Category: Eschatology

Is Judas in Hell?

One of the key events of Holy Week is the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot—something many Christians are convinced caused Judas to go to hell. I used to be one of them.

However, several times recently, Church officials have stated that—even though hell is a real possibility humans can choose—the Church does not teach that any particular person is in hell.

For example, in his 1994 interview book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II discussed who will go to hell and wrote:

The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born” (Matt. 26:24), his words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation (p. 139).

Similarly, in a 2006 audience, Benedict XVI said:

Even though he went to hang himself (cf. Matt. 27:5), it is not up to us to judge his gesture, substituting ourselves for the infinitely merciful and just God (October 18, 2006).

Despite these statements, it has long been commonly held that Judas is, in fact, damned. So how can we understand the traditional opinion in light of the possibility of Judas’s salvation that John Paul II and Benedict XVI hold out?

One approach is to review the evidence we have for Judas being in hell and seeing how conclusive it is.

A first type of evidence is something that many people may not be aware of: Data from exorcism cases.

Christians are familiar with the concept of exorcism being used for possession by demons—that is, fallen angels. However, there are also occasional reports of spirit possession by human souls.

In Judaism, such spirits are referred to as dybbuks. A dybbuk is “a disembodied human spirit that, because of former sins, wanders restlessly until it finds a haven in the body of a living person” (Brittanica.com).

Although dybbuks are more commonly associated with popular Jewish belief, they are also sometimes reported in Christian contexts, and that includes Judas. Exorcists periodically report that—during the course of the rite—one of the possessing spirits will identify itself as a former human, typically a famous sinner such as the emperor Nero or Judas Iscariot.

If a possessing spirit identifies itself as Judas and speaks truthfully, then that would support the idea that Judas is a lost soul.

The difficulty is the “and speaks truthfully” part. Demons—and any human allies they have in the possession racket—are working for “the father of lies” (John 8:44), which means that you can’t trust anything they say.

Consequently, the 1614 rite of exorcism—which is still in use—warns that the exorcist must “be on his guard against the arts and subterfuges which the evil spirits are wont to use in deceiving the exorcist” (n. 5). Further, it specifically warns that “neither ought he to give any credence to the devil if the latter maintains that he is the spirit of . . . a deceased party” (n. 14).

The Church does not have a teaching on whether damned souls can ever possess the living, so this is an open question theologically. However, because of how untruthful possessing spirits are, their identity claims are not a reliable form of evidence, and the Church has warned us not to pay heed to such claims.

I thus don’t think that we can rely on evidence from these cases to prove Judas is in hell.

Another source of evidence is the common opinion itself that Judas is damned, including by many Church Fathers.

The Holy Spirit guides Christian opinion—including the views of the Fathers—on matters of faith, and so this also could count as evidence for Judas’s damnation.

However, for it to be conclusive, two conditions would have to be met: (1) Judas’s damnation would have to be a matter of the Faith, and (2) the relevant parties would have to agree that this is definitively the case, meaning that there is absolutely no possibility of disputing it.

Neither of these seem fulfilled. For an infallible definition to occur, the members of the Magisterium (bishops teaching in union with the pope) must—at some point in time—come to a position where they are “in agreement on one position as definitively to be held” (Lumen Gentium 25).

However, John Paul II and Benedict XVI indicate that they have not done this. When John Paul II says (above) that “the Church has never made any pronouncement” on individuals who are in hell, including Judas, then that means it doesn’t have a teaching on this position, much less a definitive one.

Individuals—including many of the Fathers—may hold the opinion that Judas is in hell, but opinions—no matter how common—are not infallible Church teachings. Consequently, we can’t appeal to this kind of evidence as conclusive of Judas’s damnation.

What about the idea that this might be a matter of the Faith? Here we come to the subject of what Scripture teaches. The reason that many in Catholic history have held Judas is damned is because of what Scripture says, so does this give us conclusive evidence?

John Paul II and Benedict XVI have already responded to the two passages in Scripture that one might appeal to.

John Paul II dealt with the passage where Jesus said, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24; cf. Mark 14:21), and the pope said that Jesus’ words “do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.”

