Mary & Jesus: Ritual impurity did not equal sin in the O.T.

Why did Mary offer a sacrifice in the temple? Contrary to Catholic claims, does not that mean that she did sin? What are the fundamental differences between ritual impurity and actual sin in the Old Testament, and how are those distinctions made in Judaism – but more importantly – in light of our Christian faith and the New Testament? All of these things will be explored in a few moments.

 

Leviticus 4:2 starts: “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them […]”. No one disputes that the Bible uses the term ‘unintentional sins’, the dispute is whether or not such sins were really considered punishable moral transgressions before God. Protestants are put in a very similar position when they encounter the use of the word ‘works’ in the NT and their contextualization of justification (e.g. Revelation 20:12 & Romans 2:6). They argue negatively whether works really count for our salvation. The purpose of this article is to do something similar when it comes to the Jewish concept of ‘ritual impurity’ and to analyze its relationship with Jesus and Mary’s sinlessness.

 

Judaism in general identifies three levels of sin (Hebrew: 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢):  𝘱𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘢, an act of defiance towards God; 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘯, a very hard to control evil act with no specific intentions to defy God; and 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘵, an unintentional sin or fault. (Wikipedia)

 

An almost unanimous Jewish modern explanation is offered for this third category, where sin does not carry eternal consequences – but it is more commonly referred to as ‘someone missing the target’. Among the subsets of 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘵, we find many errors and conditions that can render humans ‘sinful’ in this sense, but I would like to single in on the state of uncleanliness. 𝘛𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘩 was the state of being considered ritually impure. The term was used to describe two conditions:

  • Ritual impurity – the opposite of taharah (“purity”), also known as “impurity of the body”.
  • Moral impurity – the opposite of kedushah (“sanctity”), also known as “impurity of the soul”; this category also includes activities which are disgusting or abominable. (Wikipedia)

 

Clearly, ritual impurity did not carry a ‘sinful’ meaning and was more of an unfortunate condition that rendered people unable to fulfill or participate in the Jewish life. Whereas moral impurity did relate to sinful behaviors, regardless of their level of gravity.

 

It is extremely important to learn and acknowledge that ritual purity laws and their consequences CEASED when the Second Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. This is imperative to understand in our Christian teaching, because the destruction of the temple was the culmination of God’s judgement upon Jerusalem. Jesus unarguably challenged these purity laws. It was clear that such laws were not going to be the core of the Christian message; in fact sometimes they acted as roadblocks to a fulfilling Christian life.

 

The accusation has been raised that Mary did sin because she had to offer a sin offering for her period of impurity. In fact the whole family had to do it, not just Mary. If Mary had had a normal birth, then her blood at birth and after birth would have polluted anyone who was in contact with her blood, including Joseph and Jesus. For that culture, the blood of a woman was considered impure, whereas the blood of men were seen as a sign to seal the pact under God’s covenant in circumcision. But overall, the Jewish sense offered a profound respect for blood in general, for they believed that the life force of creatures was in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). Touching any type of blood was considered impure because you were participating in the foreign and fallen life of another creature.

 

Catholic theology claims that Mary did not have a normal birth. She remained a virgin and Sacred Tradition teaches that Jesus’ birth was perfect in the sense that He did not cause any harm to His mother’s bodily integrity. Nonetheless, she was legally considered impure because it was assumed by many that she had a normal birth; just as Jesus was considered legally guilty by the High Priest, though there was no fault in Him.

 

Protestants love to claim that Mary was not sinless because she had to offer a sacrifice in the temple (Lk 2:24) according to Leviticus 12. However, this is a rushed conclusion. If it were to mean that Mary was considered sinful because of her 7-day period of impurity, then look at what this forces them to say about Jesus. Luke 2:22 is better rendered by the ESV when it reads: “And when the time came for 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem […]”. Let us remember, Hebrew children were not considered fit or fully pure until they became circumcised on the eight day, the day after the mother would become pure again. Does this mean that Jesus was impure, or ‘sinful’ as well?

 

More so, how about passages in which Jesus directly performs actions that would render him impure, and therefore ‘sinful’ in the eyes of Protestants? Let us look at Mark 5, Matthew 9 and Luke 8; where Jesus resurrected Jairus’ daughter from the dead 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙚 and 𝙗𝙮 𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙 once she was dead.

 

Numbers 19:11 and 19:16 is clear in stating that a person becomes impure when they touch a corpse. Numbers 19:14 states that a house and the people in it become impure when a corpse is present. So when Jesus is at Jairus’ home raising his daughter, he is engaging in two behaviors that would render him impure, thus ‘sinful’ according to Protestants. The same case may have occurred when He resurrected Lazarus.

 

We also know from Leviticus 15:25-27 that anyone who is in contact with a woman with an irregular discharge of blood becomes ceremonially impure. So we see that in the same above mentioned passages of Mk 5, Mt 9 & Lk 8, when the woman with the bleeding touches Jesus, that would have rendered Him ritually unclean – and thus sinful? But we know that Jesus remained sinless from other places in Scripture (2 Cor 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 1:18-19 & 2:22, 1 Jn 3:5, John 8:29).

 

What is the answer then? The answer is found in the emphasis and intent of those texts (Mk 5, Mt 9 & Lk 8). Three times we find the story of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage in the Gospels. Here we have Jesus and the NT writers explicitly emphasizing that those things that were considered unholy or unclean were mere disciplinary measurements to educate Israel; with the coming of the Messiah such things are passing away. This idea is reinforced by the many times that Jesus rebuked the Jews for focusing on the external purity laws alone, as they failed to internalize the Law in their hearts and acknowledge Him as Lord in their minds.

 

When Jesus challenged these practices it did not mean that God 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥, for neither He nor the Jews ever regarded such actions as morally sinful, except when done with the intent of disobedience. The transition to a better Law is the message that Jesus is bringing – discarding the traditions of men, abrogating aspects of the Leviticus Law and fulfilling the Mosaic Law. 

 

We have proved that impurity/uncleanliness was never a moral charge against the person in and of itself unless the person negated the purification rituals that needed to be done afterwards. Mary, like Jesus, obediently submitted herself to the Law even though she did not need to. Jesus did not need to be baptized, but let us remember His words: “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness”. Mary, in perfect obedience to the Word of God at that time and by the grace of her son Jesus, did exactly the same to fulfill all righteousness.

