New Insights Into The Deposit of Faith (By Ronald L Conte, JR)

New Insights
into the Deposit of Faith
by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
I believe that the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church

is God’s teaching, without exception.
1
New Insights into the Deposit of Faith
Copyright © 2003 by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
This book is copyrighted in both its electronic and printed versions.

All rights reserved.
All quotations from Holy Scripture are from the Revised Standard Version Bible, Catholic Edition, copyright
1965 and 1966 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the
USA. Used by permission.
Copyright details: You, the reader, have permission to download a copy of the electronic version of this book
(“ebook”) and to read it and keep it on your computer. You may not make any changes or edits to this ebook.
This book is copyrighted in both its electronic and printed versions. The right to sell this book in any form is
strictly reserved. All other rights are also reserved. Copyright is held by the author, Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Chronology: This book contains some material which the author previously published as booklets and articles
through the web site CatholicPlanet.com. The first chapter of this book had its beginnings in a booklet written
by the author and first published in 1998. The third chapter began with an article, written by the author, about
John the Baptist. The fifth and sixth chapters were written as chapters of this book, but published first as
ebooklets. The eighth chapter is an extension of the material written in my first book. The ninth chapter had its
beginnings in a booklet written by the author and first published in 1998. The Appendix consists of three
previously-published articles. All of the chapters, articles, and material in this book were written by the author,
Ronald L. Conte Jr. This book, New Insights into the Deposit of Faith, was first published as an electronic book
on September 17 of 2003.
Written by: Ronald L. Conte Jr.

Published by: Catholic Planet, P.O. Box 181, Grafton, Massachusetts 01519, USA.
Web site: www.CatholicPlanet.com
ISBN 0-9707993-4-9
2
Dedication
May the most holy,
most sacred,
most adorable,
most mysterious
and unutterable Name of God
be always
praised,
blessed,
loved,
adored
and glorified,
in Heaven,
on earth
and under the earth,
by all the creatures of God,
and by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ
in the most holy Sacrament of the altar.
3
Table of Contents
Author’s Forward ............ ..................................... 5
1. the Virginity of Jesus and Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Original Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3. John the Baptist Never Sinned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4. Time and Eternity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5. The Three Charisms of the Sacred Magisterium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6. co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7. Procession within the Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8. The End Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
9. Dormition, Resurrection, Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Appendix: previously-published articles
A. The Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
B. Stewardship is not Time, Talent, Treasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
C. The Future and the Popes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4
Author’s Forward
This book, New Insights into the Deposit of Faith, is a work of dogmatic and speculative theology. This book
presents to the universal Church a new deeper understanding of the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of
Faith. Many of these truths have not yet been explicitly taught by the Church. Even so, these truths are a part
of the teaching of the Church in so far as they are found, implicitly or explicitly, within the Sacred Deposit of
Faith. Everything found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith is a part of the teaching of the Church. The
teaching of the Church consists of nothing other than Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which together is
called the Sacred Deposit of Faith. There are many truths hidden within the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
My calling as a Catholic theologian is specifically to write speculative theology, that is, to write about those
truths not yet confirmed by the teaching authority of the Church. God has not called me to teach what has
already been well taught and widely understood, but rather to teach those truths of Christ which are found
within the Sacred Deposit of Faith and yet are nearly unknown to the Church on earth. It is my task to teach
the Church a new and deeper understanding of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
“5. In order to exercise the prophetic function in the world, the People of God must continually
reawaken or ‘rekindle’ its own life of faith (cf. 2 Tim 1:6). It does this particularly by contemplating ever
more deeply, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the contents of the faith itself and by dutifully
presenting the reasonableness of the faith to those who ask for an account of it (cf. 1 Pet 3:15). For the
sake of this mission, the Spirit of truth distributes among the faithful of every rank special graces ‘for the
common good’ (1 Cor 12:7-11).
“6. Among the vocations awakened in this way by the Spirit in the Church is that of the theologian. His
role is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the
inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church.” 1
Faithful disciples of Christ should not only accept all of the truths clearly taught by the Magisterium, but
should also continually seek a deeper and clearer understanding of the Sacred Mysteries of Christ, which can
never be fully comprehended by the human mind, nor fully expressed by human language. God is well
pleased, and the Church on earth is further enriched, whenever the faithful seek a deeper and clearer
understanding of the truths found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Do you think that all of the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith have already been explicitly
taught by the Church? Not so. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is like a vast forest of truth. Every day the Pilgrim
Church walks in that forest and everyday she discovers new things. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is like a deep
ocean filled with the mysteries of Christ. No matter how much time there is between now and the Return of
Christ, we shall not succeed in understanding everything found in that immense ocean of the Mysteries of
God.