This is true. While the warning is reasonably taken as meaning that Judas will go to hell because of what he has done, it—like biblical warnings in general about the consequences of sin—presupposes one thing: That the person does not repent (Jer. 18:7-10).

So if Judas were to heed the call, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19), then his sins would be blotted out.

Now here’s the thing: Matthew’s Gospel—the same one where Jesus warns of Judas’s fate—goes on to say this:

When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:3-4).

Matthew says that Judas repented! He recognized that he sinned and that Jesus was innocent, and he sought to return the money. When the priests refused to take it back, he threw it into the temple (27:5a), so that he would not profit from his sin. That sounds like a sincere repentance!

But what about what Judas did next? He hanged himself (27:5b), and this is the second text one might appeal to for Judas’s damnation. Even if he repented of having betrayed Jesus, wouldn’t he still go to hell because of his suicide?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives (2283).

Suicide does not always result in hell because a person may not be fully responsible for his action due to lack of knowledge, or psychological factors, and because “in ways known to him alone,” God may help the person to repent—even in the act of committing suicide itself.

Judas thus may have been so grieved by his offense that he wasn’t fully responsible for his suicide, or he may have repented of taking his own life while he was still hanging from his neck.

As Pope Benedict said, “Even though he went to hang himself, it is not up to us to judge his gesture, substituting ourselves for the infinitely merciful and just God.”

It thus appears that we don’t have conclusive proof that Judas is in hell, and there is still a ray of hope for him.

This Holy Week, let us thank God for his mercy upon all of us. It is a mercy that—in principle—might extend even to Judas.

 

Being Precise About Church Teaching on Hell

Pope Francis recently sparked a discussion when he told an Italian television program, “What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is.”

I was not surprised he would have this view. It is common in some ecclesiastical circles and was proposed by theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?

Given how Pope Francis’s comments often function as a lightning-rod, I was not surprised by the discussion that followed, and one contribution was a recent article by Ralph Martin.

Although framed as a piece about what the Church teaches on hell, Martin spent much of it arguing for his own view, which is the traditional one, that hell is both a real possibility and an actual reality for many people. He explores this further in his book Will Many Be Saved?

I wish Martin well in arguing his case—and arguing it vigorously. The thought that hell might be a real but unrealized possibility is a comforting one that can be attractive to many today. However, Scripture contains serious warnings about hell that do not sound hypothetical in nature.

As a result, the theological field should not simply be ceded to what we moderns find comfortable and reassuring. If there is to be any reassessment of the traditional view of hell as an actual reality for many, Scripture’s statements need to be taken seriously, and both sides need to be argued vigorously.

(I’d note, in particular, that in his book von Balthasar never even addresses Luke 13:23-24, where in response to the question, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” Jesus responds, “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”)

My sympathies are thus with Martin, but I would refine a few things about his article.

First, in regard to Pope Francis’s statement that what he was about to say was “not a dogma of faith,” Martin offers a definition of dogma that could suggest it is essentially connected with salvation. I would point out, by contrast, that in current theological jargon, a dogma is a truth that the Catholic Church has infallibly defined to be divinely revealed, whether or not it has any direct connection with salvation. (Culpably rejecting a dogma is a mortal sin; but the truth itself doesn’t have to have a direct connection with salvation.)

Second, there is a passage where Martin conveys a misleading impression about the views of Cardinal Avery Dulles. First, he says that “the traditional interpretation . . . . by the Church’s greatest theologians is that it is very likely that many people go [to hell],” then he identifies Dulles as “perhaps the leading American theologian of the 20th century,” and then he cites a 2003 article that Dulles wrote in First Things.

The problem is that Martin quotes a part of the article in which Dulles refers to several passages of Scripture and says, “Taken in their obvious meaning, passages such as these give the impression that there is a hell, and that many go there; more in fact, than are saved.” The impression is thus that Dulles is firmly in the line of “the Church’s greatest theologians” who believe that “many go there; more in fact, than are saved.”

