Jimmy Akin – Page 7

Science: People Who Believe in Heaven More Likely to Commit Crime?

That seems to be the implication of this story by CBS News, which is headlined:

Study Finds People Who Believe In Heaven Commit More Crimes

I guess we should all stop believing in heaven in order to have a more orderly society.

Okay. Let’s phone the Pope and give him the bad news, tell him he can start closing churches and winding down that whole new evangelization thing.

It seems the whole 2,000 year experiment has produced undesirable results, and it’s time to close up shop.

Or . . . wait.

Maybe, just maybe, there’s another possibility.

KEEP READING.

“To Be Absent from the Body Is to be Present with the Lord”?

There is a common argument used against the idea of purgatory in some circles which goes like this: “St. Paul says that ‘to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8). It’s that simple: If you’re a Christian and you aren’t in your body then you are with Jesus in heaven. There is no room for purgatory in St. Paul’s view. Purgatory is just a Catholic fable–a ‘man made tradition.'”

Is this true?

It turns out that if you examine what St. Paul really said, the whole argument is based on a misquotation. St. Paul said nothing of the kind.

Furthermore, if you look elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings–to the very same church he was addressing in his “absent from the body” passage–you find strong evidence for purgatory.

Far from being a Catholic fable, purgatory is rooted in the thought of the Apostle Paul himself–as I show in the following video.

I’ve also been working on a special mailing for the Secret Information Club where I “interview” John Paul II on the subject of purgatory. In the interview, I pose questions, and the answers are taken from his writing. Current Secret Club members will get it automatically.

Purgatory is a controversial subject that Catholics are often attacked over, so if you’d like to receive the special interview with John Paul II on purgatory, just sign up for the Secret Information Club by Friday, June 29th, and you’ll have it in your inbox on Saturday morning.

You should sign up using this handy sign up form:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

If you’re reading this by email, click here to view the video.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Why Are the Psalms Numbered Differently?

While the Bible is divided into chapter and verse today, these divisions developed over time and were not in the original manuscripts, with few exceptions.

One exception is the book of Psalms, which is divided into 150 different chapters, each of which is a different psalm. Those divisions are original, because this was the hymnbook for the Jewish Temple, and the different psalms were different hymns.

So it’s ironic that different editions of the book of Psalms today do not have the same chapter numbers.

You may have had the experience of seeing a reference to a quotation from one of the Psalms, going to your Bible to look it up, and finding that the quotation is not there!

What’s going on?

It may be that the quotation actually is there, but one psalm before or after the one you looked up.

For example, suppose you wanted to look up the famous line:

The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.

This is famed as the first verse of Psalm 23. But if you look it up in certain Bibles–like the Douay-Rheims–you won’t find it there. Instead, it’s the first verse of Psalm 22.

The explanation is that there are different ways of numbering the Psalms, and different Bible (and other documents) follow different numbering system.

One numbering system is that used by the Hebrew Masoretic text. This is the version used by most modern Bible translations.

Another is that used by the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. This version was inherited by the Vulgate and thus by the Douay-Rheims.

Because both numbering systems are in circulation, Catholic sources often use both systems, which is why you’ll see references like “Ps 23[22]:1” (or “Ps 22[23]:1”, depending on which numbering system they’re treating as primary).

Okay, fine. There are different numbering systems for the Psalms. But what makes them different?

The answer is that the Hebrew numbering sometimes combines (splices, joins) a psalm that is reckoned as two psalms in the Greek numbering–and visa versa.

Let’s take a look at how that happens.

(Note: I’m not assuming anything about whether one version is joining two psalms that were originally separate or whether it is dividing a psalm that was originally one. Simply for the sake of clarity, I’ll describe what you’d see in the Hebrew version first and then what how things would appear if you looked for the equivalent passage in the Greek version.)

The first time the numbering varies is when the Hebrew psalms 9 and 10 are joined as the Greek psalm 9. That causes the Greek numbers to be one less than the Hebrew numbers for most of the book, which is why the Hebrew 23rd psalm gets reckoned as the Greek 22nd psalm.

The same thing happens when the Hebrew psalms 114 and 115 are joined as the Greek psalm 113.

“Oh, no!” you may be saying to yourself. “Now they’re going to be off by two numbers!”