Most Catholic theology written today either defends or undermines and attacks the teaching of the Church.
Those who find it hard to accept the current teaching of the Church are also likely to reject any new insights
into that teaching. Those who despise the teaching of the Church also despise new insights into that teaching.
On the other hand, those who defend the teaching of the Church are reluctant to have even more teachings to
defend. As they try to conserve the current explicit teaching of the Church, they find it difficult to accept new
teachings. Constant attacks against the teaching of the Church in recent years have impeded the development
of doctrine. The faithful spend so much time and effort defending the current explicit teaching of the Church
that they do not seek a new and deeper understanding of the Faith.
Most Catholics today (prior to the Day of Repentance) do not believe everything found within the explicit
teaching of the Church. This lack of faith among the faithful makes it difficult to teach them anything new.
5
They do not even accept all of the clearly established teachings of the Church. When presented with a new
insight into the Faith, they doubt even the most basic teachings upon which the deeper insight is based.
Most Catholics, liberal and conservative alike, are closed to accepting new insights into the Faith. They
refuse to seek new truths. They are unwilling to consider the possibility that their current understanding of the
Faith might be flawed or lacking in some way. The Faith itself is flawless; but their ideas about the Faith often
include some falsehoods, some misunderstandings, and numerous limitations.
The teachings found within this book do not contradict, nor do they in any way detract from, the teachings
of the Sacred Magisterium. Rather, the teachings found herein both support and build up the well-established
explicit teachings of the Church. So far from conflicting with earlier teachings, this book brings a new level of
understanding to beloved Church doctrines, such as the perfect virginity of Mary and the infallibility of the
Sacred Magisterium. I believe that the teaching of the holy Roman Catholic Church is God’s teaching, without
exception.
Private Revelation
The teachings of this book are based firmly on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. To some extent, I also
refer to private revelation, such as that given to Anne Catherine Emmerich or to Saint Bridget of Sweden. But
I have never received any private revelation myself. And none of the teachings of this book come solely from
private revelation.
God is infallible in all things. Private revelation from God is, in itself, infallible. However, the person who
receives the private revelation may misunderstand what God is saying. (Anne Catherine misunderstood some
portions of her private revelations; for details, see my book, Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary.) The
person who writes down a private revelation might also make a mistake. Any revelation from God is always
infallible, but private revelation may contain errors introduced by either the person who received the revelation
or the person who wrote down the revelation. For this reason, private revelation is considered fallible.
Divine Revelation, that is, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, is infallible in itself. Sacred Scripture was
written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and so is infallible in written form. Private revelation might
contain errors introduced when it was written down, but Divine Revelation cannot contain any errors. The
fallible human authors of Sacred Scripture could not be mistaken in what they wrote because they wrote under
the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Unlike private revelation, Divine Revelation cannot contain errors
due to the misunderstanding of those who received or who wrote down Divine Revelation. No individual
human author of Sacred Scripture understood every meaning present in what he wrote, for the complete depth
and breadth of Divine Revelation exceeds the capabilities of the human mind. However, no individual human
author of Sacred Scripture could have been mistaken even in his understanding of what he wrote, because each
author acted under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who guided, not the hand and pen directly, but
the mind and heart of each author.
Private revelation can contain errors introduced by the misunderstanding of those who received or who
wrote down the revelation. However, most of what is found in true private revelation is not the result of error
or misunderstanding. If a particular teaching of private revelation was not altered by human error, then it is
from God and is trustworthy. Therefore, private revelation should not be dismissed, ignored, or contradicted
without a firm reason.
Third Theology Book
This book is my third theology book. It includes some material which I wrote and previously published as
booklets or articles. Most of the first chapter, for example, was previously published as a booklet, the Virginity
of Jesus and Mary. The chapter on John the Baptist contains some material from an article I wrote, but with
much new material added. Also, as I wrote the chapters of this book, I published some chapters as ebooklets in
advance of publishing them as chapters of this book. All of the previously published material in this my third
book was written by myself (Ronald L. Conte Jr.) and published through my web site, CatholicPlanet.com.