However, this is not Dulles’s view! Dulles noted the obvious interpretation of various Bible passages without asserting that the obvious one is the only possible one. In fact, he concludes:

The search for numbers in the demography of hell is futile. God in His wisdom has seen fit not to disclose any statistics. Several sayings of Jesus in the Gospels give the impression that the majority are lost. Paul, without denying the likelihood that some sinners will die without sufficient repentance, teaches that the grace of Christ is more powerful than sin: “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20). Passages such as these permit us to hope that very many, if not all, will be saved.

All told, it is good that God has left us without exact information. If we knew that virtually everybody would be damned, we would be tempted to despair. If we knew that all, or nearly all, are saved, we might become presumptuous. If we knew that some fixed percent, say fifty, would be saved, we would be caught in an unholy rivalry. We would rejoice in every sign that others were among the lost, since our own chances of election would thereby be increased. Such a competitive spirit would hardly be compatible with the gospel.

Martin’s article thus conveys a misleading impression of Dulles.

What does the Church actually teach? This is found in the Catechism, which says, in part, “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell” (CCC 1035).

The Church thus teaches that hell is a real possibility. If you die in mortal sin, you go there. But does the Church leave room for the idea that God might rescue all from mortal sin—even at the last moment?

The Catechism states: “The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26)” (CCC 1058).

The Catechism thus seems open to the possibility that God—for whom “all things are possible”—might be able to rescue all from mortal sin and thus hell might be empty.

This view seems to be permitted on other grounds. After von Balthasar proposed it in Dare We Hope, John Paul II named him a cardinal—specifically for his theological contributions—though von Baltazar died before the consistory.

Further, as Dulles notes in his 2003 article, John Paul II seemed to have a change of view on this subject. Dulles notes that in his non-magisterial 1995 interview book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the pope raised von Balthasar’s view and says, “yet the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment.”

However, in a magisterial text in 1999, Pope John Paul seemed to have shifted, saying, “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it” (Audience, July 28, 1999).

Based on what he said, the pontiff was open on the question of “whether” human beings actually go to hell, and Dulles concludes that “the Pope may have abandoned his criticism of Balthasar.”

It should be noted that in the version of the audience currently on the Vatican web site, the words “whether or” have been deleted. However, this does not alter what John Paul II apparently said, and we cannot know why the words were deleted or whether John Paul II gave his approval to this edit.

For his part, Benedict XVI also took an optimistic view regarding hell in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi. He states:

There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell (n. 45).

He then contrasts these with people who are so pure they go straight to heaven and then concludes:

Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God (n. 46).

This latter category goes to purgatory to be purified. Pope Benedict thus thought that “we may suppose” that few go to hell, few go directly to heaven, and “the great majority of people” go to purgatory before heaven.

We thus see the three most recent popes taking optimistic views of hell, with the later John Paul II seemingly open to the idea it may be empty, Benedict holding that we may suppose those who go there are few, and Francis hoping that it is empty.

I’m firmly convinced of the value for theological discussion of vigorously arguing the traditional view that some and even many go to hell—and hearing what the optimists have to say in response. At the same time, when presenting the teaching of the Church, we should be aware of the flexibility that is being displayed on this matter, including by the recent popes.

The Book of Revelation with Jay Aruga and Unboxing Catholicism Podcasts – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

In this bonus episode, Jimmy Akin is a guest of Jay Aruga and Unboxing Catholicism to discuss the Book of Revelation, the anti-Christ, the number of the Beast, and more.

Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?

Links for this episode:

Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

PlayPlay

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Will There Be Three Days of Darkness? – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

In this bonus episode, we bring you this discussion between Michael Lofton of Reason & Theology and Jimmy Akin about the idea of the three days of darkness, where it comes from, and whether it is a legitimate prophecy. Thank you to Michael for letting us share this show with our audience.

Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?

Links for this episode:

Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

PlayPlay

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Speaking with the Dead? (Visions, Apparitions, Saints, Spirits, Ghosts, Prayer, Intercession, Mediums, Seances, Necromancy) – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

Can we speak with the dead? Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli look at the question of speaking with departed human souls; whether it is permitted by Church teaching; and what cautions we must consider; and they ask if Fr. Nathan Castle’s unique ministry to “stuck souls” is permissible.

Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?

