bellarmineforum's Xanga

Question 200 - On Condign and Congruent Merit

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:28 GMT

Dear Dr. Sungenis,

I was reading both your book Not By Faith Alone and a response that you wrote on your web site to Michael Horton. In both your book and your web article you criticize both Horton and R.C. Sproul for stating that condign merit is the same as strict merit and thus imposes a legal obligation. You make a distinction between condign merit and strict merit, equating condign merit with congruent merit. I must confess that I am both confused by the concept of merit in this sense (this is not my question, I will read more and hopefully understand better afterwards) and am confused by the varied use of these terms (my real reason for writing). I have included 2 catholic web pages that discuss merit and which give a view different than what I understand you to be saying. Could you clear this up for me? Is the problem that various people (even learned theologians) are using different terms for the same concepts or am I reading something wrong here?

Thanks,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

Ethics and theology clearly distinguish two kinds of merit:

Condign merit or merit in the strict sense of the word (meritum adœquatum sive de condigno), and
congruous or quasi-merit (meritum inadœquatum sive de congruo).

http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01612.htm

“To understand merit, then, one must understand exactly which is meant by the term in theology because it is an analogous term. Merit is a kind of reward and normally it means something given in strict equivalence to someone for something he has done according to the virtue of justice. A contractor builds a house and merits a certain payment based on the contract and the work performed. If the one who contracted the work does not pay, then he is guilty of injustice. This is called condign merit, which is merit in strict equality. This is the normal experience of human reward in human affairs.”

Jim and Kay Panaggio

R. Sungenis: Jim and Kay, the answer is already in the Catholic encyclopedia article you cited above at New Advent. Let me reproduce it here and make a couple of comments to clear up your confusion. First, however, allow me to quote from Thomas Aquinas on this very issue. You can find this on page 628 of my book Not By Faith Alone:

Note the difference between meritum de condigno and that which is said to be merit in strict justice. Even though both bespeak some right to a reward, they do so in different ways. Merit in strict justice implies an absolute equality without any grace given to the person who merits. But merit de condigno involves an equality which arises from grace which has been given to the one meriting. (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 114, a. 1, ad 3.)

Notice that Thomas is making a distinction between condign merit and merit in strict justice.

Now the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia

If, however, salutary acts can in virtue of the Divine justice give the right to an eternal reward, this is possible only because they themselves have their root in gratuitous grace, and consequently are of their very nature dependent ultimately on grace, as the Council of Trent emphatically declares (Sess. VI, cap. xvi, in Denzinger, 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 810): "the Lord . . . whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things, which are His own gifts, be their merits."

R. Sungenis: Notice that if one says he has a "right to an eternal reward" it is not a right in the strict sense, that is, as if God owes him the eternal reward because God is obligated to pay by contract, rather, it is "dependent ultimately on grace."

The Encyclopedia goes on:

Ethics and theology clearly distinguish two kinds of merit:

Condign merit or merit in the strict sense of the word (meritum adœquatum sive de condigno), and
congruous or quasi-merit (meritum inadœquatum sive de congruo).

R. Sungenis: This is not to be understood as if there are only two kinds of merit, but understood as being only two kinds of merit in "theology," that is, in Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine does not teach that we can receive anything from God by STRICT merit, and thus it is not a "theological" category.

The Encyclopedia continues:

Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. This early-scholastic distinction and terminology, which is already recognized in concept and substance by the Fathers of the Church in their controversies with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, were again emphasized by Johann Eck, the famous adversary of Martin Luther (cf. Greying, "Joh. Eck als junger Gelehrter," Münster, 1906, pp. 153 sqq.). The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations.

From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination (acceptio personarum). Hence the reward of congruous merit always depends in great measure on the kindness and liberality of the giver, though not purely and simply on his good will.

R. Sungenis: So we see again that the encyclopedia makes the distinction between "strict justice" and "meritum de condigno." It understands the former as analogous to "contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling," which is the same analogy St. Paul used in Romans 4:4 when he spoke about work being a matter of debt.

Still, condign merit does have some kind of claim attached to it, but it is a claim that can only be based on God's promise to reward not on a contract that binds God to pay the worker. I can claim, for example, that I have a right to heaven, but I make the claim only on the fact that God promised to give me heaven if I do what he requires. I cannot make the claim, however, by demanding that God pay me by contract, a contract devoid of God's personal promise but is only a legal agreement. Promise and law are two different things, as Paul argues in Romans 4:13.

I hope that helps.