Biblical Support for Marian Dogmas

A quick recount of a few Bible verses that offer support for the different Marian dogmas and doctrines we Catholics believe in. Following the principle of typology, with the Old and the New Testament interacting with each other, we see Mary as the New Eve and as the New Ark of the Covenant; how the biblical authors depict her role in the Church and salvation history.

 

𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱

John 1:14 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.

Titus 2:13 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵,

Luke 1:43 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦?

 

𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗩𝗶𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆

John 19:27 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦, “𝘉𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳!” 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦.

Isaiah 66:7 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩; 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘯.

Ezekiel 44:1-2 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦; 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘪𝘵; 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘪𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵.

 

𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

Genesis 3:15𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨; 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴.

Jeremiah 31:22𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘋𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭? 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘖𝘙𝘋 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩– 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯.”

Luke 1:28— 𝘏𝘢𝘪𝘭, 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶!

 

𝗛𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

Psalm 132:8— 𝘈𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦, 𝘖 𝘓𝘖𝘙𝘋, 𝘵𝘰 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩. (Also 2:Chronicles 6:41)

Revelation 11:19— 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮.

Revelation 12:14— 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘨𝘭𝘦, 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩.

 

𝗠𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗕𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀

John 19:26— 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘺, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, “𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘯!”

Acts 1:14 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴.

Revelation 12:17 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨—𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴.

 

𝗛𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽

1 Kings 2:19— 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘣𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘫𝘢𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘣𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥.

Mark 10:37,41 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥, “𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺.” 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 […] 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥. (Also Matthew 20:21,23)

Revelation 12:1 𝘈 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯: 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥.

 

𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀

1 Kings 2:20 “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶,” 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 (𝘉𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘣𝘢). “𝘋𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘦.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 (𝘚𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘯) 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥, “𝘔𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵, 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳; 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶.”

John 2:3-5 “𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴’ 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮, “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦.” “𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦?” 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥. “𝘔𝘺 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦.” 𝘏𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴, “𝘋𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶.”

James 5:16— 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦.

Was St. Paul an Universalist?

Saint Paul did not speak of Hell in the same terms as the other Apostles did. A minority of both believers and non-believers see in St. Paul a door that could lead to a universalist interpretation of biblical soteriology. Some of the passages that seem to reinforce this recent development is the parts where he wishes the reconciliation of everything (e.g. Colossians 1:20). However, though he did not speak a lot about damnation in the same way other Holy Writings did, he is still clear about his interpretation when it comes to the fate of the wicked.

When we take a closer look, however, we see Paul may have believed in the now traditional Christian understanding of Hell. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 talks about ‘everlasting condemnation’ for those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel. He prefers the use of words like ‘wrath of God’, and ‘condemnation’ to describe eschatological judgement.

formacao_1600x1200-o-que-a-igreja-diz-sobre-purgatorio

The interesting thing is that, unlike John, the Gospels and Peter, he never refers to the Lake of Fire, Gehenna or Tartarus. In a sense, his idea of ‘separation from God’ will later serve to update our spiritual understanding of these realms, where judgement unfolds.

A few point out that the fire of destruction that Paul sometimes talks about, may not really mean a fire of damnation, but a purging one. This is our opportunity as Catholics to confirm what we have been telling everyone for centuries about our doctrine of Purgatory! Without question, Paul does speak about the cleansing type of eschatological fire. That’s why many Christians have historically found in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 an understanding of ‘refinement’ or ‘purgation’ of the Elect. The innegable connection to Zechariah 13:8-9, 14:1 suggests the Elect will be refined by the Lord in the Judgement Day. Even the Greek construction of the NT passage, when comparing it with the OT Septuagint version, is strikingly similar.

𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙚 (πυρὸς), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙧 (ἀργύριονκαὶ), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩 (δοκιμῶ) 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝙜𝙤𝙡𝙙 (χρυσίον) 𝘪𝘴 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 (ὡςδοκιμάζεται). 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘖𝘙𝘋 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘉𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘢 𝙙𝙖𝙮 (ἡμέραι) 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘖𝘙𝘋, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘴𝘵. (Zechariah 13:9,14:1)

𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝙜𝙤𝙡𝙙 (χρυσόν), 𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙧 (ἄργυρον), 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘩𝘢𝘺, 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘸—𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘿𝙖𝙮 (ἡμέρα) 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙚 (πυρὶ), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙚 (πῦρ) 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩 (δοκιμάσει) 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥. 𝘐𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙚 (πυρός). (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

The nature of the ‘Day’ Paul talks about can be understood as a day that ‘reveals’ (ἀποκαλύπτεται / apokalyptetai) many things. In this Day, the Lord as a refiner’s fire will cleanse His chosen ones (Malachi 3:2-3).
The second type of fire Paul speaks about, is a fire of vengeance (ἐκδίκησιν), which we read in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. Here he completes the thought on the nature of this day, when the ‘Lord Jesus’ ‘comes’ in ‘the majesty of his power’. Unbelievers and disobedient Christians are the object of this vengeance, awaiting ‘everlasting destruction’ (ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον).

According to some sources, 𝘖𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯 (destruction) does not automatically entail ‘extinction/annihilation’, rather it can be taken as ‘death/punishment/undoing’. The fact 𝘢𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘴 can be accompanied by concepts like punishment (Mt 25:46 / 𝘬𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘴) or life (𝘻𝘰𝘦 𝘢𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘴), talks about its use as an adjective. Talking of extinction/annihilation in ‘everlasting’ terms would be misleading, since in a logical sense extermination happens only once, and ceases after the object is destroyed.

The evidence is clear: given these passages, Paul does not uphold an universalist position, where everyone will eventually be saved. Rather, he is constantly concerned to inform believers to attain salvation and avoid the wrath of God.

El Purgatorio ‘probado’, según San Pablo

Por siglos los Católicos han sostenido que el pasaje de 1 Corintios 3:12-15 prueba la doctrina del purgatorio. Ya que San Pablo advierte sobre las obras que cada quien edifica en Cristo será juzgada en el Día del Juicio, para revelar de qué calidad es dicha obra.