Links for this episode:

This Episode is Brought to You By:
Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World is brought to you in part through the generous support of Rosary Army. Featuring award-winning Catholic podcasts, Rosary resources, videos, and the School of Mary online community, prayer, and learning platform. Learn how to make them, pray them, and give them away while growing in your faith at RosaryArmy.com and SchoolOfMary.com

Fiorvento Law, PLLC, specializing in adult guardianships and conservatorships, probate and estate planning matters. Accepting clients throughout Michigan. Taking into account your individual, healthcare, financial and religious needs. Visit FiorventoLaw.com

Deliver Contacts, offering honest pricing and reliable service for all your contact lens needs. See the difference at delivercontacts.com.

Tim Shevlin’s Personal Fitness training for Catholics. Providing spiritual and physical wellness programs and daily accountability check-ins. Strengthen yourself to help further God’s kingdom. Work out for the right reason with the right mindset. Learn more by visiting fitcatholics.com.

Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

PlayPlay

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

More With Fr. Nathan Castle – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

Here’s more of Jimmy Akin’s conversation with Fr. Nathan Castle that didn’t fit in our previous episode, but which Jimmy thought was interesting enough to offer as a bonus to our audience.

The video will be available at noon Eastern on the day of release.

Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?

Links for this episode:

Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

PlayPlay

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Will There Be Three Days of Darkness?

In certain Catholic prophetic circles, there is a concept known as the “three days of darkness,” according to which a judgment will come upon the earth, and it will be preternaturally shrouded in darkness.

One of the most famous quotations about this event is attributed to the Italian mystic Bl. Anna Maria Taigi (1768-1837). She is said to have stated:

There shall come over the whole earth an intense darkness lasting three days and three nights. Nothing can be seen, and the air will be laden with pestilence which will claim mainly, but not only, the enemies of religion. It will be impossible to use any man-made lighting during this darkness, except blessed candles. He, who out of curiosity, opens his window to look out, or leaves his home, will fall dead on the spot. During these three days, people should remain in their homes, pray the Rosary and beg God for mercy. All the enemies of the Church, whether known or unknown, will perish over the whole earth during that universal darkness, with the exception of a few whom God will soon convert. The air shall be infected by demons who will appear under all sorts of hideous forms.

Another mystic—Marie-Julie Jahenny (1850-1941)—is said to have claimed that only 100% wax candles will work, and this has led to people selling pure beeswax candles to Catholic households for use during the event.

Some Catholics have been very concerned about this event, because if it were to occur—as described—it would be terrifying.

What should we make of the prediction? How credible is it? And what does the Church have to say about it?

The answer to the last question is easy: Nothing. The Church has nothing to say about it. A search of the Vatican web site reveals no occurrences of the phrase “three days of darkness.” The three days of darkness is not a matter of Church teaching.

Can it be supported by the Bible? Web sites advocating the three days of darkness regularly appeal to the ninth plague of the Exodus (Exod. 10:21-29), in which God caused three days of darkness in Egypt. However, this is a reference to a historical event, not a prediction of a future one.

Appeal also is made to Revelation 6:12 and 16:10—the sixth seal and the fifth vial. These chapters in Revelation most likely pertain to events early in Church history, not our future, and while both passages involve darkness, there is no mention of it lasting three days.

Consequently, the Bible does not contain a prediction of the three days of darkness. However, he could still reveal it through credible private revelations, and it is here that we run into a problem. George Ryan—who passes no judgment on the three days of darkness—writes:

The origins of the prophecy are unclear, but it has been attributed to a number of saints and mystics throughout history. Some believe it comes from St. Hildegard of Bingen, while others attribute it to St. Patrick or St. Teresa of Avila.

This is a problem, because if any of these figures predicted the three days of darkness, it should be possible to find the prediction in their writings, and nobody has been able to do so. It thus appears that some advocates of the view have attempted to give it an air of antiquity by associating older saints with it (St. Patrick lived in the 400s, St. Hildegard of Bingen lived in the 1100s, and St. Teresa of Avila lived in the 1500s), even though they made no predictions about it. The idea thus appears to be of more recent origin.