Question 199 - Question about charges of Plagiarism

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:05:39 GMT

I know you are very busy. I hope to get through to you via this email. A friend posed this site against you in re to the accusation of plagerism etc. Can you direct me to a page off your site to answer these falsehoods? I've searched your site and could not find it.

thanks

Chuck

R. Sungenis: Chuck, thank you for bringing this to my attention. As for the charge of plagiarism, it is ludicrous. The guy who originally levied the charge has since apostasized and joined the Seventh Day Adventist church. His name is William Cork. His wife is Jewish and he saw me as a threat to the Jews when I was only trying to point out their errors so as to protect Catholics from their deception. So he organized a massive campaign against me beginning in 2002. In one of my essays on the Reflections on Covenant and Missions document that issued by Cardinal Keeler and Jewish rabbis in 2002, I had included some cutting and pasting from various articles about the Jews, the Talmud, Judaism, etc., that I saw on the Internet. I was then accused of plagiarism for this cutting and pasting. It was not plagiarism. Plagiarism is the unlawful stealing of the original work of the author, a work that the author did not get from other sources. The material I cut and pasted was already known and documented by many sources, and the source from which I took it had already admitted to getting it from other sources. Furthermore, I had never been accused of plagiarism either before or after Cork's charges, and all one need do is read my books to see that I have the most meticulous footnotes of any Catholic author on the market. Every fact I obtain from another source is religiously footnoted. So there simply is no paper trail for them to substantiate their charges.

In the bigger picture, you have to understand that these guys were seeking to destroy me for my outspokenness about the Jews. They wanted me off the Catholic map. They wanted to make it look like I was dishonest and that my scholarship couldn't be trusted, since it was attacking the Jews. I was one of the premier Catholic apologist before 2002, having had many shows on EWTN, having written two of the most popular Catholic books (Not By Faith Alone and Not By Scripture Alone), and having debated many Protestants and actually winning the debates. That all changed when I took on the Jewish issues, and the Geocentrism issues. I became a pariah. But I am in this game for the truth, not popularity. It has paid off in many ways. This past year the bishops of the United States voted to take out a heretical sentence from the 2006 United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. Page 131 had stated that the Mosiac covenant was still valid for the Jews. I was the only Catholic in the world to point out this error. I wrote to the Vatican and the US bishops two years prior. Finally, in June 2008, the bishops voted 231 to 14 to eliminate the sentence. This shows you what seeking only for truth will do. But it also shows me that no other Catholic apologist was willing to stick his neck out on this and many similar issues, mainly because they all fear reprisal from the Jews and their supporters. I am different than they are, and I have been viciously attacked because of it. But I am the one getting the results.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

God be with you both.

Robert Sungenis

Question 198 – Extra-terrestrial life and the Bible

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:04:40 GMT

To my knowledge the Bible says nothing of extraterrestrial life, but is the possibility left open by the Bible and Church teachings?

R. Sungenis: The Bible doesn't leave open the possibility for extraterrestrial life anymore than it leaves open the possibility that there is green cheese on the moon. Arguments from silence cannot be used as "possibilities left open." The only way the "possibility" of life on other planets was "left open" by the Bible is if the Bible already spoke of other planets having the possibility of sustaining life, which it does not.

Moreover, the Church has made a statement on this matter. Pius II, in the Bull Exsecrabilis, includes this statement negating life on other planets: "The proposition is condemned that: 'That God created another world than this one, and that in its time many other men and women existed and that consequently Adam was not the first man.'” Pius II, 1458-1464: Appeal to the General Council, From the Bull, Exsecrabilis, January 18; (Denzinger 717c).

Question 197 – Death penalty

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:03:53 GMT

I know the Church doesn't sanction the death penalty except in cases where the subject can't be contained resonably and situations like that are rare, but I don't believe the situations are rare. I believe that every murderer, rapists, serial killers, and other such criminals all have the capability to escape from prison, and if they did they would continue to murder... ect. So wouldn't it make sence to get rid of criminals like this that are a significant danger to society because if they escape they would only cause more damage. Instead of leaving open the chance of many more lives being destroyed, no matter how small the chance, why doesn't the Church sanction killing them so there is a 0% chance of more damage being done? Is there anything wrong with that view?

R. Sungenis: Convicts are imprisoned on the basis that they will not escape, not on the possibility than could escape. As such, escape cannot be a criterion for whether someone gets the death penalty. Percentage wise, escapes from prison are very rare.

Question 196 – What about bombing abortion clinics?

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:02:47 GMT

Question 196 – What about bombing abortion clinics?

I was curious about whether or not bombing an abortion facility would be morally justified because the lives of those babies saved would be more than the lives lost, and the lives lost are nothing more than sick twisted murderers that are a danger to society and talk people into killing their babies. Abortion providers should by law get the death penalty for murder anyway.

R. Sungenis: Bombing an abortion facility is not lawful under God or man. We must work through the law God has established (Romans 13:1-7). If we sanctioned bombing of abortion facilities, then we could sanction the bombing of porn shops, gambling casinos, gay bath houses, and even apartment buildings where we know sexual escapades are occurring. In fact, we could bomb any facility that we think is housing some kind of heinous sin.

