St. Paul describes the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians 6, a classic spiritual warfare text
Spiritual Warfare
What is spiritual warfare?
Why is it practiced differently in the Catholic Church than in other churches?
What are the principles that it is based on?
Are ordinary Christians authorized to cast out demons?
What does St. Paul really mean when he talks about putting on the “whole armor of God”?
What is the “spirit of fear”?
How about the “spirit of religion”?
Who has the power to “bind and loose”? Is it just St. Peter, or is it broader than that?
What does “binding and loosing” mean, anyway?
Who is allowed to perform exorcisms–and do they need special permission?
Does the Bible support the idea that only certain people are authorized to perform exorcism?
What are the dangers exorcism involves for the unprepared?
Is the devil responsible for all of our temptations?
Can we attribute too much power to the devil?
What is a balanced approach to spiritual warfare?
The Hungry Ghosts
Should Catholic schools allow non-Christians to conduct prayer services on school property?
What if it’s in the chapel?
What if it’s in the parking lot?
Who should be consulted in cases of doubt?
Blindness
What is it like to be blind? What struggles do people with severe vision impairment face that sighted people never think about?
What has Jimmy’s own experience with being legally blind for a month taught him about the situation of blind people, and how has it affected his prayer life.
By the way, toward the end of the program, I invite people to join the Secret Information Club. To do that, you can use this handy form:
The Immaculate Conception Is About MaryA reader writes:
Can you point me in the direction of why the Immaculate Conception is important in regards to salvation?
A follow up or clarification might be how does Mary’s Immaculate Conception point to Christ’s redeeming act on the cross?
First of all, let’s deal with a common misunderstanding: The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. Instead, it refers to the conception of Mary in such a way that she was preserved free from all stain of original sin.
I gather that the first question may be based on a common Protestant objection to the Immaculate Conception.
This objection is based on the fact that the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church and so is required belief for Catholics. To know that it is infallibly defined, to know that beliefs that are infallibly defined must be accepted, and to deliberately reject such belief would fulfill the conditions for mortal sin.
So what makes the Immaculate Conception so important that our salvation should hinge on it?
At First Glance
The concern expressed in the objection is understandable. At first glance, the Immaculate Conception does not seem like something that our salvation ought to hinge upon.
After all, it’s not a truth directly connected with how to achieve salvation. It’s not like accepting belief in God, repenting of sin, having faith in Christ’s atonement, and being baptized. It’s not one of what theologians would call soteriological beliefs (from “soteriology”–the doctrine of salvation).
Compared to the the Trinity, the central mystery of the Christian faith, the Immaculate Conception is lower down on what the Second Vatican Council referred to as the “hierarchy of truths.”
This is illustrated, among other ways, by the fact that the Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined until 1854
So what makes it important enough that our salvation should hinge on accepting it?
Another Way of Looking at the Issue
Consider this fact: The Bible discusses angels and the fact that they are rational, non-physical beings created by God.
We are obliged to believe in the existence of angels because the Bible is the inspired, written expression of God’s word, and as such it has the Holy Spirit as its primary author. Consequently, whatever Scripture asserts (in the proper sense) is something asserted by the Holy Spirit.
You might look at the doctrine of angels (angelology) and say, “This isn’t directly related to our salvation. It might be helpful to us in some way to know about the existence of angels, but they are clearly far down the hierarchy of truths.”
In fact, knowing about the existence of angels is not dissimilar to knowing about the existence of aliens. If God has created other rational physical beings in the universe, it might be of some use to know about them, but that knowledge isn’t essential to our salvation.
One might object that angels have, in fact, interacted with our race, which is true, but that doesn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology. (Just as if it turned out that aliens had interacted with our race, that wouldn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology, either.)
The point is this . . .
It’s a Question of What God Reveals
The reason that we are obliged to believe in the existence of angels but not aliens is that God has revealed the existence of the former to us but not the latter.
For us to reject the existence of angels would be to reject the authority of God as our teacher, and to do that knowingly and deliberately would be a mortal sin.