6
My second book is titled, Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary. It is a thoroughly-researched work on
the topic of Biblical chronology. I spent over four years researching and writing my second book. I believe that
it presents some important new ideas about when events occurred in Christ’s life and in Mary’s life and in the
early Church.
My first book is titled, The Bible and the Future of the World. This book makes numerous specific predictions of
future events, based mainly on my interpretation of the Bible. The eighth chapter of my third book is a follow-
up to my first book. That chapter adds some additional insights and clarifications to the predictions in my first
book.
Free Theology
All of my theology works are available as free ebooks, ebooklets, and online articles. I intend that all of my
theology writings always be available for free on the internet and in electronic form (e.g. as ebooks, ebooklets,
etc.). I will not give permission to any person, persons, or organization to publish my theology writings. My
free ebooks and ebooklets may be downloaded and file-shared by anyone, but not for a fee, not for a donation,
and not for any form of compensation whatsoever. My free ebooks and ebooklets may NOT be edited in any
way, shape, or form. I will not give permission for anyone to add to, subtract from, nor change these theology
publications in any way whatsoever.
Printed Works
I have self-published some of my theology works in printed form, under the imprint “Catholic Planet.”
These printed works are available for a fee. See my web site, CatholicPlanet.com, for more information. I
retain copyright on all my theology works, in print and in electronic form. I will never sell or sign away my
copyrights. I self-publish my theology works so that no one will add to, subtract from, or change my theology
writings. All my theology works are published unedited (or, you could say that the author is also the editor).
Copyright Notice
You, the reader, have permission to download a copy of the electronic version of this book (“ebook”) and to
read it and keep it on your computer. You may not make any changes or edits to this ebook. This book is
copyrighted in both its electronic and printed versions. The right to sell this book in any form is strictly
reserved. All other rights are also reserved. Copyright is held by the author, Ronald L. Conte Jr.
7
Chapter 1
the Virginity of Jesus and Mary
“O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” 2
The Visions of Blessed Anne Catherine
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich describes the meeting of the parents of the Virgin Mary, Saint Joachim
and Saint Ann, in an underground passageway of the Temple of Jerusalem.
“After passing through about a third of the passage Joachim came to a place in the midst of which stood a
pillar in the form of a palm-tree with hanging leaves and fruits. Here he was met by Anna, radiant with
happiness. They embraced each other with holy joy, and each told the other their good tidings. They were in a
state of ecstasy and enveloped in a cloud of light. I saw this light issuing from a great host of angels, who were
carrying the appearance of a high shining tower and hovering above the heads of Anna and Joachim. . . . I saw
that this tower seemed to disappear between Anna and Joachim, who were enveloped in a glory of brightness.
I understood, that as a result of the grace here given, the conception of Mary was as pure as all conceptions
would have been but for the Fall. I had at the same time an indescribable vision. The heavens opened above
them, and I saw the joy of the Holy Trinity and of the angels, and their participation in the mysterious blessing
here bestowed on Mary’s parents. Anna and Joachim returned, praising God . . . .” 3
Blessed Anne Catherine describes the Immaculate Conception as occurring miraculously. Joachim and Ann
were in a state of holy ecstasy and were encompassed by a cloud of light from Heaven. There was a great
number of holy angels present. The appearance of a tower was a symbolic representation of the Virgin Mary.4
Saint Ann and Saint Joachim were surrounded by a glory of brightness from God. The Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary occurred solely and entirely by a miracle of God and not in the usual way, for
the embrace of Saint Ann and Saint Joachim was a holy embrace, completely chaste and pure.
“The tower vanished between Joachim and Anne, both of whom were encompassed by brilliant light and
glory. At the same moment the heavens above them opened, and I saw the joy of the Most Holy Trinity and of
the angels over the Conception of Mary. Both Joachim and Anne were in a supernatural state. I learned that,
at the moment in which they embraced and the light shone around them, the Immaculate Conception of Mary
was accomplished.” 5
Saint Joachim and Saint Ann met in a passageway under the consecrated part of the Temple of Jerusalem,
at the very foundation of the Temple.6 At that time and in that place, solely by means of a miracle of God, the
Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother, Saint Ann. The joy of the Holy Trinity and of the
angels was in the Immaculate Virgin Conception of the Virgin Mary. Based on her visions from God, Blessed
Anne Catherine describes the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary as a Virgin Conception. 7
The Perfect Virginity of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the sinless Divine Son of God, the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. The Virginity of
Jesus Christ is entirely perfect and complete, encompassing His whole life from the first moment of His Holy
Conception at the Incarnation, and continuing through His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension to
Heaven. The perfect Virginity of Jesus Christ necessarily includes a Virgin Conception and a Virgin Birth, so
that nothing is lacking in Christ, who is the perfect fulfillment of the will of God.