Question 195 - What is the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition?

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:43:40 GMT

Dear Robert, I know that if someone doesn't get to confession perfect contrition gets forgiveness for all types of sins mortal or venial. But what about imperfect contrition? Does it have the same effect and if not what effect does it have?

William

Dear William: “Perfect” and “Imperfect” are technical terms used by the Church.

The difference between perfect and imperfect contrition is: the former is contrition motivated out of love for God and so the man wishes to reform his ways because he loves the offended, whereas the latter is contrition which is motivated by fear of punishment, of God, of Hell. Both suffice for a valid confession, as the older version of the Act of Contrition states: "...I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of Hell (imperfect), but most of all they offend thee, My God (perfect), who art all good and deserving of all my love..." Furthermore, the CCC defines them in this way:

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

1492 Repentance (also called contrition) must be inspired by motives that arise from faith. If repentance arises from love of charity for God, it is called "perfect" contrition; if it is founded on other motives, it is called "imperfect."

Perfect contrition remits mortal and venial sins, if he has a firm resolution to go to confession ASAP. So a person in this state, may receive Holy Communion. However, the man in a state of imperfect contrition may not receive Holy Communion, since it only disposes the man to seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Robert

PS: My thanks to Laurence Gonzaga of the BTF staff for doing the research on this question.

Question 194 – Is the Last Supper Commemorative of a Seder Meal?

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:31:56 GMT

…Also, I recall that you [Bob Sungenis] and I dialogued several years ago about the Hahnian Third Cup interpretation. Through the use of the Greek, you proved quite definitively that the Last Supper could not have been the Four Cup seder, based on the Greek words for leavened and unleavened bread (the artos, etc. analysis). Can you please find or repeat that analysis? That completely undermines the Third Cup interpretation. I appreciate it.

John [Salza]
___

Here I am leading a 2 part study on the Mass for our K of C Church and Bible Study, and last week singing the praises of Scott Hahn's analysis of the 4 cup Seder, bridging the Last Supper to the Cross, and now I find out its off base???

Indeed, do tell... Is this in an old article we no longer have up on the site?

AMDG.
Laurence Gonzaga
___

Laurence, I thought Hahn’s interpretation was at least an interesting speculation until about five years ago, when I actually researched the original Greek. There is a distinction between the bread used in the Seder versus the bread used at the Last Supper (unleavened (azumo) versus leavened (artos)). Because Jesus used different bread than the Seder, it is almost as if He was distinguishing the Last Supper from the Seder, not typologically fulfilling it. While St. Paul refers to the Eucharistic chalice as the “cup of blessing” (1Cor 10:16), this doesn’t mean there is a formal correspondence between the Seder and the Eucharist. There are other non-Seder allusions to Old Testament terminology in connection with the Eucharist, such as Psalm 116’s “cup of salvation” (v.13) with the “sacrifice of thanksgiving” (v.17). Moreover, I never found a single Church Father who said that Jesus was drinking the “Fourth Cup” on the Cross (many of Hahn’s speculations are want of patristic support, as you know). Rather, my interpretation of Jesus’ words “I thirst” is that He was thirsting to satisfy the Father’s wrath against our sins. He was bringing the propitiatory sacrifice to consummation. The wine Jesus receives is an illusion to the cup of God’s wrath (Isa 51:17,22; Jer 25:15; Apoc 19:15), not the Fourth Cup of the defunct Jewish Seder supper.

I hope Robert can find that Q&A on this issue. It expands on the foregoing and, in my mind, puts the issue to bed.

John [Salza]
___

Gents,

I found the piece I wrote back in 2006 on this issue.

Here it is:

Robert

Robert, I recall you saying that you did not subscribe to the theory of the Fourth Cup. However, it seems like a plausible typological interpretation. Please explain your problems with it. Are there technical reasons that would actually refute the theory? The idea is this: Before Christ instituted the Eucharist, He was celebrating the Seder meal which was composed of four cups. The Third Cup is called the "cup of blessing" and the Fourth Cup is called the "cup of consummation." The argument is that Christ instituted the Eucharist with the Third Cup, and did not proceed to drink the Fourth Cup in the Upper Room. Support for this is the fact that Paul calls the Eucharistic cup the "cup of blessing" in 1 Cor 10:16. After Jesus drank the Third Cup and sung the customary hymn, the Gospels say He went out to the Mount of Olives (even though the Passover protocol was to finish with the Fourth Cup). In the garden, He asks His Father for the "cup" to pass, acknowledging He had one more cup to drink, but to let the Father's will be done. On the road to crucifixon, He is also given a cup to drink but denies it. Finally, on the cross, He asks for the cup when He says "I thirst." Drinking it, He says "it is consummated" (in reference to the Fourth Cup of "Consummation"). You are also aware of the other typological elements at play (Passover, lambs being killed, Pilate finding no fault in him, Jesus wearing a priestly tunic, the cup being given on a hyssop branch, etc, all relating to the Passover sacrifice). The point is that the Fourth Cup typology makes a strong connection between the sacrifice in the Upper Room and the Sacrifice of the Calvary. The link between the Third and Fourth Cups merges the two events into one, demonstrating that the sacrifice began in the Upper Room, not on the cross. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