 

“𝘠 𝘴𝘪 𝘴𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘨𝘶𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝙤𝙧𝙤, 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙖, 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘴, 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢, 𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘰, 𝘩𝘰𝘫𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘢, 𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘶𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢́ 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢; 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝙚𝙡 𝙙𝙞́𝙖 𝘭𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘢́, 𝘱𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘭 𝙛𝙪𝙚𝙜𝙤 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘢́ 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘥𝘢; 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘶𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘶𝘢́𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘢, 𝘦𝘭 𝙛𝙪𝙚𝙜𝙤 𝘭𝘢 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙖́. 𝘚𝘪 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘨𝘶𝘯𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘰́, 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘢́ 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘢. 𝘚𝘪 𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘨𝘶𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘦́𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘳𝘢́ 𝘱𝘦́𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘢, 𝘴𝘪 𝘣𝘪𝘦𝘯 𝘦́𝘭 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘢́ 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘷𝘰, 𝘢𝘶𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘪́ 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝙛𝙪𝙚𝙜𝙤.”

 

San Pablo obviamente adopta el lenguaje del Antiguo Testamento, que presenta a Dios como un fuego que purifica a sus elegidos en el final de los tiempos (dado su uso de ‘el día’). La idea es que aquellos elegidos para la vida eterna que no construyeron en Cristo de una manera perfecta, serán salvos, pero antes sus obras y ellos mismos ‘sufrirán pérdida’ mediante un proceso de purificación. Mientras que el fuego de destrucción, como sugiere el contexto que le sigue a los versículos aquí citados, está reservado para aquellos que despreciaron la obra salvífica de Dios.

 

“¿𝘠 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦́𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘥𝘳𝘢́ 𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘳 𝙚𝙡 𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙨𝙪 𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙙𝙖? ¿𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦́𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘥𝘳𝘢́ 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘪𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰 𝘦́𝘭 𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦? 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝙚́𝙡 𝙚𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙤 𝙛𝙪𝙚𝙜𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙧, 𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘫𝘢𝘣𝘰́𝘯 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴. 𝘠 𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘢́ 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝙖𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙧 𝘺 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙞𝙖𝙧 𝙡𝙖 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙖; 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙞𝙖𝙧𝙖́ 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘫𝘰𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘓𝘦𝘷𝘪́, 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝘢𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘢́ 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘢 𝙤𝙧𝙤 𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘢 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙖, 𝘺 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘳𝘢́𝘯 𝘢 𝘑𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘷𝘢́ 𝘰𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘦𝘯 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢.” (Malaquías 3:2-3)

 

“𝘠 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦́ 𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘭 𝙛𝙪𝙚𝙜𝙤 𝘢 𝘭𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦, 𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚́ 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙖, 𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙚́ 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘶𝘦𝘣𝘢 𝘦𝘭 𝙤𝙧𝙤. 𝘌𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘢́ 𝘮𝘪 𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘳𝘦, 𝘺 𝘺𝘰 𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘪𝘳𝘦́, 𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦́: 𝘗𝘶𝘦𝘣𝘭𝘰 𝘮𝘪́𝘰; 𝘺 𝘦́𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘢́: 𝘑𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘷𝘢́ 𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘪 𝘋𝘪𝘰𝘴. 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘲𝘶𝘪́, 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘦 𝙚𝙡 𝙙𝙞́𝙖 𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘶𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘰, 𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘴 𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘥𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘢́𝘯 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘢; 𝘢𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝙙𝙞́𝙖 𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘢́ 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘢́, 𝘩𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘰 𝘑𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘷𝘢́ 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝘦𝘫𝘦́𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘴, 𝘺 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘫𝘢𝘳𝘢́ 𝘯𝘪 𝘳𝘢𝘪́𝘻 𝘯𝘪 𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢.” (Zacarías 13:9, 14:1)
Es el amor de Dios por sus elegidos el cual nos purifica antes de entrar a esa visión beatifica, antes de estar en su presencia, en donde nada impuro puede entrar (Apocalipsis 21:27).

¿Quién es la Gran Prostituta de Babilonia?

Junto con las figuras de la Bestia y el Anticristo, este personaje es sin duda uno de los más malentendidos en la historia del Cristianismo. Un principio básico es seguir el consejo del Apóstol Pedro (2 Pedro 1:20): “ninguna profecía de la Escritura es de interpretación privada”. El libro del Apocalipsis, conteniendo escrituras de carácter profético, tiene una temática propensa a ser distorsionada por muchos para su propia destrucción (2 Pedro 3:16). Así que es importante entender este libro a la luz del Antiguo Testamento, según el entendimiento de las primeras comunidades cristianas, quienes fueron los principales destinatarios del mensaje de San Juan.

 

La identidad de esta figura bíblica es revelada en Apocalipsis 17:18. El Apóstol recibe la siguiente pista:

“La mujer que viste en la visión representa la gran ciudad que reina sobre los reyes del mundo.”

 

Esto quiere decir que la mujer es un lugar, y Apocalipsis 11:8 nos dice claramente cuál es esta gran ciudad:

“Y sus cadáveres estarán en la plaza de la grande ciudad que en sentido espiritual se llama Sodoma y Egipto, donde también nuestro Señor fue crucificado.”

Todo cristiano sabe que Jesucristo fue crucificado en Jerusalén, no en Roma, ni en Meca, ni en Estados Unidos. Esta pista debería de ser suficiente para entender quién es esta mujer. Sin embargo, hay líderes religiosos que continúan negando esta verdad, con el fin de manipular a las masas a través del miedo y de mentiras. Veamos más elementos que en su totalidad, una vez descubiertos, dejan muy en claro la naturaleza de estos pasajes bíblicos.

 

Adicionalmente, Juan comenta que esta ciudad persiguió a los santos y mártires de Dios (17:6):

“Vi a la mujer ebria de la sangre de los santos, y de la sangre de los mártires de Jesús; y cuando la vi, quedé asombrado con gran asombro.”

 

En Apocalipsis 18:20 vemos que Dios le hace justicia a aquellos que han muerto a causa de sus persecuciones:

“¡Alégrense también ustedes, santos, apóstoles y profetas!, porque Dios, al juzgarla, les ha hecho justicia a ustedes”.

 

Jerusalén no es solo la responsable de haber matado a Esteban (Hechos 7:54-60), el primer mártir y a otros discípulos de Jesús (Hechos 12:1-2), sino que también persiguió y mató a los profetas del Antiguo Testamento:

“Y en ella se halló la sangre de los profetas y de los santos, y de todos los que han sido muertos en la tierra.” (Apocalipsis 18:24)

 

Este testimonio concuerda con el Lamento de Jesús en Mateo 23:37-39, cuando dice:

“¡Jerusalén, Jerusalén, que matas a los profetas, y apedreas a los que te son enviados!”