Of course, there are numerous visionaries operating today, and some of them do speak of the three days of darkness. However, what these visionaries have in common is that none of them have been investigated and had their visions approved.

Some visionaries authentically receive private revelations, but some are hoaxers—because hoaxers exist in every age, including our own—while others may be innocently imagining things based on what they have read in visionary literature.

This is why it is important to have competent investigations done rather than simply giving credence to claims of purported revelations (see, for example, the case of the once very popular Canadian mystic Fr. Michel Rodrigue, who was repudiated by his bishops and whose prophecies have subsequently been falsified).

If we set aside disapproved and uninvestigated claims, what are we left with?

Some advocates of the three days of darkness have claimed that St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio, 1887-1968) predicted it. However, the quotation was given with no traceable source, and the Capuchin order that he belonged to has denied that he ever made such a prediction. This also appears to be a case of someone trying to lend the prediction credibility by associating it with a popular modern saint.

What about the most famous quotation concerning the three days of darkness—the one we quoted earlier that is attributed to Bl. Anna Maria Taigi?

Various web pages attribute it to a book titled Private Prophecy, which was published in 1863. This is good, because books of that era have been digitized and are searchable online. However, when we check Archive.org or Google Books, they turn up no book by this title. The same is true if you make the title plural—Private Prophecies (Archive.org, Google Books).

One web site lists the book as having the Italian title Profezie Privata and adds that it was published in Rome. However, the same thing happens again on Archive.org and Google Books. There are no books of this title on record.

After considerable searching (including by other means), it appears that this book simply never existed. Perhaps someone saw the above quotation attributed to a private prophecy of Bl. Taigi from 1863 and thought it was a book title.

However, here we encounter another difficulty. The website The Great Catholic Monarch and Angelic Pontiff Prophecies—which supports the three days of darkness—acknowledges that they were not mentioned until 1863 or 1864—26 or 27 years after her death.

During life, Bl. Taigi reportedly saw an orb-like “mystic sun” that revealed things to her about the future, and she told these to her spiritual director, Raffaele Natali. The website states:

There is no question Bl Anna Maria Taigi saw in her mystic sun several visions of “clouds of darkness” and other horrific disasters descending upon the earth during the times of the punishments, this has been mentioned during her beatification process as seen above.  However, the mention of a specific time-frame of Three Days for the foretold “purge” of the earth was first allegedly revealed by her spiritual director, D. Raffaele Natali, who was not only her strongest supporter during her beatification process, but also gave ample testimony regarding her visions, for in obedience, she had told him everything.

According to an article in the El Ermitaño, (Nº 155, Oct. 26, 1871), D. Natali revealed the following during c. August of 1864, a year after her beatification process was opened by Bl. Pius IX in 1863:

“It is very true that the venerable Servant of God announced the scourge of the three days of darkness spread over all the earth. . . .

“In these circumstances, the windows should be closed, and leaning over them should be avoided, and it will be imperative to pray the holy Rosary and pray.”

The website also relates an account in which Natali may have mentioned the three days in the previous year (1863).

This raises grave questions about the quotation attributed to Bl. Taigi—as well as any other quotations attributed to her on the three days of darkness.

The idea was apparently related more than a quarter century after her death by a now-elderly spiritual director. We have to take his word for what she told him, and we are at the mercy of his memory and his honesty, as well as the accuracy of the reports concerning what he said.

Under these circumstances, and given the known problems with other quotations on this topic (such as the false Padre Pio quotation), we should not place confidence in any alleged verbatim quotations attributed to Bl. Taigi—especially lengthy ones—in the absence of verifiable documents written during her life.

Then there is the fact that—as far as I have been able to determine—these revelations were not subject to an ecclesiastical investigation into their validity. When a person’s cause for canonization is opened, a check is made to see whether they said anything that contradicted the Faith. However, a judgment is not made about the validity of any revelations they claimed to have received. That is a separate process, which I have no evidence of being performed in this case.

While I may perform more research in the future, thus far I have not been able to verify any reference to the three days of darkness in an approved apparition. Instead, I have found a highly problematic set of quotations and attributions that appear to be the product of the Apparition Rumor Net rather than competent scholarship.