[~John Salza]

R. Sungenis: John, in general, I think we have to be very careful when we attempt to use analogies and allegories to prove Catholic dogma. A tendency to use proof-texting, for example, is often utilized when attempts are made to prove Catholic doctrines about Mary from the Old Testament. Some are tempted to mold the allegory so that it will fit the doctrine, and since allegories are somewhat fluid, one can usually cut and paste them until he finds an impressive connection, after which we are prompted to marvel how the Old Testament teaches Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity or Assumption. In actuality, the Old Testament doesn’t provide any factual evidence supporting these three Marian doctrines, and the New Testament can only vouch for one, perhaps two, at best. In fact, some Old Testament allegories could be fashioned in such a way to deny some Marian doctrines. Marian doctrines are supported mainly by Catholic magisterial pronouncements, and the factual evidence regarding those doctrines comes mainly from Tradition, not Scripture.

Similarly, to claim that Jesus’ drinking from the cup at the Last Supper is analogous to the Third cup of the Jewish Seder meal, while the drinking from the sponge on the cross is analogous to the Fourth cup of the Seder meal, requires a lot of pliability with both the Last Supper and the Seder meal. I’m not saying that it isn’t possible, rather, I’m only offering a few words of caution. Allegories can be good teaching tools, but more than often they can detract from the truth because they just don’t fit the historical events as precisely as the inventor wants them to fit.

Let’s see some of the difficulties we might have with saying that the Last Supper was a Seder meal.

First, John 13:29 suggests that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal, since, after the Apostles had already celebrated the Last Supper, they later thought Judas was leaving in order to buy things for the upcoming Passover. As such, the closest the Last Supper could be is the Preparation for Passover, but not the Passover (which came the day after), and therefore it could not be a Seder meal.

Second, the Seder meal employs only unleavened bread, but the Last Supper used leavened bread. The Greek for unleavened bread is AZUMOS, which corresponds to the Hebrew MATZOT (where we get the English phrase “matzot bread”). We can see the correspondence between the two words in the LXX (e.g., Ex 12:18; 23:15; Lv 23:6).

But the Greek for leavened bread is ARTOS, and the Hebrew equivalent is LEKHEM, and this correspondence also appears in the LXX (e.g., Lv 23:17). The importance of the distinction is this: in the passages of the New Testament that describe the Last Supper, in each case, the Greek word ARTOS (leavened bread) is used, never AZUMOS (unleavened bread) (e.g., Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:23-28). This must be distinguished from “the feast of Unleavened Bread” that is referred to in Mt 26:17; Mk 14:1,12; Lk 22:1, 7. In each of these verses, the Greek word AZUMOS is used for the word “Unleavened.”

These distinctions are important considerations because, without the use of unleavened bread, there was little resemblance to a Passover celebration, and thus it would be difficult to make a one-to-one correspondence between the Last Supper and a Seder meal. Moreover, in the passages of the New Testament that contain a description of the Last Supper, there is a necessary distinction that is often missed between the Passover Preparation Day (Thursday, Nisan 14) and the actual Passover Day (Friday, Nisan 15), but various translations fail to make the distinction. The importance of this distinction is that the Preparation day was not the Passover day, no more than Christmas eve is Christmas day.

Technically speaking, the comparison between the Last Supper and the Seder meal has a few other problems. The traditional Seder meal had 15 different steps. Within those steps, four cups of wine would be consumed at four different points in the Seder. The first cup, taken during the Kiddush or first step, was consumed to commemorate a day of sanctification. The second cup, during the Maggid, was consumed to commemorate the cup of wrath God poured on the Egyptians. The third cup, during the Barech, was consumed to commemorate the redemption resulting from God’s wrath. The fourth cup, also during the Barech, was consumed to express praise to God and an anticipation of the eschaton, which was initiated after a child was sent to the door to look for Elijah to announce the coming of the Messiah.

The Last Supper certainly did not have 15 steps to it. But even if we were to concentrate only on the eating of bread and drinking from the cup, there still remain some incongruities. For example, at the Last Supper, there was no ceremonial washing of the hands that took place in the Seder meal. Something new is introduced, which is the washing of feet, and this new washing has a completely different meaning, since it stresses servanthood, not spiritual cleansing.

