Forum

In the Second Exodus Acknowledgments on p. viii I wrote, “St. Paul reminds us, Rm 3:23 ’All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ This book, like me, has its imperfections.” Although Second Exodus has been widely praised for its clear explanations of very deep Catholic teachings, any book that covers so much territory will inevitably have a few oversights. Many perceptive readers have raised questions that showed me where I could have done better or explained more clearly. In humble appreciation I share them with all who come here so that Second Exodus can continue to be, with God’s help, the best I can do.

To ask a question, prepare an e-mail message to me. Put in the subject line: Second Exodus Question. Then, in the body of the message, put:

The page number to which the question refers.
The question, preferably as a single paragraph.
If it would help me understand where your question comes from, please add a very brief explanation of whether you are Catholic or other background information.

I will answer by e-mail as soon as I can, generally within a few days.

The Questions and Answers

p. vi You said that your Scripture quotations are from the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE), but the quotation in your Preface isn’t from the RSVCE.

The quotation in the Preface is the only one in the book that is not from the RSVCE. It’s from the Jewish Masoretic text. At the time, I decided that Jews encountering a Hebrew Scripture quotation so early in the book would be more comfortable with one that felt familiar. I should have used the RSVCE to be completely consistent.

p. 21 You refer to El Greco’s Pietà. Shouldn’t that be Michelangelo’s Pietà?

Michelangelo’s is by far the best known Pietà, so I should have referred to it instead.

p. 26 You refer to Thessalonians as “the first book of what is now the New Testament.” Shouldn’t that be Matthew?

I meant the first book written. Read it as, “the earliest book...”

p. 26 You say, “During the first few centuries the Church sifted through the hundreds of competing books and selected 72 as divinely inspired Sacred Scripture: 45 in the Hebrew Scriptures and 27 in the New Testament.” I count 46 books in the Catholic Old Testament, for a total of 73 books in the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture. Which is correct?

I The answer is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #120: “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.” The Scripture reference I used at the time did count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one. Usually, I follow up on what other writers say and verify things for myself, but a simple numerical count in a scholarly reference text seemed safe enough to accept. However, the RSVCE Bible from which I always quote takes them as two separate books, and the phrasing of the Catechism suggests that is the preferred number. Therefore, from now on I will write and teach that the Catholic canon consists of 46 books from the Old Testament and 27 from the new for a total of 73.

p. 26 If the Councils of Hippo and Carthage approved and reaffirmed the books of Sacred Scripture in 393 and 397 respectively, why did the Council of Trent canonize them eleven centuries later in 1546?

Because the Pope approved the work of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage the list of books deemed Sacred Scripture was accepted by the whole Church. However, because the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial rather than universal the list was not finally authoritative. Its formal approval as the Canon of Sacred Scripture at the universal Council of Trent in 1546 closed the list for all time.

p. 43 Protestants object to Catholics calling their priests “Father” because of our Lord’s command, Mt 23:9 “Call no man your father on earth.” Does that highlight the risks of private interpretation of Scripture?

Yes. God also commanded, Ex 20:12, Dt 5:16 “Honor your father and your mother.” St. Paul described himself as Phil 2:22, 1 Tim 1:2 Timothy’s father and as 1 Cor 4:15 the father of all his children in Christ. John addresses 1 Jn 2:13 the fathers of children. Protestant men are happy to be listed on their children’s birth certificates as Father. Jesus meant, and the Church teaches, that God is the source of all authority on earth.

p. 48 Wasn’t Clement the fourth bishop of Rome?

Yes. Anacletus was the third Pope. Clement was the fourth.

p. 59 Many Protestants do not realize that in koine Greek there is no difference between petros and petra. Could we support the argument for Peter’s primacy if the New Testament had been written in classical Greek?

Sure. In classical Greek the feminine petra is a great rock or boulder while the masculine petros is a small stone. Because Peter was a man and not a woman, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had to use the masculine form Petros for the name Jesus gave in Hebrew as Kephas. If the New Testament had been written in classical Greek, the Greek alone would be ambiguous since use of the masculine form might be ascribed either to Peter’s masculinity or to describing a small stone. However, Scripture preserves for us the Hebrew word that Jesus actually spoke, making His meaning absolutely clear. Jesus called Peter Kephas, a great rock, not Evna, a small stone.

p. 76 You say, “Jesus’ divine nature descended to the place where the virtuous departed souls were waiting…” Wasn’t that His soul?