Well, they would be, except the very next Hebrew psalm–116–is divided into two in the Greek numbering, resulting in Greek psalms 114 and 115. So now the Greek numbering is only one psalm behind the Hebrew numbering again.

Whew!

Since both the Hebrew and Greek editions of the book of Psalms both have 150 entries, though, how do they get joined back up again?

That happens when we hit Hebrew psalm 147, which also is divided into the Greek psalms numbered 146 and 147.

With that resolved, the two numbering systems can now march arm-in-arm through the final three psalms: 148, 149, and 150.

Here’s a handy chart to keep it straight:

What Does “Amen” Mean?

Many of us grew up saying prayers and, in imitation of the adults around us, we learned to end them by saying “amen.”

But this is a word most of us never used in any other context, and for many of us, we had no idea what it meant. It was just that think you say at the end of prayers.

I confess that when I was growing up, I thought it meant something like “over and out.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a brief explanation of the meaning of the word at the end of its section on the Lord’s Prayer, where it quotes Cyril of Jerusalem:

“Then, after the prayer is over you say ‘Amen,’ which means ‘So be it,’ thus ratifying with our ‘Amen’ what is contained in the prayer that God has taught us” [CCC 2856].

It also says:

By the final “Amen,” we express our “fiat” [Latin, “so be it” or “may it be”] concerning the seven petitions: “So be it” [CCC 2865].

The Catechism also has a longer discussion of the meaning of “Amen” at the end of its section on the Creed:

1062 In Hebrew, amen comes from the same root as the word “believe.” This root expresses solidity, trustworthiness, faithfulness. and so we can understand why “Amen” may express both God’s faithfulness towards us and our trust in him.

1063 In the book of the prophet Isaiah, we find the expression “God of truth” (literally “God of the Amen”), that is, the God who is faithful to his promises: “He who blesses himself in the land shall bless himself by the God of truth [amen].” Our Lord often used the word “Amen,” sometimes repeated, to emphasize the trustworthiness of his teaching, his authority founded on God’s truth.

1064 Thus the Creed’s final “Amen” repeats and confirms its first words: “I believe.” To believe is to say “Amen” to God’s words, promises and commandments; to entrust oneself completely to him who is the “Amen” of infinite love and perfect faithfulness. the Christian’s everyday life will then be the “Amen” to the “I believe” of our baptismal profession of faith:

May your Creed be for you as a mirror. Look at yourself in it, to see if you believe everything you say you believe. and rejoice in your faith each day.

1065 Jesus Christ himself is the “Amen.” He is the definitive “Amen” of the Father’s love for us. He takes up and completes our “Amen” to the Father: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God”:

Through him, with him, in him,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,
God, for ever and ever.
AMEN.

One of the things the Catechism mentions is that Our Lord sometimes repeated the word “Amen.” In some versions of the Bible this is translated “Verily, verily” or “Truly, truly,” but what he actually said was “Amen, amen.”

This was something characteristic of Jesus’ own personal manner of speech.

In any event, the word means more than just “over and out.”

Who Are the 24 Elders of Revelation?

The book of Revelation describes a group of people known as the twenty-four elders, who surround the throne of God in heaven and who sing his praises.

Who are they?

One clue is the number twenty-four.

A suggestion that some scholars have made is that there seem to have been twenty-four courses of Jewish priests in the first century.

This is a possibility, but the twenty-four courses of Jewish priests served one after each other, not all twenty-four at once. They also, obviously, included more than one priest each.

It’s possible that the number of courses of Jewish priests played a role in the shaping of this text (or, from a heavenly perspective, visa-versa), but it seems to me that there is an even more obvious significance to the number 24 that would suggest itself to the original readers: It’s 12+12, and the Church at this time was acutely aware of the fact that it represents a fusion of the original Israel (with its twelve tribes/tribal patriarchs) and the new Israel (with its twelve apostles).

We even see fusion imagery like that at the end of the book, where New Jerusalem is depicted as having twelve foundations, named after the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and twelve gates, named after the twelve tribes of Israel.

So I’ve always thought that, while the courses of priests might have some role here, the more natural interpretation is that the number twenty-four is based on the number of the patriarchs and apostles.