For those who have been exposed to God’s revelation such that they know he has revealed the existence of angels, their salvation does hinge on their believing in angels–not because the doctrine of angels is high up in the hierarchy of truths, and not because it is a truth directly connected with salvation, but because it is a truth God has revealed.
We are obliged to accept whatever God has revealed. We may have questions at times about what the meaning is of something he has revealed, but if we know for a fact that a particular proposition has been declared to us by God, we must accept it in order to be in union with him.
This is what the Church refers to as having divine faith, which includes belief in God and in whatever he reveals–because of the authority of him who reveals it.
There is another mode of faith, though . . .
Catholic Faith
Catholic faith refers to the faith that we are called to exercise when the Church has definitively proposed something. It also ultimately rests on divine faith, because the Church has no teaching authority apart from God.
However, God has given the Church the authority to teach us and even to infallibly proclaim things to us in certain situations. He also has revealed that this is the case, and so divine faith entails Catholic faith.
One of the key functions of the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, is to help us understand what God has revealed, to make sure that we don’t ignore or misinterpret it, and it has done so in a variety of ways down the centuries.
Early in Church history, the truths that are at the top of the hierarchy of truths were infallibly defined–the existence of one and only one God, the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc. And over time, once the most important issues were taken care of, the Church has deemed it appropriate to define truths that are lower in the hierarchy.
The Immaculate Conception
By 1854, the Magisterium determined that the time had come to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and so Pope Pius IX defined it in that year.
It had already been divinely revealed and thus called for divine faith, but not that it had been infallibly proclaimed by the Church, it came to call for catholic faith as well.
As such, it is obligatory for us, not because it is a truth at the top of the hierarchy of truths, not because it is directly connected with how to be saved, but because it has been infallibly proposed by the Church using the authority given to her by God. To know all this and to deliberately reject it would thus be to reject the teaching authority of God, and thus commit a mortal sin.
That’s true of anything that must be believed by divine faith or by catholic faith, for both are backed by the authority of God.
God, for reasons known to him, deemed it useful for us to know about the existence of angels, and so he revealed that truth. He also deemed it useful for us to know about the Immaculate Conception of his Son’s mother, and so he revealed that as well.
To promote knowledge and ensure belief in the latter revelation, the Church deemed it useful to exercise the authority God gave it to infallibly define it.
The reason why has to do with the reader’s section question . . .
The Immaculate Conception & the Cross
The Immaculate Conception can be related to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross in various ways. Some of these go beyond Church doctrine and into the realm of theological elaboration. But here are two ways that seem certain. . . .
The Immaculate Conception Prepares for the Cross
First, the Immaculate Conception prepares for the Cross by making Mary a fitting mother for the Son of God, who came to die on the Cross. It isn’t that God had to make Mary immaculate in order to send his Son into the world. He didn’t. God is omnipotent, and his power is not limited. He could send his Son into the world without an immaculate mother if he chose.
But it was fitting that the mother of Christ be a holy woman, and in fact a woman who was a perfect example of holiness. Thus he prepared her for this role from the moment of her conception by giving her a special grace to preserve her from all stain of original sin.
This is why in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which he defined the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX spoke of it being “fitting” that Christ’s mother would be so prepared, not that it would be “necessary” that she be so prepared.
The Immaculate Conception Reflects the Cross
Second, the Immaculate Conception reflects the cross in that it is what Jesus did on the Cross that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
By preserving Mary from all stain of original sin, God thus redeemed her. He redeemed her in an even more spectacular way that he does us, for he preserved her from falling into sin rather than pulling her out of it after she had fallen into it.
This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting in part the Second Vatican Council, explains the Immaculate Conception by saying:
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
But since all redemption comes to mankind through the Cross, it was the Cross itself that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
There is also another way in which the Immaculate Conception reflects the Cross . . .
An Icon of Our Destiny
Although God does not redeem us the same way he redeemed Mary, at the beginning of our lives, he will eventually free us of all stain of original sin as well. We will all one day be “stainless” (immaculate) if we persevere in his grace.
Thus, by redeeming Mary in such a way that she was given this gift while still in this life–and at the very beginning of her life–he made her an icon of what he will one day do for all of us.