(Lucas 11:47-51 es clave para entender esto.)

 

Algunos dirán: ‘pero Jerusalén no era el centro del mundo ni de las naciones, ni tenía poder sobre los reyes y moradores de la Tierra’. Apocalipsis 17:15 dice que: “Las aguas que has visto donde la ramera se sienta, son pueblos, muchedumbres, naciones y lenguas.”

 

Hechos 2:5-11 nos narra cómo Jerusalén se llenaba de gente de todos los rincones de la Tierra durante la Pascua Hebrea:

Moraban entonces en Jerusalén judíos, varones piadosos, de todas las naciones bajo el cielo. Y hecho este estruendo, se juntó la multitud; y estaban confusos, porque cada uno les oía hablar en su propia lengua. Y estaban atónitos y maravillados, diciendo: Mirad, ¿no son galileos todos estos que hablan? ¿Cómo, pues, les oímos nosotros hablar cada uno en nuestra lengua en la que hemos nacido? Partos, medos, elamitas, y los que habitamos en Mesopotamia, en Judea, en Capadocia, en el Ponto y en Asia, en Frigia y Panfilia, en Egipto y en las regiones de África más allá de Cirene, y romanos aquí residentes, tanto judíos como prosélitos, cretenses y árabes […]”

 

De igual manera, esta mujer viste:

“[…] púrpura y escarlata, y adornada de oro, de piedras preciosas y de perlas, y tenía en la mano un cáliz de oro lleno de abominaciones y de la inmundicia de su fornicación y en su frente un nombre escrito, un misterio: BABILONIA LA GRANDE, LA MADRE DE LAS RAMERAS Y DE LAS ABOMINACIONES DE LA TIERRA.” (Apocalipsis 17:4-5)

 

Acerca de las vestiduras del Sumo Sacerdote, Éxodo 28:15,17-20 dice:

“Harás asimismo el pectoral del juicio de obra primorosa, lo harás conforme a la obra del efod, de oro, azul, púrpura, carmesí y lino torcido […] lo llenarás de pedrería en cuatro hileras de piedras; una hilera de una piedra sárdica, un topacio y un carbunclo; la segunda hilera, una esmeralda, un zafiro y un diamante; la tercera hilera, un jacinto, una ágata y una amatista; la cuarta hilera, un berilo, un ónice y un jaspe. Todas estarán montadas en engastes de oro.”

 

Éxodo 39:29 lee de la siguiente manera:

“También el cinto de lino torcido, de azul, púrpura y carmesí, de obra de recamador, como Jehová lo mandó a Moisés.”

 

Además, el Sumo Sacerdote usaba un incensario dorado y una mitra que tenía una inscripción sobre la frente:

“Harás además una lámina de oro fino, y grabarás en ella como grabadura de sello, SANTIDAD A JEHOVÁ.” (Éxodo 28:36)

Vemos que el nombre de la Ramera ha cambiado, dado que ya no refleja la ‘Santidad de Jehová’, sino que refleja su propia inmundicia de fornicación e idolatría.

 

Sabemos también que existe una base bíblica que históricamente compara a Jerusalén y el Pueblo de Israel con la prostitución por medio de idolatría:

“tus adulterios, tus relinchos, la maldad de tu fornicación sobre los collados; en el campo vi tus abominaciones. !!Ay de ti, Jerusalén! ¿No serás al fin limpia? ¿Cuánto tardarás tú en purificarte?” (Jeremías 13:27)

 

De hecho, todo el capítulo 16 del Profeta Ezequiel acusa inconfundiblemente a Jerusalén por haberse prostituido con los reinos e imperios de la región, adorando a dioses ajenos:

“Pero confiaste en tu hermosura, y te prostituiste a causa de tu renombre, y derramaste tus fornicaciones a cuantos pasaron; suya eras.” (Ezequiel 16:15)

 

De hecho, cuando Ezequiel escribe en contra de Jerusalén, también le hace parentesco con las ciudades de Samaria y de Sodoma (v. 46, 48).

“Y tu hermana mayor es Samaria, ella y sus hijas, que habitan al norte de ti; y tu hermana menor es Sodoma con sus hijas, la cual habita al sur de ti. […] Vivo yo, dice Jehová el Señor, que Sodoma tu hermana y sus hijas no han hecho como hiciste tú y tus hijas.”

Recordemos que Juan nos dice que espiritualmente, esta mujer en Apocalipsis es conocida como “Egipto y Sodoma”.

 

Es por eso que Dios mismo ordena a Oseas a casarse con una prostituta. Ya que Dios quería que nosotros entendiéramos lo que Él mismo ha sufrido con Jerusalén. Jerusalén es una esposa que ha cometido adulterio una y otra vez, pero aún así Dios ha buscado amarla y reconciliarse con ella. Es por esto que el juicio en Apocalipsis es severo, ya que no habrá más oportunidades para Jerusalén.

 

Evidencia extrabíblica nos hace ver que Jerusalén, al igual que muchas otras ciudades alrededor del mundo, se asienta sobre 7 colinas: los montes Ophel, Sión, Moría, Besetah, Acra, Gareb y Goath. Otra lista con diferentes nombres es: Monte Scopus, Monte Nob, el Monte de la Corrupción (2 Reyes 23,13), El original Monte Sión, la colina Suroeste también llamada Monte Sión, el Monte Ofel,  y “La Roca” donde se construyó la fortaleza “Antonia”.

 

La Mujer montando a la Bestia indica una alianza estratégica o una unidad ya sea teológica o política. No hay acto de mayor traición que el que Jerusalén hizo, representada por el Sumo Sacerdote, al negar al Rey de Reyes y al aceptar al César (Juan 19:15). Vemos que el Imperio Romano y las autoridades judías conspiraron para matar al Mesías (Hechos 4:27).

 

Apocalipsis 17:16 dice también:

“Y los diez cuernos que viste en la bestia, éstos aborrecerán a la ramera, y la dejarán desolada y desnuda; y devorarán sus carnes, y la quemarán con fuego”.

Esto tiene un profundo significado profético, ya que Juan pronostica que esta alianza no será para siempre, sino que se revertirá en contra de la Prostituta para su propia devastación. Tal como sucedió con la Destrucción del Segundo Templo de Jerusalén bajo el asedio de los romanos.