I was thus pleased when I was reading an audience of John Paul II in which he said this:

In this regard, the first passage of our Canticle is significant. It is set on the lips of the 24 elders who seem to symbolize God’s Chosen People in their two historical phases, the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles of the Church [General Audience of Jan. 12, 2005].

I always love it when I discover the pope expressing an opinion I’ve long held. I take it as a sign I’ve been on the right track.

There is also something else interesting about this passage: John Paul II said that the twenty-four elders “seem to symbolize.” That language is significant. The pope isn’t teaching that they are or that we must believe this is what they symbolize. He is proposing this view as plausible rather than imposing it as mandatory.

An awareness of the difference between these modes of language is important for correctly interpreting magisterial documents and the mind of the Church, and this passage offers a good illustration of the point. The Magisterium can invoke different levels of authority for propositions. In some cases propositions as proposed but not imposed. In other cases they are authoritatively proclaimed. And in rare cases they are even infallibly proclaimed.

The proper interpretation of magisterial documents thus involves not just recognizing what is being said but also what level of authority is being invested in it, neither understating that level (as dissidents tend to) nor exaggerating it (as a kind of reflexive infallibilism tends to), but correctly assessing and determining the level of authority that was intended by the Magisterium.

The Selection of Eastern Bishops

In this week’s podcast I dealt briefly with the fact that the current method of selecting bishops that is used in the Latin church does not apply in all of the Eastern Catholic churches.

Instead of the pope personally selecting the man who will be appointed bishop, he may–for example, under normal circumstances–pre-approve a number of men, one of whom is then elected bishop by the appropriate parties in the Eastern church in question.

By coincidence, a Vatican Information Service story that came out Monday touched on this fact. Also note that the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch is able to transfer bishops subject to him.

Here’s the story:

ACTS CONCERNING THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES

Vatican City, 16 June 2012 (VIS) – The Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, with the consent of the Synod of Bishops of the Maronite Church meeting pursuant to canon 85 paragraph 2 (2) of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, has transferred:

– Bishop Camille Zaidan, bishop of the Patriarchal Curia, to the office of archbishop of Antelias of the Maronites (Catholics 156,028, priests 162, religious 353), Lebanon. He succeeds Archbishop Youssef Bechara, who resigned from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese in accordance with canon 210 para. 1-2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

– Bishop Francois Eid O.M.M., eparchal vicar of Cairo, Egypt, and of Sudan of the Maronites, to the office of patriarchal procurator before the Holy See, having received prior pontifical assent. Bishop Eid will receive the tile of eparchal bishop emeritus of his former eparchy, under the terms of canon 211 para. 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

The Synod of Bishops of the Maronite Church has elected the following archbishops and bishops, all of whom have received prior assent from the Holy Father:

– Fr. Moussa El-Hage O.A.M., superior of the convent of Sts. Sarkis and Bacchus in Edhen and Zghorta, as archbishop of Haifa and the Holy Land of the Maronites (Catholics 7,000, priests 11, religious 9), Israel, and as patriarchal exarch of Jerusalem and Palestine (Catholics 504, permanent deacons 1) and Jordan (Catholics 1,500, priests 2). The bishop-elect was born in Antoura, Lebanon in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1980. He studied in Jerusalem and in Rome and has held various offices in his religious order as well as being active in pastoral work and education. He succeeds Archbishop Paul Nabil El-Sayah, who had earlier resigned from the pastoral care of those circumscriptions to take up the office of bishop of the Patriarchal Curia.

– Fr. Paul Rouhana O.L.M., secretary of the Middle East Council of Churches, as bishop of the patriarchal vicariate of Sarba, Lebanon. The bishop-elect was born in Amchit, Lebanon in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1982. He studied in Belgium and in France and been active in education at “Saint Esprit” University in Kaslik. He succeeds Bishop Guy-Paul Noujaim, who resigned from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese in accordance with canon 210 para. 1-2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

– Fr. Maroun Ammar, rector of the major seminary of Ghazir, as bishop of the patriarchal vicariate of Joubbe, Lebanon. The bishop-elect was born in Haje, Lebanon in 1956 and ordained a priest in 1983. He has served as pastor in various parishes and is a judge at the Court of Appeal of the Maronite Tribunal of Lebanon. He succeeds Bishop Francis Baissari, who resigned from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese in accordance with canon 210 para. 1-2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

– Fr. Joseph Mouawad, vicar general of the eparchy of Jbeil-Byblos, Lebanon, as bishop of the Patriarchal Curia. The bishop-elect was born in Mayfouq, Lebanon in 1970 and ordained a priest in 1995. He studied in Rome and has been active in pastoral work, as well as teaching theology at “La Sagesse” University in Beirut and “Saint Esprit” University in Kaslik.

