sun & earth in the geocentric system greatly affect the sun & earth.

As such, the stars can be strategically placed so that the earth can serve as the center of mass of the universe. Newton already admitted this. In his Principia he writes: “That the center of the system of the world is immovable. This is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center” (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roger: This can be demonstrated by swinging a tennis ball attached to a string around with one's arm and finding that by pulling the string inwards, the tennis ball orbits at a much faster rate due to centripetal and centrifugal force.

R. Sungenis: The tennis ball will revolve around the center of mass, whatever occupies that position. The center of mass is determined by the mass and distance among ALL the bodies in the system, not just two or three. Centrifugal and centripetal force for each body will then be calculated once the center of mass is known. Again, when you have more than a two-body system, the center of mass will be determined by balancing all the remaining masses in the system. Any point or body can serve as the center of mass (sun, earth, Jupiter, Pluto, etc). It all depends on how the masses of the universe are distributed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roger: Also, seasons are caused by the angle at which the rays of the sun strike the earth. The tilt the rotation of the earth about its axis is on, is what causes the angle of the suns rays to change the way they strike the earth in its orbit around the sun causing the four seasons.

R. Sungenis: That’s only one possibility. The upward or downward movement of the sun in its horizontal plane going around a fixed earth can also cause the seasons.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roger: It is not De Fide, part of the Deposit of the Faith, that which was Divinely Revealed before the death of Saint John the Apostle, whether the sun goes around the earth, or the earth goes around the sun.  I believe that there never has been an Ex Cathedra pronouncement about something concerning Physics.  We are not bound under pain of mortal sin to believe one way or the other about the earth and the sun.

R. Sungenis: But you are bound to believe that what Scripture says is true, under pain of mortal sin. You are not permitted to depart from the literal interpretation of Scripture unless you have good and sufficient reason to do so.

As such, Scripture never says the earth moves. It always says the sun and moon and stars move.

This was the very argument that St. Robert Bellarmine gave to Galileo, and which was endorsed by Pope Paul V.

So, if you want to conclude that you can dismiss the literal meaning of Scripture and are convinced instead that science has proven that the earth moves, then what you will need to do is prove that the earth moves. So far you haven’t done so, since each scenario you pose above can be equally explained by a fixed earth in a rotating universe. If you have proof, Roger, then it must be irrefutable and incontrovertible, otherwise you are bound not to depart from the literal meaning of Scripture, under pain of mortal sin.

Moreover, if you call yourself a “traditionalist,” the tradition of the Church is against you: the Fathers in unanimous consent, the medieval in unanimous consent, the Pius V catechism, numerous popes, with one pope in 1633 approving a judgment by the Sacred Congregation stating that to say the sun revolves around the earth is “formally heretical,” and no pope or council afterward officially endorsing heliocentrism or stating that the Catholic Church no longer officially believes in geocentrism. The official decrees against heliocentrism have never been rescinded.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Roger: If we were bound to believe under pain of mortal sin in a particular way concerning the earth and the sun, then many would be condemned.  For example, my Mother (a devout Traditional Catholic) was taught in elementary school in Colombia, Long before Vatican II, Colombia being one of the most Truly Catholic Countries of that time, in science class by Truly Catholic Nuns, that the earth goes around the sun.

R. Sungenis: Your mother is not responsible for what her ecclesiastical authorities told her. That is why St. James tells us in James 3:1 “Let not many of you be teachers, brethren, since we will sustain the harsher judgment.” There are many ecclesiastical authorities today who have sinned against God and the Church by reinterpreting Scripture to their own liking. God will judge them for that breach. For example, there are popes and cardinals who personally believe that Scripture contains errors, yet this was never taught in the tradition of our Church. It only came into vogue in the 20th century, a time of great apostasy. So it doesn’t surprise me today to see high ranking clerics teach that we can ignore the traditional and literal meaning of Scripture.

Dear Dr. Sungenis, I have a question concerning Tradition. In David King's Vol. I, Holy Scripture the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, the following is said: "In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation. Regardless of the assertions of Roman apologists, when the dust settles, there is one question they cannot answer. Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?" (p. 45) My question is, if unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliabe means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, then what exactly is the content of Tradition, can that content be known and studied like the Scriptures can be? Thank you for your time, God bless Steven.

R. Sungenis: Steven, as for King’s challenge to name “one oral extrabiblical tradition demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ,” yes we can do so. It is infant baptism. Infant baptism is nowhere taught in Scripture, it is only implied. Yet the Church, according to all the ecclesiastical and patristic documents available, from the very beginning of the Church, practiced infant baptism.

As to your question regarding the “content” of Tradition, everything the Church taught and practiced regarding faith and morals is “tradition.” Even Scripture is Tradition, since we wouldn’t know what the content of Scripture is without Tradition telling us so. So, no matter how much Mr. King wants to elevate Scripture and demote Tradition, he is utterly dependent on Tradition for his Scripture. He is like the proverbial dog chasing its tail. The ingredients of Scripture and Tradition then, of course, require a third element, a Magisterium to decide what is authentic Scripture and what is authentic Tradition. Of all the hundreds of books claiming to be Scripture, the Church decided that only 73 would be canonized. Of all the hundreds of Traditions taught and practiced, the Church decided which were apostolic and authentic and which were not. It can really work no other way. In the end, for every adulation Mr. King gives to Scripture, he only reinforces the need for Tradition and the Magisterium to tell him what the content of Scripture is, as well as its interpretation.

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.