As vivid and compelling as the prediction of the three days of darkness is, I would not recommend that Catholics be terrified of it or that they invest it with credence given the present state of the evidence.

 

 

Responding to Countdown To The Kingdom

Fr. Michel Rodrigue, alleged seer promoted by Countdown To The Kingdom

Recently, I was asked to evaluate CountdownToTheKingdom.com, and I concluded:

I consider Countdown to the Kingdom to be a website that presents a highly sensationalistic, speculative, and unlikely prophetic scenario that is put together from scattered pieces of information and interpretations that the authors favor.

Despite our disagreements, my contacts with people from Countdown have been cordial and professional, for which I gave them credit in the article.

I was heartened to see that, in his response, Mark Mallett of Countdown had words of praise for me and Catholic Answers, and he concluded, “We hope this response will continue the cordial dialogue between us and Jimmy Akin.”

I am happy to continue to dialogue in that spirit, though I remain concerned. As I wrote previously, “I do not see the authors exercising the type of critical thinking and discernment that would lend confidence to Countdown’s conclusions.”

Consider two statements from the reply:

The Timeline [on the website] is . . . self-evident that the “end of the world” is not imminent, as Mr. Akin seems to think we are saying.

Mr. Akin’s argument that a seer should only be considered believable if they are “approved” is not supported by either Scripture or Church teaching.

 

Creating a Straw Man

Neither of these is my view. Countdown promotes seers who claim that various prophetic events are imminent, but the end of the world is not one of those events. As Mr. Mallett says, their timeline makes this clear.

Similarly, I nowhere implied that a seer’s lack of Church approval means the seer is unreliable. Instead, I wrote:

Countdown has chosen not to use Church approval as the standard for deeming seers credible. How reliable is its own evaluation?

The website does not show evidence that the authors have conducted detailed investigations of the seers they recommend or, if they have, that they properly applied critical thinking to their cases and objectively weighed the evidence.

I thus indicated one can conduct independent investigations into a seer, though I find Countdown’s lacking.

By misreading what I wrote, Mr. Mallett has created a straw man and given his readers the impression he has refuted me, when he actually has refuted views that aren’t mine.

Unfortunately, a lack of careful reading and evaluation is common on Countdown—as are two additional tendencies displayed by enthusiasts of particular apparitions: the tendency to magnify the credibility and relevance of information they think supports their views and the tendency to minimize or ignore evidence that casts doubt on them.

These are exhibited in the responses to my evaluation of the extent to which Countdown’s timeline is supported by (1) Church Fathers, (2) the Magisterium, (3) Fatima, and (4) current, reliable seers.

 

Concerning the Fathers

Mr. Mallett disputes my claim that—in formulating its timeline—Countdown takes passages it likes from the Fathers’ divergent views on Revelation while ignoring others:

The Church Fathers most affirmatively did not “diverge widely” on their view of the proper interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Almost all of them believed firmly that it promised “the times of the kingdom” on earth, within history, during its final “millennium”—before Christ’s final coming in the flesh.

It is surprising he cites the Fathers’ understanding of the millennium, for the Fathers famously disagree on this.

In support of Countdown’s understanding, Mr. Mallett cites early sources such as the Letter of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian on the millennium.

Yet he fails to mention that patristics scholars recognize each of these sources as supporting millenarianism—the view that there will be a physical resurrection of the righteous, after which they will reign with Christ on earth for a lengthy period before the final judgment (both the Church and Countdown reject millenarianism).

Countdown’s authors unambiguously pick and choose when they accept things they like that these sources say about the millennium and simultaneously reject things they don’t like on the same topic by the same authors! (See Barnabas 15:5, 7-8; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:32:1 [on himself], 5:33:3-4 [on Papias]; Justin, Dialogue 80-81; Tertullian, Against Marcion 3:24-25.)

 

Concerning the Magisterium

There is no easy way to say this, but the authors of Countdown do not appear to have a clear understanding of what constitutes a magisterial act or a Church teaching. (For a thorough treatment, see my book Teaching with Authority.)