– Fr. Georges Chihane, patriarchal administrator of Haifa and the Holy Land of the Maronites, Israel, and patriarchal exarch of Jerusalem, Palestine and Jordan, as eparchal vicar of Cairo, Egypt and Sudan of the Maronites (Catholics 5,500, priests 6, religious 3). The bishop-elect was born in Haret Sakhr, Lebanon in 1953 and ordained a priest in 1979. He has served as pastor in various parishes in Lebanon, France and Jordan.

Just another couple of illustrations of Catholic diversity-in-unity.

The Unbroken Chain of Apostolic Succession; Bible Software Update

In this episode of the program I answer two questions regarding apostolic succession and whether, in fact, we have an unbroken chain going back to the apostles.

The first question comes from Marci in Mexico, who wonders about the effect that various practices have on the liceity (lawfulness) and validity of episcopal consecrations.

The second question comes from a gentleman who asks about a particular figure from the 1500s–Cardinal Scipione Rebiba–who has a very unusual property: 91% of all modern Catholic bishops trace their episcopal lineage back to him, and we’re not entirely sure who consecrated Rebiba.

What are the implications of that for apostolic succession?

In the process of answering this, I invite Dr. Andrew Jones of Logos Bible Software on the show. Dr. Jones has a doctorate in medieval history, so this is right up his alley.

In the second half of the show I keep Dr. Jones on the line to update us about current Logos Bible Software projects, including the newly-released Catechism of the Catholic Church set (which you may already have–free of charge) and their forthcoming translations of certain key works by St. Thomas Aquinas that have never been translated into English before. (I’m excited about getting my hands on those!)

To read the transcript, just click the big, friendly red button.

Or click the “Play” icon to listen to the show!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Do We Leave Time When We Die?

Yesterday we noted that there is more than one way that the word “eternal” is used.

For example, sometimes it is used to mean everlasting (being inside time but having no end, beginning, or both), and sometimes it is used to mean atemporal (beyond or outside time).

We saw that God is eternal in the second sense. He is completely beyond time.

But what about us?

Specifically: What about us when we die? Do we journey beyond time to be with God in the eternal now outside of time?

You often hear the idea that we do.

This idea seems to be based on reasoning something like this:

God is outside of time.
God is in heaven.
When we die, we go into heaven.
Therefore, when we die, we go outside of time.

But we need to be careful here. That’s not a formally valid argument. Consider this parallel:

Bob is outside of Scranton.
Bob is in ecstasy.
When I think about God’s love, I go into ecstasy.
Therefore, when I think about God’s love, I go outside of Scranton.

That doesn’t follow at all. I might think about God’s love and go into ecstasy even though I am located in Scranton. (Note: People in Scranton might disagree. I’ll leave that up to them.)

This is also important because the Church does not understand heaven as a physical place up in the clouds where God literally has a throne but as a state of spiritual communion with God and the saints.

Thus John Paul II taught:

In the context of revelation, we know that the “heaven” or “happiness” in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity [General Audience of July 21, 1999].

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity – this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed – is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is “to be with Christ.” The elect live “in Christ,” but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened” heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

So the Church understands heaven in terms of a relationship with the Holy Trinity and the community of the blessed incorporated into Christ rather than a physical place.

But if I can be the state of heaven by virtue of being definitively happy due to communion with God and his saints, without it implying that I am in a particular physical place then I could similarly be in that state without implying that I am inside time or outside of time.

In other words: Whether you are “in heaven” tells you about your spiritual state (definitively happy, in communion with God and the saints) but does not tell you about where or if you are located in space and time.

The argument above, thus, does not work–despite its superficial plausibility–just as being “in ecstasy” does not tell you anything about whether you are also “in Scranton.”