 

Toda esta evidencia apunta a que Jerusalén es la Mujer que monta a la Bestia. Sin embargo, cabe recalcar que la Gran Ramera de Babilonia no es lo mismo que la histórica Babilonia, archienemigo de los israelitas. Nótese que se lee “Gran Ramera de Babilonia”, no “la Gran Ramera, Babilonia”. Veremos más adelante la naturaleza de esta Babilonia.

Kecharitomene or Highly-favored? Does it matter?

 

Earlier I provided a chronology describing how the expression “full of grace” fell in disuse among non-Catholic renditions of Luke 1:28.

 

When we Catholics look at the many instances Scripture describes someone as being full of grace, as in the case of Jesus (Jn 1:14), Stephen (Acts 6:8) and Mary, we need to ask ourselves why would the Father equip them with boundless amounts of grace?

 

Since one of the most trustworthy definitions of grace is “God’s undeserved favor”, we Catholics can confidently state God granted Mary His ‘high favor’ by making her ‘full of grace’ in order she may fulfill the purposes the Father designed for her. And such purposes are raising the Messiah and providing spiritual support and intercession for His Church.

 

The Greek use of kecharitomene makes it almost impossible to translate the passage in common terms, but that doesn’t mean we can’t infer the idea the author wanted to convey. The word in question is a perfect passive participle in the feminine, better understood as “having been graced” – but it also partakes as a title or a as name, since it is preceded by the archangel’s salutation. So just as we would greet a king: Hail, His Majesty -or- Hail, Rabbi -or- Hail, King of the Jews; it must be understood God wanted Mary to be identified with such a title.

 

The problem between Catholics and Protestants does not arise so much from what wording is being used as a translation for such verses, but from the suppression of its meaning and whether or not Mary’s role is denied. This is quite similar to what happens when Catholics grant the Rock in Mt 16:18 may refer in different senses to Peter, his confession of faith and Christ himself; yet protestants purposely deny the first one out of a doctrinal bias.

Do Catholics Worship Mary? A response to Matt Slick

 

Words can be confusing when you want to define terms, and terms can be confusing when you want to define actions. Many concepts like “adoration, veneration, worship, reverence, homage, prayer and devotion”, though accurate to describe certain actions and ideas, lack a consistent use and meaning throughout history. When criticizing religious doctrines, such as the Catholic Marian dogmas, Protestants should use Catholic definitions and later compare such practices with those present in Scripture and history — just as they would expect us to use distinctions they do that we don’t consider biblical (e.g. sanctification vs justification, and regeneration vs baptism). This we do in order to avoid the ever changing nature of words to mud our study. An illustration of this is the word ‘worship’ itself, which in the Old English was simply used to describe any acknowledgement of worth[1], whereas nowadays has become a synonym to ‘adoration’.

 

Prominent Catholic figures like Augustine[2], Jerome[3] and Aquinas[4] explained in their writings the different senses in which Christians should honor God and creatures. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2628) summarized their position and defines what we mean by “adoring”:

Adoration is the first attitude of man acknowledging that he is a creature before his Creator. It exalts the greatness of the Lord who made us and the almighty power of the Savior who sets us free from evil. Adoration is homage of the spirit to the “King of Glory,” respectful silence in the presence of the “ever greater” God. Adoration of the thrice-holy and sovereign God of love blends with humility and gives assurance to our supplications.

 

As for the latria, hyperdulia and dulia distinction, the Church states the following:

«The special veneration due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is substantially less than the cultus latria (adoration), which is due to God alone. But it is higher than the cultus dulia (veneration), due to angels and other saints. As the Church understands the veneration of Mary, it is to be closely associated but subordinated to that of her Son. “The various forms of piety towards the Mother of God, which the Church has approved within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine according to the dispositions and understanding of the faithful, ensure that while the mother is honored, the Son through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly loved and glorified and His commandments are observed”» [5]

 

In the end, the way a Christian honors or worships (in the old-fashioned sense of the word), can be broken down as follows:

Latria & Dulia-01

Once confronted with such a clear doctrinal distinction, many have attempted to argue from Scripture that such distinction is unbiblical, though without success. Such is the case of James White, who insists the Bible condemns any type of intercessory/petitionary prayer, service and veneration in a religious context when such actions are not addressed to God. In the end, White’s argument is a modified version of what Calvin argued in his Institutes [6], but instead of focusing in the Greek, White focuses in the Hebrew text. Others [7] have addressed such type of reasoning more specifically, so I won’t take the time to go over his arguments; only those that happen to overlap with Matt Slick’s article “Do Catholics Worship Mary?”[8].

 

According to Slick, the biblical way in which the people of God pay their homage to God alone is by:

■ adoring,

■ setting up altars,

■ bowing down,

■ being devoted to,

■ entrusting one’s self to,

■ celebrating feasts to,

■ giving glory to,

■ having locations of (?),

■ looking to,

■ praying to,

■ and/or worshipping.

 

There is a fundamental flaw in this interpretation. Both Protestants and Catholics will agree that these actions in and of themselves are not sins. They only become sinful if the recipient of some of these actions is someone other than God. Some actions are owed to God alone, like adoring or setting up sacrificial altars; while others, like bowing down, can be performed towards human beings without any guilt. Let’s analyze some of these controversial actions:

 

Adoring

Not surprisingly, in Slick’s article there was only an image to argue that Catholics adore Mary. Never in the history of the Church has the Magisterium officially taught or produced a document inviting Catholics to adore Mary in the same way we adore our almighty God. The challenge to produce such evidence has been laid out many times, and Protestant apologists have continuously neglected such proof. Old pious prayers with archaic lofty and exalted language won’t suffice as evidence.

 

Altars

The accusation that Catholics built altars to worship Mary is a common misunderstanding of ancient architecture. Due to their scale, Romanesque and Gothic layouts in churches would allow certain subdivision of interior spaces, also known as chapels, to allow the building to host more than one activity at a given time — even different masses at a time. In big churches like basilicas and cathedrals, these chapels, yet part of the larger apse, would be often be considered separate from the larger main layout. Chapels would often be dedicated to certain persons of the Trinity, saints, angels or even patrons; and some of them would be equipped with altars to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist in a smaller scale, with a smaller crowd. The sacrifices taking place in these secondary altars were never offered to the saint or angel to whom the chapel was dedicated, for that matter, the offers were not directed towards the surrounding images or statues. As explained, these spatial arrangements allowed for the personal devotions to these heroes of the faith to be more intimate, and to manage the crowds when the need arises.