There is no first or second drinking of the cup at that Last Supper, but merely a drinking before and after the partaking of leavened bread. Even the idea that Jesus drank the fourth cup at the cross as he was offered the vinegar and hyssop doesn’t have a Seder parallel, since Mark 14:25 says that Jesus would not drink again until the kingdom arrived, that is, after his resurrection. Analogically speaking, if the third cup was the Eucharistic cup, the fourth cup would not come until after the cross, not before it.

The Last Supper is, in its essence, a whole new celebration. This is to be expected, because Jesus is bringing a New Covenant. It is not a covenant of unleavened bread, but a covenant of leavened bread. Unleavened bread was instituted to commemorate the haste in which the Jews had to leave Egypt (as if a woman didn’t have time to put leaven in her bread and watch it rise). But that is not the case any longer. There is no rush or cause for alarm in the New Covenant. The New Covenant anticipates complete rest in Christ, not haste (Hebrews 4:3-10).

Although it seems that some passages in the Gospels equate the Last Supper with the actual Passover, this is not necessarily the case. Spiritually speaking, Jesus was to be our Passover on Good Friday, on the 15^th of Nisan, not eat of the Passover Seder that Jews consumed on Nisan 15. In fact, soteriologically speaking, there should be a setting aside of the Seder meal. It had to be set aside so that the New Covenant could be established. When, for example, Matthew says in Chapter 26 that:

¹⁷ Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?” ¹⁸ He said, “Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.’” ¹⁹ And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover

it may merely mean that the apostles prepared the room for what they anticipated as a Passover meal on the following day, Friday (Nisan 15), not the Last Supper, which took place on Thursday (Nisan 14). This is supported by the fact that Lk 22:11 uses the aorist subjunctive (“that I may eat”) not the future indicative (“that I will eat”), showing that it was not definite that Jesus would be present to eat the actual Passover of Nisan 15 with his Apostles. The reason that the room would be booked in advance (that is, two days before the actual Passover of Nisan 15) is that Jerusalem at this time was like Grand Central Station during Christmas, and rooms needed to be reserved way ahead of time.

As it stands, Jesus was only able to attend the Preparation Day, Nisan 14, but that was never considered a Seder meal. The same is true in Luke 22:15 where Jesus says that he “desired with desire” to eat the Passover with his Apostles. This Hebraism simply means that he longed to do so, but whether he would be able to do so is another question. The answer to that question was told to Him in the Garden of Gethsemane when the cup that he was to drink at Passover was going to be the cup of God’s wrath He sustained on the Cross.

In addition to the fact that the Gospels never mention the Seder meal, or even make it into an allegory or analogy, we do not have to depend on the distinctions in the Seder meal to demonstrate the connection between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The connection between the two events is made clear in the precise Greek words and grammar the Synoptic gospels employed (See my book Not By Bread Alone, pages 143-167).

Does this mean that the “Fourth Cup” idea is wrong? I’ll leave that to you to decide. I’m only pointing out some of the various problems with taking that allegorical approach. Allegory is exciting. I used to do it for many years in my own bible study. I have many bibles filled with all kinds of allegorical notes. After a while, however, one begins to see that there is a tendency to “read into” biblical narratives what one wants to see, and the allegories never quite match the reality to the extent they are purported to match it. For this reason, I’ve always been very cautious about such methodologies when interpreting Scripture.

Question 193 - The Building of the Temple in Jerusalem Today

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:29:00 GMT

Dr. Sungenis: I seen on various news stories concerning the tension on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by Jews wanting to ascend there to Pray and the Muslims trying to keep them out. I also seen that some Jewish groups have prepared not only the altar but the cornerstone for the 3rd Temple. What are you thoughts on this. Thank you.

R. Sungenis: Joseph, I believe this will be the flash point for the controversy in the Middle East. The orthodox Jews see this altar and Temple as an absolute necessity, and the reformed Jews and Zionists see it as symbolic of Jewish rights and hegemony over Jerusalem and the region at large. My feeling is that, sooner or later, the Jews will proceed to reestablish some form of ancient sacrificial ritual on or near the Temple mount, as well as attempt to rebuild the Temple. When that happens, all hell will break loose, to use a common expression, which in this case may be more true literally than figuratively.

Question 192 - Ocean Tides and Geocentrism

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:27:36 GMT

Dr. Sungenis,

I’ve been having a rather lively debate with some of my colleagues with regard to geocentrism. Some of them are open minded; most think I wear tinfoil on my head and talk to aliens (never mind the fact that I must surely believe the earth is flat).