It certainly was the soul of His human nature. His divine nature is eternally in heaven, and was in heaven at all times during His incarnate life.

p. 83 You say, “Mary had told Elizabeth” that she was pregnant with the Son of God. Where do you find that?

Among my errors. Luke 1:41 shows clearly that the Holy Spirit told Elizabeth.

p. 107 You say, “The Canaanites, descendants of Cain, had a pagan religion …” Didn’t the descendants of Cain die in the flood?

I had intended to say “reminiscent of Cain.” Noah was in the line of Seth. Lk 3:36-38 The ark’s only human occupants were Gen 7:13 “Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons.” Men usually married within their own tribe, so we may suppose that Mrs. Noah and their sons’ wives also in the line of Seth.

p. 126 You explained the Council of Jerusalem, but you left out a crucial point. Torah prohibited Jews from drinking blood. How could Jesus ask them to do that?

The Jews were always asking Jesus for a sign that He was the Son of God. He gave them many signs, but now He was asking those who claimed to follow Him for a sign that they truly believed that He was the Son of God. They knew God had prohibited the Jews from consuming blood. Only a Jew who truly believed that Jesus was the Son of God could accept His supreme authority even over Torah commands.

Jesus was looking for faith. Peter showed it: Jn 6:68 “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Peter knew the Torah law, and had no idea what Jesus meant when He said, Jn 6:56 “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” But if Jesus said it, Peter had faith in it.

Our Father in heaven had commanded His covenant children not to eat the blood of animals because animals are lower than man in the order of created nature, having no immortal souls. However, we are to drink the Blood of Christ because that is a participation in His eternal life. We participate in Christ’s life, not in brute animal life. It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.”

God’s covenant with Abraham was an everlasting covenant. Gn 17:7 Jesus did not abolish the Torah prohibitions against consuming blood, but rather fulfilled them. Mt 5:17 The Judaizers Acts 15:1 said that Jewish Christians still had to observe all of the Torah laws. Peter’s answer was that Christ’s commands to love God and love one another fulfilled the Torah obligations of a Jew so that we no longer were bound by them. Peter declared the Judaizer position a heresy, saying in effect that Jewish Christians were bound only by the much more limited covenant that God had made with Noah, because Jews believe that it applies to all mankind. Acts 15:29 “…that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood…” This Noahite covenant Gn 9:1-17 prohibits Noah’s descendants, all mankind, from drinking the blood of creatures, animals or man. But Jesus is a Divine Person. We receive His glorified Body and Blood. God never prohibited that.

p. 136 Is baptism by desire the same as the Sacrament of Baptism?

Baptism by desire is not sacramental and does not imprint the baptismal character or enable a person to receive the other sacraments, but does confer sanctifying grace.

p. 143 Second Exodus makes several references to the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Isn’t it more precise to speak of His sacramental presence?

Yes. References to Christ’s physical presence in the Holy Eucharist on pages 143, 190, 192, and 340 are too limited. Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist is more than physical. It is sacramental.

p. 227 You said, Peter started chattering nonsense about making tents,” after the Transfiguration. Did he mean “tents of meeting,” or something like them, from the Old Testament?

I was referring to, Mt 17:4 “Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.’” St. Mark adds, Mk 9:5 “[Peter] did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid.” St. Luke says, Lk 9:33 “Peter said to Jesus, ‘Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah’—not knowing what he said.” These passages, particularly, “did not know what to say” and “not knowing what he said,” suggest to me that Peter was just chattering nonsense. If we speculate that Peter said something significant without realizing it, I don’t think he would have proposed to build tents of meeting. The tent of meeting was part of the Tabernacle, concisely described, Ex 27:21 “In the tent of meeting, outside the veil which is before the testimony …” My RSVCE (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) translates “booths” rather than “tents,” which might suggest the booths of Sukkot, Lev 23:42 “You shall dwell in booths for seven days; all that are native in Israel shall dwell in booths.” The Gospels do not record that Jesus took the suggestion seriously or even replied to it.

p. 279 You quote Evangelium Vitae 99 on abortion, “You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.” It makes a firm declaration that aborted children go to heaven, yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1261 states only, “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.” Are these definitive teachings inconsistent?