Mary thus shows us what we an be–and will become–as a result of Christ’s death on the Cross, if we only persevere in the Christian life. She shows us the fruit of the Cross in one who is a mere human being, like us.
Christ also show us what we will become, for as Scripture says, when he appears again we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.
He, of course, is not just human but also the divine Son of God. Mary, however, is just human, and thus she serves as a direct example of what it is like for a human to be fully conformed to the image of her Son.
All these may offered as reasons why God–and the Church–deemed it important for us to know about the Immaculate Conception.
By the Way . . .
I’m currently preparing a mailing for the Secret Information Club in which I talk about Pope Benedict’s book recommendations for summer reading.
I had to delay the mailing a few days while I’m waiting on eye surgery. (I was able to get the piece composed, but not loaded into the highly graphical interface to send it.)
As a result, there’s still time to sign up!
Would you like a book recommendation from the pope?
Assuming all goes well with the eye surgery (prayers appreciated!), I should be sending out the special mailing with Pope Benedict’s summer reading recommendations later this week.
You’ll also get additional fascinating things. In fact, the very first thing you’ll get when you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the Book of Revelation (I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings). Its fascinating stuff, so be sure not to miss out!
To find out what Pope Benedict recommends for summer reading (and it’s not big heavy theological works but stuff anybody can read–sometimes in an hour or less), sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy form:
I had a question that I needed to ask you. I just found out that the owner of Chick-Fil-A stated that he was against Gay Marriage. Personally, I agree with him, yet when I told someone on the Chick-Fil-A Facebook page that being against Gay Marriage isn’t the same as being “Anti-Gay”, they ended up calling me a “Hateful bigot”.
Does being against Gay Marriage automatically make me a hateful person or oppressive person?
I don’t try to hate anyone and I don’t want to be seen as hateful by others. I just feel conflicted. If you can help me understand how to resolve this conflicted feeling that I’m currently having, I would be very thankful!
It is difficult to know what to say the first time one encounters this type of claim, which is regrettably common.
Hatred and bigotry are real phenomena. They really exist. And they are evil.
It is natural to want to avoid them and to want to avoid being perceived as committing them. That is true in everywhere, but it is particularly true in our own culture, which highly prizes tolerance, understanding, and letting people “do their own thing.”
Precisely because there is such a strong aversion to these things in our culture, there is a perverse phenomenon that also occurs in which charges of hatred, bigotry, and intolerance are used to perversely express and create intolerance.
This occurs when accusing someone of these faults is done as a way of shutting down rational discussion, of stifling disagreement, and of wounding (emotionally or socially) the one against whom the charges are made.
People who make blanket charges of hatred, bigotry, and intolerance are themselves being intolerant, displaying bigotry, and may even be hateful.
Most scholars today think that the book of Revelation was written around the year A.D. 95, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian.
Historically, though, many thought it was written earlier than that, and there is a surprisingly strong case that the book was written in the late A.D. 60s or the early part of A.D. 70. Let’s take a quick look at the evidence . . .
“Five Are Fallen”
In Revelation 17, John sees a vision of the Whore of Babylon seated on the beast with seven heads, and he is told:
[9] This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;
[10] they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.
There’s pretty good evidence that the beast represents the Roman empire and that these seven kings represent the line of first century Roman emperors.
Assuming that identification is accurate, that gives us a pretty strong clue about when the book was written. If five of the kings (emperors) are fallen (dead) and one is (living/reigning) then that means Revelation was written during the reign of the sixth emperor. So which would that be?
Here are two possibilities . . .
The Reign of Nero?
The Emperor NeroIf you start the count with Julius Caesar then the sixth emperor would be Nero:
Julius Caesar
Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Nero certainly fits well with the description of the beast that is given in the book (see the two videos), but there is a possible problem: Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor. He was a dictator (meaning: the Roman Senate voted him the title “dictator”–which was an actual political office back then, before the term came to mean “tyrant”), but he wasn’t voted the title “emperor.”
Still, it’s possible that this might not have made a lot of difference from the perspective of first century Jews and Christians.