The subject of ocean tides came up and I am at a loss as to how to explain them in the geocentric model. I have poured through the Newtonian physics and done quite a bit of math but am still confused. What I was able to determine was that according to Newtonian physics, the Solar Tidal Pull is only .46 of the Lunar Tidal Pull. However, when using the same calculations, the Earth Tidal Pull is 17,855,227 of the Lunar Tidal Pull. Unless I’ve done my math wrong (which is a good possibility), the moon should have no measurable influence on the Ocean Tides. If that is true what does cause tides?

Rick Orr

Rick,

Yes, you are quite correct that the moon doesn’t have enough pull to pick up millions of tons of ocean water, but that is a fact that is rather hidden from public consumption. Current cosmology really has no explanation for earth’s tides. They are no further along than Galileo was when he said that the tides prove the earth rotates.

What I believe occurs in the geocentric system is that the universe has more mass at the east-west quadrant than its north-south quadrant. As the universe rotates around the earth, the greater mass on opposite sides of the universe’s east/west quadrants will pull the earth’s water in opposite directions, almost like one was expanding an accordion with both hands. This will make the water rise on eastern and western “sides” of the earth and make it decrease on the northern and southern sides (but these boundaries are not exact by any means, since we are dealing with a sphere).

Since it takes 24 hours for the universe to rotate, and since there are two masses on opposite “sides” of universe pulling the earth’s water as the universe rotates, then there will be two tides each 24-hour day (two high tides and two low tides) all over the earth.

The earth, as a stationary body, is not affected by the universe’s vector pull (that is, there is no net force that would move the earth out of its central position in the universe) since the force from the universe is always equal on both “sides” of the earth. In other words, the universe can’t pull the whole earth to the east or west because the net force on the earth, as one solid body, is zero. But the net force on the earth’s water is different because it is fluid. It would be like putting a stocking over a ball and pulling the stocking from opposite ends. The stocking will be stretched in opposite directions, but the ball will remain stationary. Also, as the stocking is stretched, at the same time that the east/west vectors of the stocking are elongated (which represents a high tide), the north/south vectors of the stocking will be truncated (which represents a low tide).

I have attached a crude diagram of this explanation.

Let me know if it helps.

Robert Sungenis

Question 191 - More on the Old Covenant with Dr. Art Sippo

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:26:46 GMT

Hi Bob;

I did not give examples of the continuity of Jewish practice in the Early Christian movement because I didn't think I needed to do so. Jesus himself said:


Mat 5:17		"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
Mat 5:18		For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19		Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The phrase "until all is accomplished" is open to interpretation. I see it referring to the Eschaton and not to the work of Christ in 1st Century Palestine.

RS: Art, I think this can be explained very easily. First, let me say that I appreciate your pointing out the eschaton. That phase of Matthew 7:17-19 is often missed by commentators.

But your particular interpretation proves too much for your case. If “until all is accomplished” had only the eschaton as its terminus, then nothing could be fulfilled before the eschaton. In other words, even though the eschaton can serve as the fulfillment of some of “the Law and the Prophets,” the eschaton cannot be the fulfillment of ALL the Law and Prophets.

We both agree that Jesus came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill. But the crucial point is that the fulfillments take place in increments. Most of the Law was fulfilled at Christ’s first coming, but most of the Prophets will not be totally fulfilled until Christ’s Second Coming (cf. Daniel 12:2; 9:27; Zech 14; Ezk 40-48), a lot being fulfilled with his First Coming (cf. Isa 53; Daniel 9:24-26).

But this also means that since not one jot or tittle will pass away until either the Law or Prophets are fulfilled, then once either the Law or Prophets are fulfilled, then that portion of the Law or Prophets will pass away.

Hence, when Jesus fulfills the Passover (as Paul says in 1 Cor 5:7), then the OT Passover passes away, as do all the ceremonies that typified the suffering and death of Christ. Once fulfilled, there is no longer any use for them, and thus they pass away. That is the corollary point of Matthew 5:17-19 that I think you missed.

As it stands, then, Matthew 5:17-19 actually refutes the idea that the Mosaic law would still be mandated after Christ’s First Coming, since Jesus specifically said that it would “pass away” once it was fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled it, so it passes away immediately; it doesn’t have to wait for the eschaton.

Now, if it wasn’t the case that the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets comes in increments, and you insist that it refers only the eschaton, then you must bring back every belief and practice of the Mosaic law. For example, you then have an obligation to bring back the practice of going to Jerusalem for the three major feast days. You must bring back the Cherem and tell the Jews to execute every Gentile near Jerusalem that doesn’t want to be made a slave of the Jews. You should bring back public stoning for adultery, and deny full citizenship to the castrated. You should demand circumcision for every male at 8 days old, and if people miss the day, then you should call for their execution. You should set up temple worship, complete with daily and annual sacrifices in Jerusalem, and find some way of restoring the priesthood. In fact, you must bring back every Mosaic law without exception, for if there is one law you ignore, you will be guilty of the whole law and condemned (Gal 3:10-11). And if the Jews don’t want to do any of these things, then they will have to be executed as well (which would include most of the world’s Jewish population, since most of them don’t follow these laws).