    • The Magisterium consists only of bishops teaching in union with the pope, and no statement made by a non-bishop is magisterial.
    • Except for the pope, bishops speaking alone are able to issue teachings only for members of their own dioceses.
    • Even when a bishop or pope speaks, he must do so in a way that authoritatively conveys a teaching for it to be an exercise of the Church’s magisterium. This is not the case when he merely expresses a hope, wish, fear, opinion, or speculation—or when he gives an interview or has a conversation.

Statements that do not fall in these categories don’t exercise the Church’s teaching authority. This includes statements by theologians, catechisms not authored by bishops, etc.

The only statements that engage the Church’s magisterium are made by men who are currently bishops (including the pope) to those they have authority over and when they declare a teaching authoritatively.

 

Not Church Teachings

Yet in his section dealing with the Magisterium, Mr. Mallett cites, among others, statements by:

    • Karol Wojtyła (not yet pope) in which he expresses an opinion in a talk outside his diocese
    • Charles Arminjon (not a bishop)
    • Paul VI in which he speculates in a private conversation
    • Leo XIII in which he speculates
    • Pius X in which he speculates
    • Benedict XV in which he speculates
    • Pius XI in which he speculates
    • Canon George D. Smith (not a bishop)
    • Louis de Montfort (not a bishop)
    • Pius XII in which he speculates
    • Joseph Ratzinger (not yet pope) in an interview in which he mentions a speculation of John Paul II

If Countdown thinks there are abundant Church teachings supporting its timeline, it would be because Countdown doesn’t have a clear grasp on what is and isn’t Church teaching.

Also, Countdown takes statements out of context to make them fit the timeline’s future scenario. When Benedict XV speculated in 1914 about wars arising in his day, he was talking about World War I, which had started a few months before. And when Pius XII speculated in 1944 about a hoped-for new era beginning, he was talking about the end of World War II, which concluded in Europe a few months later.

My original statement that “magisterial teachings on prophecy are minimal, and the popes have not provided teachings supporting the Countdown timeline” is true.

Countdown generates a contrary impression by citing statements made by people (a) who aren’t bishops; (b) who are bishops but aren’t pope and aren’t speaking to their subjects; or (c) who are popes but are expressing hopes, fears, or speculations rather than teachings—and by taking statements out of context and applying them to its timeline rather than the historical circumstance being addressed.

 

Concerning Fatima

I stated that “the interpretation of it offered by the Magisterium holds that it dealt with events in the twentieth century, not events in our future.”

In response, Mr. Mallet cited a statement by Benedict XVI: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.” By this, the pope merely meant that Fatima has lessons to teach us about how to live our lives. This is not the same as saying the fulfillment of its prophecies still lie in our future, and the Vatican interpretation—authored by Joseph Ratzinger—states:

Insofar as individual events are described, they belong to the past. Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed.

This would reject an attempt to back up future events on Countdown’s timeline using Fatima.

 

Concerning Current Seers

I stand by my assertion that Countdown has not exercised proper critical discernment and, had it done so, it wouldn’t promote some seers it does.

Countdown’s pages on why it supports particular seers offer one-sidedly positive evaluations and ignore important evidence readers need to arrive at informed opinions.

The “Why Father Stephano Gobbi?” page makes no mention of his predictions tied to specific dates that failed to materialize or the opinions officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expressed about him.

The “Why Servant of God Luisa Piccaretta?” page makes no mention of her bishop’s decree, which is still in force and states:

I must mention the growing and unchecked flood of transcriptions, translations and publications both through print and the internet. At any rate, “seeing the delicacy of the current phase of the proceedings, any and every publication of the writings is absolutely forbidden at this time. Anyone who acts against this is disobedient and greatly harms the cause of the Servant of God (emphasis in original).

Countdown appears to violate this decree by publishing excerpts from her writings (e.g., here).

These “Why?” pages are linked on Countdown’s homepage and are thus where it directs readers to go to learn about and form opinions on these seers. Yet the pages omit important information and cautions and provide a one-sidedly positive portrayal.

 

Concerning Approval of Seers

Mr. Mallett states:

Mr. Akin further asserts that we have chosen seers who are not approved by the Church. On the contrary, nearly every seer here has some form of ecclesiastical approval to one degree or another.