The Virgin Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. The
Virgin Mary is entirely without stain of sin, being free from both original and personal sin throughout her
entire life beginning from the first moment of her existence at her Immaculate Conception. The Virgin Mary is
entirely perfect, lacking in nothing, without flaw, omission, or imperfection.
The Virgin Mary is like Sacred Scripture, in that both are entirely without flaw, omission, or imperfection.
Just as Sacred Scripture contains all those things and only those things that God wills, so also the Virgin
8
Mary’s life contains all those things and only those things that God wills. The Virgin Mary is, always has been,
and always will be, all that God wills and only what God wills. She is the perfect fulfillment of the will of God.
Yet the humanity of Christ is greater than she.
Since the Virgin Mary is entirely perfect, her Virginity must also be entirely perfect. The Holy Roman
Catholic Church has always taught that the Virginity of Mary is entirely perfect, lacking in nothing, completely
pure and spotless. The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, infallibly defines the Holy
Teaching of Christ about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. This same holy and wonderful
document also repeatedly reaffirms the teaching of the Church throughout the ages about the perfect Virginity
of Mary, the Mother of God.
This Apostolic Constitution teaches that the Virgin Mary is: “immaculate in every respect; innocent, and
verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all
stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness;
more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity
and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit.”8
“Everyone is cognizant that this style of speech has passed almost spontaneously into the books of the most
holy liturgy and the Offices of the Church, in which they occur so often and abundantly. In them, the Mother
of God is invoked and praised as the one spotless and most beautiful dove, as a rose ever blooming, as
perfectly pure, ever immaculate, and ever blessed. She is celebrated as innocence never sullied and as the
second Eve who brought forth the Emmanuel.”9
The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, which infallibly defines the
Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven, teaches us that the Virgin Mary is “immaculate in her
conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood . . . .” 10 In this way, the Holy Catholic Church
clearly and explicitly teaches that the Virginity of Mary is entirely perfect.
The perfect Virginity of Jesus Christ requires that He have a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth. The Virgin
Conception and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ are a necessary and essential part of Christ’s perfect Virginity. The
Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ are in no way superfluous or extraneous to Christ’s perfect
Virginity. The Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ are an integral and meaningful part of His
perfect Virginity.
The Virginity of Mary is also entirely perfect, therefore she also must necessarily have a Virgin Conception
and Virgin Birth. It cannot be otherwise. The Virgin Mary is perfect, therefore her Virginity must also be
perfect. To be perfect is to be like Christ. Since Christ has a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth, Mary must
also have a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth.
If the Virgin Mary did not have a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth, then her Virginity would be lacking
something, would be less than the perfect Virginity seen in the life of Jesus Christ, and then she would not be
“immaculate in every respect . . . the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity . . . the dwelling place of all
the graces of the most Holy Spirit. . . . perfectly pure, ever immaculate, and ever blessed.”11 To deny the Virgin
Conception and Virgin Birth of the Virgin Mary is to deny her perfect Virginity, which has been taught by the
Holy Catholic Church and venerated by the saints and angels throughout the ages.
The Teaching of Sacred Scripture
God’s Sacred Infallible Scripture clearly teaches, but in a hidden way, that the Virgin Mary had both a
Virgin Conception and a Virgin Birth.
“ ‘Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet
he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.’ ” (Mt 11:11).
“ ‘I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of
God is greater than he.’ ” (Lk 7:28).
9
Here Jesus teaches us that no one is greater than John the Baptist among that group of persons called “those
born of women.” Birth implies conception. If a child has been born, that child must also have been conceived.
So, when Jesus says “those born of women,” He means those conceived and born of women. No one among
that group of persons conceived and born of women is greater than John.
We know well that both Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are greater by far than John the Baptist.
Therefore, Jesus and Mary are not members of that group referred to as “those born of women.” Yet we also
know that both Jesus and Mary were conceived and born of women. Jesus was conceived in the womb of the
Virgin Mary and born as her Son. The Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of Saint Ann and born as her
daughter. Both Jesus and Mary had mothers. Therefore, the expression “those born of women” does not refer
to all those who have mothers, nor to all those who have been conceived and born.