”You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord” appears in the official English translation provided by the Vatican. Other translations in Spanish, French, Italian, etc., appear the same way. However, Msgr. William B. Smith, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, July 2001, p. 65, checked the official Latin text published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (cf. AAS 87 [1995] p. 515). That definitive Latin text says, Infantum autem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere. Msgr. Smith translates, “Moreover, you are able to entrust with hope your infant to the same Father and His mercy.” The Church’s teaching is clear, and authoritatively expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.”

p. 293 You used the Daughters of St. Paul as an example of an organization worthy of our donations. I’ve seen some books in their stores that I don’t think are faithful to the Magisterium.

The overwhelming majority of Pauline Books & Media books and tapes support the Magisterium although some Catholics have found a very few inappropriate books (such as Medjugorje materials and Poem of the Man-God -- see the Second Exodus book, pp.248 & 313) at some of their stores. One woman wrote to me: “All in all, most of the materials I have found through the Daughters of St. Paul have been thoroughly orthodox and very helpful. But there have been enough questionable items that I would advise novice Catholics and inquirers into the Catholic faith to be careful while browsing the shelves in their local Pauline Books & Media.” My traditional standard is that I can recommend a bookshop only if I can safely send a novice Catholic in to buy whatever strikes his fancy. If someone commits adultery three times a year without true contrition and firm purpose of amendment, the Church would not describe him as more than 99 percent faithful. However, with over 20 stores in the United States and Canada, and additional stores in 50 other countries it would be impossible even for a saint to completely watch over every sister and every publication in every store. Since Pauline Books & Media stores carry numerous papal documents and other Vatican publications hard to find elsewhere, overall they are a valuable resource for Catholics.

p. 300 You say, “A Jew who through actual grace seeks God in a life illuminated by Torah ... will be saved.” If so, what is the advantage of sacramental baptism?

Sacramental baptism offers both certainty and abundant graces. In that paragraph I should have used can, as Vatican II did, rather than will. CCC 1257 says, “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.” CCC 1261 adds, “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.” Baptism removes all guilt of sin both original and personal and all punishment from sin both temporal and eternal. It infuses sanctifying grace, the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It incorporates us into Christ and into the Catholic Church. Finally, it imprints the baptismal character which enables a person to receive the other sacraments and become Christlike. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament. It confers sanctifying grace but does not imprint the baptismal character.

p. 341 You point out that the term hocus-pocus mocks the Latin words of institution, In hoc est enim Corpus Meum. Is that also true of the hokey-pokey dance?

Yes. These terms, dating from before Vatican II when the Latin words of institution were the only ones used in the Western Church, deliberately mock the most holy words in the Mass. We need to gently remind Protestants that both are offensive to Catholics.

p. 343 You wrote, “Before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage approved Sacred Scripture, the English language had already begun to emerge on a remote North Atlantic island called Angle-land by its dominant tribe.” Wasn’t Britain still a Roman province in 393 and 397 AD?

Yes, it was still a Roman province. The Anglo-Saxon invaders arrived about 410 AD, when the Western Emperor Honorius recalled his legions from Britain and told its people to defend their own island from the Saxon raiders. The inhabitants of Britain, who still considered their country to be part of the Roman Empire, held back the Saxons well past 490 AD, when they enjoyed a great victory at the Battle of Badon, commanded by a British general named Artorius, known to us today as King Arthur. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded and conquered Britain after the year 500, driving the native inhabitants into the western mountains. These mountains later became known as “Wales,” after the Anglo-Saxon name for those who lived there, the “Welsh,” a Germanic word meaning “Romanized foreigner.”

There are even more problems with “inclusive language” than I highlighted in Second Exodus. For example, suppose a disobedient priest reads the Nicene Creed at Sunday Mass as “For us men and women and our salvation...” The Creed’s original Greek word for “us men” is anthropos (all mankind), not ander (masculine person), so “for us men and our salvation” refers to every human person in the world. But if the priest assumes that “man” in the Creed means ander, he calls into question the salvation of women. The Nicene Creed also says that the Son of God “was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” (anthropos) This means Jesus took on a human nature. That is, the nature of men and women. By assuming that the Creed meant that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and became a man, the priest suggests that Jesus did not take on the same nature as women. If He did not take on the nature of women, He did not redeem women. We should read the Creed, and everything else, using traditional language whose meaning has been precisely honed by long experience.