When I refer to seers being approved, I mean that the competent authority has investigated and approved their apparitions under the CDF’s norms.

Almost none of the seers Countdown promotes have this approval, as illustrated by the claim that they merely have “some form of ecclesiastical approval to one degree or another.”

Like many enthusiastic supporters of unapproved apparitions, Mr. Mallett inflates the “approval” they have. Having a priest, bishop, or cardinal say nice things about a seer is not approval. Neither is putting an imprimatur on a book. (That just means it doesn’t contain doctrines the Church has declared false.) Nor does being declared a saint mean that the person’s visions have been investigated and approved.

 

The Worst Case

The worst case of Countdown’s lack of critical thinking is its promotion of Fr. Michel Rodrigue.

I won’t here go into whether his bishops’ recent repudiations constitute formal condemnations, but this man is simply not credible. As I wrote, “he appears to be a fabulist who either greatly embellishes or manufactures significant elements of his life story.”

Fr. Rodrigue claims that on Christmas Eve 2009, he was saying Mass in Montreal when a woman suffered cardiac arrest and was verified as dead by doctors. Then Fr. Rodrigue miraculously raised her from the dead and sent her by ambulance to the local hospital to be checked out. The woman arrived back from the hospital before the end of Mass and came through a door that miraculously opened by itself. Upon seeing her return, the congregation applauded.

This is not credible. Anyone who goes into a hospital reporting that he even thinks he might be having a heart attack—much less someone who has just been revived from full cardiac arrest—will spend hours being tested and observed. There is no way the woman in Fr. Rodrigue’s story would get back to the church by the end of Mass.

Similarly, Fr. Rodrigue claims that, when eating in a Banff restaurant, he was infected by a Russian bio-weapon and that this was verified at a local hospital. But instead of the restaurant being closed and there being an immediate investigation by Canadian military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, he was allowed to make a five-day road trip back to Montreal.

For the full context on Fr. Rodrigue’s non-believable tales, including audio recordings in his own voice and exact transcripts, see this episode of Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World.

If amazing events like these had happened, there would be extensive documentation, and there isn’t.

Absent documentation, one must conclude that either Fr. Rodrigue is not capable of separating fantasy from reality or that he is telling self-aggrandizing lies.

Either way, Countdown is not showing the kind of critical thinking and discernment with its sources that would lend credibility to its timeline.

What is the Mark of the Beast? (RFID, chip, vaccine?) – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

The Book of Revelation describes a terrifying beast with the number 666 and that people had to take the mark of the beast on themselves. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli consider what the mark is: a literal tattoo, a computer chip, a vaccine, or even the Covid vaccine?

Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

This Episode is Brought to You By:
Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World is brought to you in part through the generous support of Aaron Vurgason Electric and Automation at AaronV.com. Making Connections for Life for your automation and smart home needs in north and central Florida.

RosaryArmy.com. Have more peace. Visit RosaryArmy.com and get a free all-twine knotted rosary, downloadable audio Rosaries, and more. Make Them. Pray Them. Give Them Away at RosaryArmy.com.

Colchester Curry House, helping people make authentic Indian cuisine from the comfort of their own home. Find authentic Indian spice blends and recipes at ColchesterCurryHouse.com.

Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Apostle of the Last Times? (Fr. Michel Rodrigue, Apocalyptic Prophecy, Private Revelation, Last Days, End Times) – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

For the last several years, the Canadian Fr. Michel Rodrigue has been reporting revelations of apocalyptic world events to start in October 2020. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli ask who is Fr. Rodrigue, what does he claim, are his revelations really from God, and how likely are they to happen?

Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?

Links for this episode:

This Episode is Brought to You By:
Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World is brought to you in part through the generous support of Aaron Vurgason Electric and Automation at AaronV.com. Making Connections for Life for your automation and smart home needs in north and central Florida.

And by RosaryArmy.com. Have more peace. Visit RosaryArmy.com and get a free all-twine knotted rosary, downloadable audio Rosaries, and more. Make Them. Pray Them. Give Them Away at RosaryArmy.com.

Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download