 

Altar sacrifices should indeed be offered to God and to God alone. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion denounces the heresy of the Collyridians, who pretended to offer quasi-Eucharistic sacrifices to the Virgin Mary. The group was immediately condemned and classified as a heresy by the Early Church. This only reaffirms the ecclesiastic commitment to offer the Holy Virgin proper veneration, and it confirms the always-present understanding that the Eucharist was the ultimate pleasing-to-God memorial sacrifice. It is worth to note Epiphanius was one of the few Church Fathers who was somewhat scandalized to some early Christian practices that involved the decoration of churches with images and statues of the saints. Again, this only proves it was already common by the time he wrote about this issue. 

 

Entrusting/Praying

One of the earliest Christian prayers, the Sub tuum praesidium (c. 300 AD), reads as follows: “We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.” Entrusting ourselves to the care of angels and saints, and entrusting them with our petitions through the power of the Holy Spirit, so that they intercede before the Father, is not unbiblical. The book of Revelation portrays angels and saints in Heaven, receiving the prayers of the holy ones here on Earth, and presenting them to the Father (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4*).

 

Additionally, the Catechism teaches:

The Holy Spirit who teaches the Church and recalls to her all that Jesus said also instructs her in the life of prayer, inspiring new expressions of the same basic forms of prayer: blessing, petition, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. [10]

 

The petitions in which we mention Mary’s role are primarily prayers of intercession…:

Since Abraham, intercession – asking on behalf of another has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God’s mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ’s, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks “not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others,” even to the point of praying for those who do him harm.

The first Christian communities lived this form of fellowship intensely. Thus the Apostle Paul gives them a share in his ministry of preaching the Gospel but also intercedes for them. The intercession of Christians recognizes no boundaries: “for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions,” for persecutors, for the salvation of those who reject the Gospel. [11]

 

… and prayers of petition:

Christian petition is centered on the desire and search for the Kingdom to come, in keeping with the teaching of Christ. There is a hierarchy in these petitions: we pray first for the Kingdom, then for what is necessary to welcome it and cooperate with its coming. This collaboration with the mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit, which is now that of the Church, is the object of the prayer of the apostolic community. It is the prayer of Paul, the apostle par excellence, which reveals to us how the divine solicitude for all the churches ought to inspire Christian prayer. By prayer every baptized person works for the coming of the Kingdom. [12]

 

Though the latter type of prayer is not as common when it comes to the figure of Mary, it is still valid to invoke her name in such manner. E.g. “Father in Heaven, in your mercy, grant me the virtues you entrusted to your servant Mary; so that with your graces I may be equipped to …”. Mary, ultimately aligns the prayer of Christians and God’s servants to “do whatever He tells you” (Jn 2:5). Let us remember James’ words (5:16): “the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective”; how much more effective will the intercession of the Mother of God be?

 

Feasts

As preamble, Romans 14:5-6 invites Christians to avoid passing judgment over those converts who observe Jewish feasts. The context of the passage is denouncing the criticism that people whose faith is stronger have towards those Jewish converts whose faith is weaker. Paul argues that the important thing is to live for the Lord, and that’s what Catholics are called to and constantly reminded of.

 

Exodus 32:5 is quoted as somehow prohibiting all types of feasts. The reality is that the Bible does not forbid the celebration of non-biblical feasts. The Jews did not take it that way either. Until this day, most of them have observed the Feast of the Dedication, which Slick would probably consider unbiblical, sourced in the victory of the troops of Judas Maccabeus over the Macedonian rulers and the purification of the new temple. Some people even argue that Jesus Himself used this feast to come into the world as the true new temple. Similarly, other Jewish feasts celebrate God’s work with His people, which is the whole point of having feasts in the Church as well. When the Church celebrates someone’s feast, it primarily celebrates God’s work on his loyal servant(s). Mary is the most excellent creature that ever existed, so naturally the Church celebrates her with special consideration.

 

Glory

Here is where the Reformed idea of monergism becomes more apparent. We do not take away glory from God when the Body of Christ is exalted by God’s own power. The strange view that members of the Body of Christ should not have any sort of glory has crept into the Church; perhaps not acknowledging that God works in us by endowing us with His own glory. The Father conferred glory to His incarnate Son, so He may confer it to us (John 17:22). He raises us up to have us seated in Heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6), where we will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3) and the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30), and reign with Him if we endure (2 Timothy 2:12) and suffer in his name (Romans 8:17). All this, so that by following His Gospel, we may gain His glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

 

Our God is not a jealous one in this sense, He is a God that shares in His glory, by making us participants in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Therefore, we do not err when we promote the God-given glory of Mary, for this is not of her own doing; but conferred by the Lord Himself. There is a difference between acknowledging the glory of a person who has lived a godly life, and conferring a glory we don’t have via a power we don’t have, since the latter is impossible.

 

Bowing down

I recall two common instances in the Bible in which creatures have been rebuked by kneeling/bowing down to other creatures. In Acts 10:25-26, Cornelius, having little knowledge of the Christian faith, is warned by Peter not to prostrate himself before him. In Revelation 19:10, and Revelation 22:9, John can’t resist the temptation to adore the angels of God. As a sidenote, in Tobit 12:16, we have no indication that angels are displeased when humans fall to the ground before them out of fear without the intention to worship; in fact they bring consolation to help overcome that fear. We see then; bowing down, prostrating, kneeling or falling to the ground, is only considered sinful when our intention is to worship/adore the creature or idol in front of us.

 

We have a better and more accurate biblical analogy we should study when it comes the Blessed Mother. In 1 Kings 2, we have the Gebirah, the “Great Lady” (a typos of Mary), approaching King Solomon (a typos of Jesus). As you would imagine, this queen lady is Bathsheba, the mother of the king. In verse 19, she enters where the king is seated to intercede for Adonijah, and the king Solomon “stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne”. Having bowed before King David in chapter 1:31, she now receives this level of reverence from her own son. Make no mistake, Mary is indeed the cosmical Gebirah (Rev 12:1), and as the great intercessor, we should treat her with the same level of respect.