You cannot go partway. Either you take the whole law or you take none of it. You cannot pick and choose which laws you are going to keep legally valid, since the Mosaic law forbade such dissection of its rituals and regimens.

You have the additional problem that no Father, medieval, saint, doctor, pope, council or catechism has seen Matthew 5:17-19 as referring only to the eschaton. As you saw in my last email, it can easily be shown from Catholic history that the Fathers unanimously held to the abrogation of the Mosaic law at Christ’s first coming, not the eschaton. The Councils did the same.

Scripture will also give you a tough road to haul, Art. First, if Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; Col. 2:15; 2Cor 3:6-14 all say that the Old Covenant was annulled and replaced by the New Covenant, then obviously “until all is accomplished” of Matthew 5:18 cannot refer only to the eschaton, otherwise, you leave Scripture contradicting itself. By these passages in Hebrews, Scripture is drawing the parameters around the interpretation of Matthew 5:17-19.

AS: Then there is the fact that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem continued to keep Kashruth leading St. Peter to do so in Antioch to placate his visitors (Gal 1). St. Paul was not angry because St. Peter kept Kashruth. he was annoyed that he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles and sent them the wrong message.

We are told:

Act 6:7

And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.


Act 21:17		When we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
Act 21:18		On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19		After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20	And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21	and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.
Act 21:22	What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Act 21:23		Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Act 21:24		take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law.
Act 21:25		But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity."
Act 21:26		Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them.

Act 25:8

While {St. Paul} answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."

I think that these verses make it clear that St. Paul was an observant Jew and did not act as if the Jewish law had been legally revoked.

RS: “Observant Jew”? If by that you mean that Paul, after he became a Christian, lived and taught that one is to adhere to all the precepts of the Mosaic law, and that his life as a Christian, except for Christ, was no different than his former life, I beg to differ. An “observant Jew,” if we use that term as it is normally understood of a Jew who kept the whole law, was not Paul’s practice. In fact, Paul repudiates that idea in Philippians 3:5 when he says of himself “as to the Law, a Pharisee…having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law.” It is one thing to say that Paul allowed certain Jewish rituals for the sake of his preaching to the Jews, but it is quite another to claim that Paul was an “observant Jew” and followed every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law. The two positions are entirely different.

I think the way to deal with this, Art, is to say that in regards to the Judaizers who were insisting on the practice of the Mosaic law for salvation, Paul was totally against this. Galatians is quite clear about this aspect of the discussion.

On the other hand, I am willing to concede to you that Paul, at times, believed it best to allow certain Jewish practices for the sake of the Jewish mind set. This follows his own teaching that “to the Jews I became as a Jew” when preaching the Gospel to win souls (1 Cor 9:20). When the practice of Jewish rituals did not threaten Christian salvation, it is easy to see that Paul considered them mere adiaphora, harmless, so to speak.

Hence, we can be clear on two points: (1) when salvation was the issue, the Mosaic law was not required, and, in fact, was condemned because it was non-salvific. (2) when appeasing Jews toward the Christian Gospel, certain practices of the Mosaic law were allowed by concession, for the sake of the Jewish conscience (even though many Jews in the first century forsook altogether their previous rituals).

Unless these distinctions are clearly made, the issue will become a cause for error, and even heresy.

AS: In fact I would ask you to produce one biblical verse which says that the Jewish Law has been revoked and that Jewish Christians are expected NOT to observe it. I have never found any such text.

RS: Here again we must make the proper distinctions. Jewish Christians were “expected” to observe the Mosaic rituals to one degree or another simply because they were Jewish people. Generations of Jews would come and go before these rituals finally dissipated.There was no harm in this, so says Paul. But there was a big difference between sincere Jewish Christians who could not let go of their Jewish rituals and the fanatical Judaizers who were insisting on Mosaic rituals in order to be saved. In regards to the issue of salvation, the New Testament is adamant that the Mosaic law cannot save, and it never could save.

The Mosaic law could not save, but it could condemn, for as Paul says, for one transgression of the law one would be guilty of the whole law (Galatians 3:10-11). Our catechism says the same: “Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin…” (para 1963).