Jesus was conceived of a woman, but by means of a miracle of God in a Virgin Conception, not in the usual
manner of conception. Jesus was born of a woman, but by means of a miracle of God in a Virgin Birth, not in
the usual manner of birth. That is why Jesus is not included as one of “those born of women.” Jesus was not
conceived and born in the usual, merely human way, but was conceived and born by means of a miracle of
God. The phrase “those born of women” means those conceived and born in the usual way, and not by means
of a miracle of God. The expression “those born of women” refers only to those persons whose conceptions
and births are not accomplished in a miraculous and virginal manner. And this phrase cannot refer to Jesus
and Mary, since they are both greater than John the Baptist. 12
Since the Virgin Mary is also not one of “those born of women,” she who is most like Christ was also not
conceived and born in the usual human way, but rather was conceived and born solely by a miracle of God, in
a manner which was wholly virginal and pure. The humanity of the Virgin Mary is like the humanity of Jesus
Christ in all things, even in conception and birth. The Virgin Mary is the perfect reflection of the humanity of
Christ: like Him in His perfect Virginity, like Him in His Virgin Conception, like Him in His Virgin Birth, like
Him in all things except His Divinity. The life of the Virgin Mary is lacking in nothing, flawless and perfect in
all things, yet the life of Christ Jesus is greater still.
The Immaculate Virgin Conception of the Virgin Mary
From the first moment of her existence, the Virgin Mary was preserved free from all sin and all tendency
towards sin. Yet, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was miraculous, not only in that she was
preserved free from all sin, but also in the manner by which her Immaculate Conception occurred. God
desired that the Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, be so perfect, complete, and all-encompassing
that even the manner of her Immaculate Conception was required by God to be entirely Virginal, occurring
solely and entirely by a miracle of God and not in the usual way. Therefore, solely by means of a most
wonderful and singular miracle of God, the Virgin Mary was conceived of both her parents, Saint Joachim and
Saint Ann, without sexual union and within their complete purity of body, heart, mind, and soul. This
teaching is trustworthy and true; it cannot be otherwise.
It is a part of the total and constant Virginity of Mary, the Mother of God, that even the manner of her
Immaculate Conception was completely Virginal, occurring solely and entirely by means of a miracle from the
Mercy of God, and not by means of human will or action. Saint Joachim and Saint Ann did not conceive the
Virgin Mary by means of marital relations. The Immaculate Virgin Conception of the Virgin Mary occurred in
a manner which was wholly virginal and miraculous. Such a true virgin conception could never be brought
about by nature or science or human intervention, but solely by a miracle of God. Even so, by the power of
God, the body of the Virgin Mary came from both her father, Saint Joachim, and her mother, Saint Ann. The
Virgin Mary has as her immediate ancestors both Saint Joachim and Saint Ann. Saint Joachim is the Virgin
Mary’s real, biological father and Saint Ann is the Virgin Mary’s real, biological mother, yet the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary occurred solely by means of a miracle of God. This teaching is true and worthy
of full acceptance by all Christians.
To those who doubt this teaching, I say, “Which is more virginal, to be conceived with sexual union, or to
be conceived without and solely by a miracle of God?” The answer must be that it is more virginal to be
conceived without sexual relations, by an act of God rather than by a human act. So then, do you really
10
believe that the ever-Virgin Mary is less virginal than she could be? On the contrary, Mary could not be any
more a Virgin than she is, for God willed that the Mother of God be perfect in every way. Therefore, and
without any doubt, the perfect-Virgin Mary was conceived solely by a miracle of God and born solely by a
miracle of God. Otherwise, she would not be the perfect Virgin that she is.
The Virginity of Mary, the Mother of the Messiah, is without flaw, omission, or imperfection. To have a
flaw is to have something that one ought not to have. Mary’s perfect Virginity is without flaw, containing
nothing contrary to the will of God. An omission is something lacking that ought to be present. Mary’s perfect
Virginity is without omission, lacking in nothing, containing everything according to the will of God. An
imperfection is when something that ought to be present is present, but in a lesser form and not entirely as it
ought to be. Mary’s perfect Virginity is without imperfection, and is everything that it could ever be and should
ever be, in complete fulfillment of the perfect will of God. The perfect Virginity of Mary, the Mother of God, is
three times perfect and entirely perfect, without flaw, omission, or imperfection. The Virginity of Mary, the
most pure Mother of our Divine Savior Jesus Christ, is a perfect reflection of the will of God.