Technically, the Roman emperors weren’t kings at all (the Romans were very proud of the fact that they had ended the line of Roman kings and set up a republic), but they functioned as kings, and everybody understood that.
This is why the crowd cried “We have no king but Caesar!” during the trial of Jesus.
So if the count starts with Julius then we have reason to think Revelation was written in the reign of Nero, which was between October 13, A.D. 54 and June 9, A.D. 68.
But there’s another possibility that may be even more likely . . .
The Reign of Galba?
The Emperor GalbaThe first person to be voted the title “emperor” was Augustus, and he could well be regarded as the starting point of the count by people all across the empire, including Jews and Christians. If so, then this is what we would get:
Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Galba
I know. You may be saying, “Who?”
Galba isn’t a very famous emperor, and one reason is that he didn’t reign very long. In fact, he reigned only a few months, during a disastrous period known as “the Year of Four Emperors,” in which Rome was torn apart by a series of bloody civil wars in which one emperor toppled another in rapid succession.
But if that’s the case then, since Galba reigned such a short time, we’d actually be able to date the writing of Revelation very precisely.
It would have to be between June 8, A.D. 68 and January 15, A.D. 69. (Galba actually began reigning the day before Nero died, because Nero had been declared an enemy of the state by the Senate and went on the lam before being coerced into committing suicide.)
So it could be that Revelation was written during a very short span in late 68 or (very) early 69.
Is there other evidence that has a bearing on this?
“He must remain only a little while”
The Emperor OthoYou’ll recall that the seventh king was said to remain (reign) only a little while. Does that fit the situation?
Yes. In fact, it fits both of the possibilities we’ve mentioned.
If Nero was reigning then Nero’s successor, Galba, certainly reigned a short time–just barely over 7 months.
If Galba was reigning then, since he was reigning in the Year of Four Emperors, his own successor–Otho–lasted only a short time as well, just 3 months (from January 15 to April 16, A.D. 69).
“Do not measure the court outside the temple”
The Jerusalem Temple, including the broad, outer courtyardBack in Revelation 11, John was told:
[1] Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,
[2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.
This passage speaks of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem as if it is still standing.
The text speaks of the gentiles (or nations, same word in Greek) trampling the holy city (Jerusalem) and invading the temple courtyard.
They also invaded and destroyed the temple itself, but the text speaks of this as not having happened yet, since John is told to measure the temple, its altar, and those worshipping there. So it was still functioning.
Since the temple was destroyed on August 5, A.D. 70, that also suggests that Revelation was written before this date.
Learning More
I’m currently writing a book–titled Secret History of the Bible–which will go into this kind of information and more, revealing fascinating facts that bear on how, when, and by whom the Bible was written.
That’s not out just yet though, so until then you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.
Computer simulation of a Higgs boson eventScientists are abuzz with word that the long-sought “God particle” (aka the Higgs boson) may have finally been discovered.
While most scientists don’t like the nickname “God particle” (and while many religious people might not neither), it’s certainly generated a lot of coverage in the media.
Because of the God-based nickname the particle has been given, the discovery of the Higgs has attracted a lot of press attention, and I’ve received quite a number of requests to comment on it.
What is the Higgs boson? Why is it important? And why do they call it the “God particle”?
In this video, I take a look at these and similar questions to give you the basics of the new discovery and what to make of it from a religious perspective.
Before we get to the video, though, here’s a Higgs-related joke (adapted from one I read on the Internet):
A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest, offended by its nickname of the “God particle,” immediately orders it out.
The Higgs shrugs and turns to leave. “Okay,” it says. “But without me, you can’t have Mass.”
Groan!
At least if you know the basics of what the Higgs boson is supposed to do.
By the way, several of the requests I got for comment came from members of the Secret Information Club. If you’d like to get cool, informative material on a variety of topics from me by email, you should sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or just use this handy sign up form:
If you read some older English translations of the Bible, like the Catholic Douay-Rheims (pub. 1609) or the Protestant King James (pub. 1611) you come across some passages that seem a bit mysterious. For example in the Douay-Rheims, in Psalms 91:11 we read:
But my horn shall be exalted like that of the unicorn.