If that is the case, then the Mosaic law, as a LEGAL power that condemns the whole human race in sin, must be lifted so that salvation can be applied. But one cannot merely wish the legal power of the Mosaic law away. It must be legally annulled, abrogated, revoked, in full. Only then can it be replaced by a new covenant. That is why Hebrews 7:18 says “the first commandment was annulled and replaced by a better commandment.” It is why Hebrews 8:13 says the first covenant was already becoming obsolete in Jeremiah’s day, and disappeared when Christ came. It is why Hebrews 10:9 says “he takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant].” That is why Colossians 2:14 says that Christ “canceled out the writ of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross.” These are legal cancelations, for Hebrews 7-10 is nothing but the legal replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant.

You need to incorporate these passages, and many like them, into your understanding, Art. You cannot merely glom on to Matthew 5:17-19 and think that it answers the question. The Bible is one cohesive whole. You can certainly believe in preserving Jewish practices as adiaphora all you want and I won’t bother you, but when you neglect to read and consider the clear language of the above passages which all teach that the Mosaic covenant has been annulled because of its condemnatory nature, then you haven’t reached the summit yet, and you become more detrimental to the process than helpful.

AS: What I have found is this:


Gal 3:23		Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed.
Gal 3:24		So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25		But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;
Gal 3:26		for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27	For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28	There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It was not the Law that had changed, but Christians who have been changed.

RS: Yes, the Law didn’t change. It was always condemnatory (even though it could also act like a tutor). But it is precisely because the Law couldn’t change that it had to be annulled.

1Cr 13:9	For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
1Cr 13:10	but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
1Cr 13:11	When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

AS: The covenants of Abraham was never revoked even though Moses' covenant superceded it. It remained in force as St. Paul clearly saw and taught.

RS: “Superseded” means that the Mosaic law would have replaced the Abrahamic covenant, but that didn’t happen. We need to be careful how we use the word “superseded.”

Moreover, the Abrahamic covenant was a salvation covenant, the Mosaic covenant was a law covenant that didn’t offer salvation. The two are entirely different.

The Mosaic covenant was added because the Jews needed a more specific covenant for their purpose and needs, mainly as a tutor to Christ and as a convictor of sin, not as a salvific covenant. As Paul says in Galatians 3:19: “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions.” But if it was the convictor of sin and, as Paul says in Gal 3:22, it “shut up all men under sin,” then it had to be revoked in order to free men from its condemning grip.

The Abrahamic covenant, in being a salvation covenant for the world, was originally made when Abraham was a Gentile, for Paul makes the point that Abraham received the promises BEFORE he was circumcised. That is why Paul says in Galatians 3:6-8 that nations’ salvation was in view when God made the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.

AS: In like fashion the Mosaic Law and its promises have been transferred to the Church. The morality of the OT, several of the prayer forms, and our attitude towards liturgy is part of our patrimony from Judaism. So are Purgatory, the Decalogue, the oneness of God, and the witness of the OT to Christ.

RS: I heartily agree, but we borrow from the Mosaic law just as the US Constitution borrowed from the Magna Carta, as a practical help in guiding us, not as an in-force and valid legal entity that demands we accept its principles under pains of death and damnation. The Old Testament is very valuable. I read and study it more than the New Testament. But as I said about Matthew 5:17-19, once any portion of the OT “Law and Prophets” are fulfilled, then according to what Jesus said, that portion passes away. We merely keep the memory of them when we incorporate their principles in our own New Covenant worship.

AS: The OT covenants have not been revoked. They remain in force but with the coming of Christ they have been superceded and their benefits have been transferred to us.

RS: Again, you need to be careful with your language, and you need to make the proper distinction between legal and non-legal, otherwise you do an injustice to all the passages in Hebrews that speak of the revoking of the Old Covenant. “Revoke” is normally a legal term, and superseded means that the previous entity has been replaced. If the Mosaic law is not revoked, in the legal sense, then Colossians 2:14-15 is wrong and the Law will still condemn us.

AS: As to the symbolism of the Seder in the Mass, I am surprised that you have not understood what I meant. Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Third cup of the Seder when the unleavened Afikomen was eaten. This Afikomen was the 2nd of three matzohs hidden until the end of the meal which had been was broken before being hidden. It was originally eaten with the last piece of the Passover Lamb and is considered to represent the Passover Lamb. (For us Christians, that is the Lamb of God.) The Third Cup was the Birkat Hamazon "the cup of blessing/redemption". It is self-explanatory. Jesus drank the Fourth cup on the cross which consummated the Seder and represented the End Times which are the times in which we live. Understanding the Seder the celebration of the redemption of the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt also celebrates their redemption from sin. It is this imagery that Jesus carried over into the Mass.

RS: That is certainly possible, but it is not provable, because the Gospels simply don’t mention anything about Four cups. Moreover, the Greek words that are used in the Gospel accounts are often devoid of Jewish seder background. I’ve written on this in the past, but I don’t want to get into it now. Understanding the Old Covenant’s revocation is much more important.