If this argument does not work, does Catholic theology have anything to say about whether we leave time upon our death?

It does.

Tune in tomorrow.

Is God Outside of Time?

We often here that God is eternal, but the word “eternal” can mean more than one thing.

On the one hand, it can mean everlasting–that is, something that endures through successive moments of time with either no beginning, no end, or both.

On the other hand, it can also mean atemporal–beyond or outside of time.

Catholic teaching holds that God is eternal in the second sense, but where could you go to show that?

You could quote from Aquinas on this point, but while Aquinas is very respected, including by the Magisterium, he is not himself an agent of the Magisterium.

But here is a passage which, because it is from one of John Paul II’s general audiences, is an exercise of the Church’s Magisterium:

These facts of revelation also express the rational conviction to which one comes when one considers that God is the subsisting Being, and therefore necessary, and therefore eternal.

Because he cannot not be, he cannot have beginning or end nor a succession of moments in the only and infinite act of his existence.

Right reason and revelation wonderfully converge on this point.

Being God, absolute fullness of being, (ipsum Esse subsistens), his eternity “inscribed in the terminology of being” must be understood as the “indivisible, perfect, and simultaneous possession of an unending life,” and therefore as the attribute of being absolutely “beyond time” [General Audience of Sept. 4, 1985].

So: “his eternity . . . must be understood as . . . being absolutely ‘beyond time.'”

Also note that the definition of eternity offered here the “indivisible, perfect, and simultaneous possession of an unending life,” is the classical definition proposed by the Christian philosopher Boethius in The Consolation of Philosophy, around the year A.D. 524:

It is the common judgement, then, of all creatures that live by reason that God is eternal. So let us consider the nature of eternity, for this will make clear to us both the nature of God and his manner of knowing. Eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life; this will be clear from a comparison with creatures that exist in time.

…for it is one thing to progress like the world in Plato’s theory through everlasting life, and another thing to have embraced the whole of everlasting life in one simultaneous present. (Boethius Consolation, V.VI.) [MORE.]

Are All Believers Priests?

Our Protestant brethren are sometimes critical of the Catholic priesthood, pointing to passages in the New Testament that describe Christians in general as a “royal priesthood” or “a kingdom of priests.”

This leads to the concept frequently referred to in Protestant circles as “the priesthood of all believers.”

What is often unrecognized is that the relevant New Testament passages are quotations from Old Testament passages that refer to the Israelites in just the same way.

So if in the Old Testament there was a “priesthood of all Israelites” alongside a ministerial priesthood possessed by only some Israelites then in the New Testament there can be a “common priesthood” (to use a Catholic term for it) that exists alongside the ministerial priesthood exercised by Christ’s ordained ministers.

For it’s part, the Catholic Church acknowledges the universal priesthood of all Christians.

For example, in one of his general audiences, Pope John Paul II commented on one of the universal priesthood passages in the book of Revelation and remarked:

As [the Lamb] has been “slain”, he is able to “ransom” (ibid.) men and women coming from the most varied origins.

The Greek word used does not explicitly refer us to the history of the Exodus, where “ransoming” the Israelites is never spoken of; however, the continuation of the phrase makes a clear reference to the well-known promise made by God to the Israelites of Sinai: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19: 6).

This promise has now become a reality: the Lamb has truly established for God “a kingdom and priests… who shall reign on earth” (cf. Rv 5: 10).

The door of this kingdom is open to all humanity, called to form the community of the children of God, as St Peter reminds us: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God”s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (I Pt 2: 9).

The Second Vatican Council explicitly refers to these texts of the First Letter of Peter and of the Book of Revelation when, referring to the “common priesthood” that belongs to all the faithful, it points out the components to enable them to carry it out.

“The faithful indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of the Eucharist. They exercise that priesthood, too, by the reception of the sacraments, prayer and thanksgiving, the witness of a holy life, abnegation and active charity (Lumen Gentium, n. 10) [General Audience of Nov. 3, 2004].

So it isn’t a question of whether there is a common priesthood shared by all Christians.

There is.

The question is whether the existence of this priesthood excludes another, ministerial priesthood.

As shown by the parallel Old Testament priesthoods, it doesn’t.