 

In Joshua 7:6, Joshua fell face-down before the Ark of God. Did the Israelites adore the Ark? No, but they paid utter reverence to it because it signified God’s presence. Otherwise the Ark would have faced the same fate as the Nehushtan did. In the same fashion, Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. She contained the Word of God in flesh, as the Ark contained the Word of God in stone; she contained the Living Bread from Heaven, as the Ark contained the heavenly Mana; and she contained the true High Priest, as the Ark contained Aaron’s rod, symbol of the priesthood. Even fake idols fell down in prostration with their heads crushed before the Ark (1 Samuel 5:4), just as Mary’s seed is promised to crush the head of the serpent and her offspring in Genesis 3:15.

 

Worshipping?

All things considered, we have learned that worship in the Christian faith and Catholic theology encompasses different levels of respect; and though contemporary linguistic considerations would favor terms like veneration instead, there is no theological error in saying worshiping someone, in the traditional sense of the word, is a sinful practice. When ‘adoring’ is used as a synonym of ‘worship’, and such practice is oriented towards a creature, idol or interest, it is always sinful as it does fall into the category of idolatry.

pieta by vgm8383
Michelangelo’s La Pietà – Photography by vgm8383 (Flickr user)

The Reformers were tough critics of this distinction of latria and dulia, yet they had to say the following about Mary:

 

Luther

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”[13]

 

In his last Sermon at Wittenberg, in January 1546 he preached:

“Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.”[14]

 

In his 1531 sermon at Christmas, while strongly arguing the Catholic devotion to Mary detracted from Christ, Luther wrote:

“[…] what are all the maids, servants, masters, mistresses, princes, kings, and monarchs on earth compared with the Virgin Mary, who was born of royal lineage, and withal became the mother of God, the noblest woman on earth? After Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom. And this noblest woman on earth is to serve me and us all by bearing this child and giving him to be our own! […] True it is, she is worthy of praise and can never be praised and extolled enough. For this honor is so great and wonderful, to be chosen before all women on earth to become the mother of this child.”[15]

 

Zwingli wrote:

“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary”[16].

 

He later goes on to say: “The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow”[17].

 

Calvin — from whom a famous Reformed Protestant said: “Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin” [18] — coincidently said:

“It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son.”[19]

 

He again wrote: “To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”[20]

This same honor we Catholics promote and proclaim, this is the honor we Catholics celebrate; for “all generations shall call her blessed” (Luke 1:48).

 


* Tobit 12:12 supports the role of angels and archangels as the ones who present the prayers to God.


[1] Merriam Webster Dictionary (online).

[2] The City of God, Book X.

[3] Letter 109, Paragraph 1.

[4] Summa Theologica, 2nd II, Q 103, Arts 3 & 4.

[5] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, VII, 66.

[6] Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:12:2.

[7] https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/12/29/debunking-james-white-on-the-latria-and-dulia-distinction/

[8] https://carm.org/catholic/do-catholics-worship-mary?fbclid=IwAR1AYmo0ZBVLFOZU3cK4JokDeP4yAN6IihTdczXrv4VHMSnH0ezGM6Fr9nI

[9] The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies (Second, revised ed.). 79. 2012-12-03 – via Brill.

[10] Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2644).

[11] Ibid. 2635, 2636.

[12] Ibid. 2632.

[13] Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.

[14] Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works

[15] Martin Luther, Sermon at Christmas (1531), Luther’s Complete Sermons Vol. 5 Ed. by George Roerer (14-15).

[16] E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

[17] Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

[18] C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. II: The Full Harvest

[19] John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.” Page 348

[20] John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew’s Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

Kecharitomene: How Protestants favored ‘highly-favored’.

 

Translations are what they are… translations. As many other Catholic theologians would point out, the word ‘kecharitomene’ has a more robust and emphatic meaning when understood in the Greek. In this article, I would like to shine light on the issue of why most non-Catholics have deviated from the use of “full of grace” when translating kecharitomene in Luke 1:28. Here’s a brief exposition of the way the Protestant textual interpretation shifted when it comes to the English readings.

mary-kecharitomene

The earliest lucan reading in Greek is found as this:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ” (Nestle Aland)

 

At the time, the Textus Receptus, crucial to our understanding of several developments, read like this, very similar to the original Greek:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν” (Textus Receptus)

 

Χαῖρε / Chaire – undoubtedly is both a praise and greeting  with reverence at the same time; not one or the other. I hope we can agree on this one. (See Mt 26:49, 27:29, Mk 15:18 & Jn 19:3)

 

The first English translations by Wycliffe (1380 & 1395) read this way:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝙃𝙚𝙞𝙡, 𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙚; 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦; 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘺𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

The Tyndale Bible (1534) read like this:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘥𝘦: 𝙃𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝘺𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘦: 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

Now, the Geneva Bible in 1557, changed the meaning of kecharitomene but retained the royal greeting of Chaire. The extraneous use of “beloved” instead of “full of grace” is probably attributed to the earlier 1568 Bishop’s Bible:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝙃𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙚𝙙: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦: 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

From this point on, there has been plenty of freedom in the non-Catholic interpretations of the text. Look at the 1611 KJB’s unprecedented rendition:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝙃𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙖𝙪𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦: 𝘉𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

Moreover, subsequent English translations followed such rendition, and the posterior King James versions later revised themselves to read similarly to what we have today in our texts:

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, “𝙍𝙚𝙟𝙤𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙚, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶; 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯!” (KJV 2016)

 

The first recorded instance of a Bible removing the royal greeting Chaire is the Etheridge translation (1849): “𝙋𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙚, 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙚”, followed by the Emphasised Rotherham version (1902): “𝙅𝙤𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙚, 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙚”. It’s proven, I think, these slight but significant alterations to the interpretation are not only modern, but sourced in a doctrinal bias. Ever since the KJV, non-Catholic translations like the NIV, NASB, NRSV have diminished the title-description of kecharitomene, and avoided the rightful use of ‘Hail’ in the archangel’s salutation.

 

Just as “Hail” has a meaning of reverence that the words “greetings” or “rejoice” cannot fully express; kecharitomene has a significance in the Greek, which expressions like “full of grace”, much less “highly favored”, cannot fully capture.

“Why won’t the Vatican sell all its treasures and give them to the poor?”

The Bible already answered this question:

𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦; 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴’ 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦.

𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝙅𝙪𝙙𝙖𝙨 𝙄𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙩, 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙮 𝙝𝙞𝙢, 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳? 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳’𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧; 𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘢𝘨, 𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵.

“𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦,” 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥. “𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦.”

 

(John 12:3-8)

 

Tell me brother, would you betray Jesus and His Church too?

Peter, His Faith, or Christ as the Rock? What St. Augustine Actually Taught

Rock Cliff Boat Costa Boats Sea Church Castle

 

There are actually plenty of quotes from Augustine with interpretations of Matthew 16:18 which at first glance favors the retractors of Petrine Primacy. Orthodox and Protestants often cite these passages to show the Early Church Fathers never taught Peter was the Rock on which the Church was founded.

 

𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢), 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢) 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬; 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵. ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦,’ 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘥, 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩;’ 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, ‘𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩.’ 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘴; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.’ 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘐𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥? 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭?’ 𝘈𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭, 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵: 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳.Translated by R.G. MacMullen. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

 

𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯? ‘𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘳. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

 

𝘜𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘜𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥,’ 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳 (𝘔𝘵. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

 

𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢 (𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬) 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢; 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩,’ 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢) 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢); 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV

 

𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮, ‘𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘥, ‘𝘉𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘑𝘰𝘯𝘢, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳‘ (𝘔𝘵 16:16-18). 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨; 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

 

𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥 (𝘔𝘵 16:15-16)…𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶: 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘐 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯, 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 (𝘔𝘵 16:17-18); 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘰𝘳 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩; 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289  

 

𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘵 (𝘔𝘵. 16:18). 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 (1 𝘊𝘰𝘳. 10:4). 𝘞𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴, 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴, 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10,Sermon 358.5, p. 193

 

𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘭: ‘𝘜𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩.’ 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬? 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨: ‘𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.’ 𝘖𝘯 𝘏𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249.

 

𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳: ‘𝘖𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵.’…𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘐 𝘴𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩,’ 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘏𝘪𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥,’ 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯.’ 𝘍𝘰𝘳, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵,’ 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

 

Here I address the quotations of St. Augustine’s Sermons and Retractions regarding the Petrine theory. Augustine’s stances on the issue are better summarized in his own statement we just read in his ‘Retractationes’, which are not actual retractions or recantations as we understand them in the common English; but reconsiderations, re-examinations or revisions as many Latin scholars have pointed out.

 

As he himself described, Augustine originally maintained the Petrine theory, situating Peter as the Rock in Matthew 16:18. Later, he preached such rock was Peter’s confession or statement of faith. Finally, he also adopted the simpler view Christ is Himself the rock, probably as a result of his constant reference to the Pauline understanding of Christ as the rock from which believers drink and his work on the Psalms.

 

So here we have St. Augustine upholding three different perspectives on the passage — how does He (and therefore ‘we’) reconcile them? To answer this, we need to first have in consideration two things regarding Catholic theology and the historical context in which these words were written:

 

  1. No Christian in communion with the Catholic Church ever argued the See of Peter had no supreme authority over the universal church. We do find statements by Tertullian who first acknowledged the office of Peter in ‘Against Heresies’ to have such authority, but once he became a heretic, he recanted his position in ‘On Modesty’.
  2. Because of the latter, neither the doctrine of Papal Infallibility needed to be rigorously defined nor the non-Petrine interpretation of the rock condemned. If Augustine, not being considered infallible, had maintained that the Church at large (and not Peter alone) received the power of the keys after this doctrine was defined, he would have been anathematized by the Council. But in his writings, he never denies or detaches this power from the figure of St. Peter, he only leaves the door open for the minister in the Church to opt for a more pastoral interpretation or a more doctrinal one.

 

It is only as a result of the many controversies questioning the authority of the Bishop of Rome that the Church infallibly defined the verses in question as follow: 𝘔𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘸 16:16-19 (“𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩“) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯 21:15-17 (“𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘴 . . . 𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱“) 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺. — Questions People Ask About the Catholic Church by Fr. Leslie Rumble (Kensington, Australia: Chevalier, 1972), pp. 176-177.

 

In Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 1 we find the following:

  1. 𝘞𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘥.
  2. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴:
  3. 𝘉𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘑𝘰𝘯𝘢. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯.
  4. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨:
  5. 𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘴, 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱..
  6. 𝘛𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
  7. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳.
  8. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚, 𝙞𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙋𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝘾𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩; 𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙟𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙅𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙨 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛: 𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙖.

 

Having this in mind, the Catechism teaches four things, reconciling the issue for us in the process:

  1. 𝘔𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴: ‘𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘚𝘵. 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. (CCC 424)
  2. 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦; 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.” 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦“, 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘏𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘱𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵. (CCC 552)
  3. 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳: “𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘚𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: “𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮. (CCC 553)
  4. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙚, 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘏𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥.” 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦 (CCC 881).

The first and second point clearly collect most, if not all of the historic Catholic interpretations attributed to this passage. We see the Catechism, just like Augustine, teaches that Peter the man, his confession of faith and Christ Himself are all alluded as the foundational rocks. The Catechism later goes on verse by verse to identify the source of doctrinal developments.

 

Based on the third point, I must say non-Catholics who often attack papal supremacy by claiming Peter is not the rock in Mt 16:18 are quite missing the point. It is the handing of the keys alluded in the verse which alone confers Peter supreme authority over the rest of the Church, which is better understood in the light of Isaiah 22:22.

 

In point number 4, when the Catechism goes on to say “The Lord made Simon alone”, ‘alone’ is used in the individual sense, in comparison to the rest of the Apostles and the episcopal college. Thus, it does not exclude the understanding that the rock can be Simon’s confession of faith and Christ himself.

 

We conclude then, when it comes to putting to the test the Petrine theory of authority, the non-Catholic should challenge the power of the keys and the commission of Christ to feed His sheep, not the identity of the rock.

 

Acknowledging this, we also see in Catholic teaching there is room for more than one interpretation since they all approach the issue from different angles. We can say the rock in formal sense refers to Peter himself, just as the woman clothed with the sun refers to Mary. The rock in the material sense refers to a Christ-centered faith, since that is what Peter’s mission is fueled by. The rock in the efficient sense refers to Christ Himself, the fountainhead of grace through which the Holy Spirit edifies us in Him. Such understanding now makes much more sense thanks to the tireless work of Fathers like St. Augustine, who very often is juxtaposed against Catholic theology, but happened to be the one of the Church’s most loyal and revered servants.