In the equivalent verse in the King James (Ps. 92:10) we read:
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn.
In reading such passages, you might think, what on earth does that mean? In these cases, the horn is being used as a symbol of strength or vigor. The Psalmist is saying that thanks to God, I’m going to be given a lot of strength and vigor, so praise God.
Fine, but what’s this stuff about unicorns? I, mean does this mean unicorns are real?
In this video we go to the heart of the matter and reveals the startling truth about what the Bible might be referring to in these passages.
We also look at how the word “unicorn” got into these passages in the first place and what ancient but real creature the translators may have been referring to. (Unless you’ve heard this before, it can come as a real surprise.
As someone who came to the Catholic faith from Evangelicalism, one of the doctrines that I had to deal with was purgatory.
Upon starting work as an apologist, I had to dig even deeper into the subject, and I discovered that over the course of time it has been understood in different ways.
One of my early helps in understanding the doctrine was the thought of St. Catherine of Genoa, whose thought on the subject as presented in the Treatise on Purgatory and the Dialogues Between the Body and the Soul have proved increasingly influential over time. In particular, elements of it have played a role in the thought of Joseph Ratzinger (back before he was pope) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I was therefore delighted when I read Pope Benedict’s general audience on St. Catherine of Genoa, in which he touches on her contribution to this subject.
He begins by noting that, although she did have a profound mystical experience connected with her conversion, she did not have revelations about the souls in purgatory. He states:
It is important to note that Catherine, in her mystical experience, never received specific revelations on purgatory or on the souls being purified there. Yet, in the writings inspired by our Saint, purgatory is a central element and the description of it has characteristics that were original in her time [General Audience, Jan. 12, 2011].
One of the original things about St. Catherine’s thought on purgatory concerned the way it tended to be envisioned as a place:
The first original passage concerns the “place” of the purification of souls. In her day it was depicted mainly using images linked to space: a certain space was conceived of in which purgatory was supposed to be located.
Catherine, however, did not see purgatory as a scene in the bowels of the earth: for her it is not an exterior but rather an interior fire. This is purgatory: an inner fire.
She also understood the fire of purgatory differently than some other:
The Saint speaks of the Soul’s journey of purification on the way to full communion with God, starting from her own experience of profound sorrow for the sins committed, in comparison with God’s infinite love (cf. Vita Mirabile, 171v).
We heard of the moment of conversion when Catherine suddenly became aware of God’s goodness, of the infinite distance of her own life from this goodness and of a burning fire within her. And this is the fire that purifies, the interior fire of purgatory. Here too is an original feature in comparison with the thought of her time.
Furthermore:
In fact, she does not start with the afterlife in order to recount the torments of purgatory — as was the custom in her time and perhaps still is today — and then to point out the way to purification or conversion. Rather our Saint begins with the inner experience of her own life on the way to Eternity.
“The soul”, Catherine says, “presents itself to God still bound to the desires and suffering that derive from sin and this makes it impossible for it to enjoy the beatific vision of God”. Catherine asserts that God is so pure and holy that a soul stained by sin cannot be in the presence of the divine majesty (cf. Vita Mirabile, 177r).
Pope Benedict then makes an observation that goes straight to the heart:
We too feel how distant we are, how full we are of so many things that we cannot see God. The soul is aware of the immense love and perfect justice of God and consequently suffers for having failed to respond in a correct and perfect way to this love; and love for God itself becomes a flame, love itself cleanses it from the residue of sin.
Pope Benedict has more to say about St. Catherine’s teaching on purgatory, and on her life in general, but I’ll let you read that for yourself.
In summary, he says:
With her life St Catherine teaches us that the more we love God and enter into intimacy with him in prayer the more he makes himself known to us, setting our hearts on fire with his love.
I’ve 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 the end of Friday, June 29th, and you’ll have it in your inbox on Saturday morning.
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.
But the word “eternal” can also be understood to mean “everlasting”–as would apply to a being who comes into being at a certain point in time but who has no end.
That seems to be the case for us. We come into being at a certain point in time (when we are conceived), but because we are ultimately immortal, we have no end. Because of death, we may not be in our bodies for a period (of time), but eventually we will be reunited with them and experience the eternal (unending) order.
Both Scripture standard Catholic theology depict us as undergoing a sequence of states upon our death. First, we die. Then, we are judged at the particular judgment. Then, we are purified in purgatory if we need to be. Then, when our purification is finished, we have the unalloyed happiness of heaven. Then, we are reunited with our bodies. Then, we experience the general judgment, where we are judged in body and soul. Then, we experience the eternal order.
That’s a definite sequence–which begins with our death, implying a sequentiality that occurs after our deaths. For there to be a sequence, there must be something separating the elements of the sequence–something that keeps them from happening all at once.
That means that there is either time or something analogous to time in the afterlife.
What does the Church’s Magisterium have to say on the subject?
In one General Audience of John Paul II, the pope noted that:
Eternity [in the sense of being “beyond time”] is here the element which essentially distinguishes God from the world. While the latter is subject to change and passes away, God remains beyond the passing of the world. He is necessary and immutable: “you are the same” [General Audience of Sept. 4, 1985].
In the next week’s audience, John Paul II explained that
He [God] is Eternity, as the preceding catechesis explained, while all that is created is contingent and subject to time [General Audience of Sept. 11, 1985].
If eternity (in the beyond time sense) is distinguishes God from the world and if “all that is created” is “subject to time,” that would imply that our souls are subject to time. This would be the case even after our deaths, since our souls do not cease to be created entities.
However, we can go beyond this implicit acknowledgement of the sequentiality–and thus temporality. In 1992, the International Theological Commission (ITC) issued a document that bears on this point in a more explicit way.
The ITC is an advisory body headed by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who at the time was Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict). According to its bylaws, when the head of the ITC authorizes the publication of one of its documents, it signifies that the Magisterium does not have any difficulty with its teaching.
In this case, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger authorized the publication of a document which held that:
[S]ome theologians . . . seek a solution in a so-called atemporalism: They say that after death time can in no way exist, and hold that the deaths of people are successive (viewed from the perspective of this world); whereas the resurrection of those people in the life after death, in which there would be no temporal distinctions, is (they think) simultaneous.
But this attempted atemporalism, according to which successive individual deaths would coincide with a simultaneous collective resurrection, implies recourse to a philosophy of time quite foreign to biblical thought.
The New Testament’s way of speaking about the souls of the martyrs does not seem to remove them either from all reality of succession or from all perception of succession (cf. Rev 6:9-11).
Similarly, if time should have no meaning after death, not even in some way merely analogous with its terrestrial meaning, it would be difficult to understand why Paul used formulas referring to the future (anastesontai)in speaking about their resurrection, when responding to the Thessalonians who were asking about the fate of the dead (cf. 1 Thess 4:13-18).
Moreover, a radical denial of any meaning for time in those resurrections, deemed both simultaneous and taking place in the moment of death, does not seem to take sufficiently into account the truly corporeal nature of the resurrection; for a true body cannot be said to exist devoid of all notion of temporality.
Even the souls of the blessed, since they are in communion with the Christ who has been raised in a bodily way, cannot be thought of without any connection with time [International Theological Commission, Some Current Questions on Eschatology (1992), “The Christian Hope of the Resurrection,” 2.2].
By their nature, the documents of the ITC express the common understanding of Catholic theology in accord with the teaching of the Magisterium, and Cardinal Ratzinger’s authorization of this document signals that the common understanding in Catholic theology is that some form of time “even in some way merely analogous to its terrestrial meaning” continues to apply to us in the afterlife, and that the Magisterium has no difficulty with this.
Joseph Ratzinger said the same in his own writings, such as his book Eschatology, when he was still a theology professor.
Catholic theology thus does not hold that we leave time upon our deaths. In fact, it would be difficult to hold that we do so, given the reasons that the ITC cites.
So while we do indeed have eternal souls, and while God is eternal in the sense of being completely beyond time, the Church does not understand our souls to be eternal or atemporal in the way that God is.