May all faithful Christians accept this teaching that the Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, is
entirely perfect, complete, and all-encompassing, including both her Immaculate Virgin Conception and her
Holy Virgin Birth. Whoever accepts this teaching will be blessed by God; whoever rejects this teaching will be
punished by God. If any fight against this teaching, God will fight against them. Amen.
The Lineage of Jesus and Mary
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was like the Holy Conception of Jesus Christ in that both
were holy, virginal, and miraculous, occurring solely and entirely by the power of God. But the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary was different from the Holy Conception of Jesus Christ in that the body of
Jesus came only from the body of His holy Mother, the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, whereas
the body of the Virgin Mary came from both Saint Joachim and Saint Ann, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Mary is the sole immediate ancestor of Jesus Christ. Jesus has no human father; God alone is the
Father of Jesus Christ. But Saint Joachim and Saint Ann are both the immediate ancestors of the Virgin Mary.
The Virgin Mary is of the lineage of both Saint Joachim and Saint Ann.
God’s Sacred Infallible Scripture makes it clear that Saint Joachim is the Virgin Mary’s real, biological
father. In the Gospel of Luke, the genealogy of Jesus is given as follows:
“Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of
Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat . . . the son of Nathan, the son of David . . . the son of Isaac, the
son of Abraham . . . the son of Adam, the son of God.” (Luke 3:23, 24, 31, 34, 38).
According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Saint Joachim, the father of the Virgin Mary, was called
Heli before he took the name Joachim. 13 A similar name change occurred with Abraham, who was formerly
called Abram (Gen 17:5); Saint Peter the Apostle, who was formerly called Simon (John 1:42); Saint Paul the
Apostle, who was formerly called Saul (Acts 13:9); and Seraphia, who was later called Saint Veronica. 14 So the
Gospel of Luke names Saint Joachim (also called Heli) as being in Jesus’ lineage.
Seventy-seven generations are named by Sacred Scripture, from Adam the first, to Abraham the twenty-first,
to David the thirty-fifth, to Jesus the seventy-seventh. Joseph is named with the words, “being the son (as was
supposed) of Joseph” because Joseph is not of Jesus’ lineage. Joseph is counted in this genealogy from the
Gospel of Luke, even though he is not the father of Jesus, because he was the husband of the Virgin Mary. His
name stands in her place; the Virgin Mary is the unnamed generation between her father, Heli, and her Son,
Jesus.
Since Joachim (Heli) is named by Sacred Scripture (without the words “as was supposed”) in the lineage
from Abraham to David to Mary to Jesus, Joachim must be the Virgin Mary’s real, biological father and her
immediate ancestor, even though she was conceived solely and entirely by a miracle of God. In this way the
Gospel of Luke gives us the lineage of Christ Jesus and the Virgin Mary, who were both descendants of
Joachim (Heli), David, Abraham, and Adam.
11
The Virgin Mary’s Own Words
The Virgin Mary described her Immaculate Conception to Saint Bridget.

“And it is a truth that I was conceived without original sin, and not in sin; because, as my Son and I never
sinned, so no marriage was more holy than that from which I was born.”15
Here the Virgin Mary is telling us that she was preserved free from all sin and all tendency to sin. She adds
the phrase “and not in sin” because her Immaculate Conception was completely virginal, occurring solely by a
miracle of God and within her parents’ complete purity of body, heart, mind, and soul. The Virgin Mary says
that she was born from the marriage of her parents, because both Saint Joachim and Saint Ann are her true,
biological parents and her immediate ancestors, even though she was conceived solely by a miracle of God.
The Virgin Mary also said to Saint Bridget:

“A golden hour was my conception, for then began the principle of the salvation of all, and darkness
hastened to light. God wished to do in His work something singular and hidden from the world, as He did in
the dry rod blooming. But know that my conception was not known to all, because God wished that as the
natural law and the voluntary election of good and bad preceded the written law, and the written law followed,
restraining all inordinate notions, so it pleased God, that His friends should piously doubt of my conception,
and that each should show his zeal till the truth became clear in its preordained time.”16
The work of the Redemption of the world by Jesus Christ began with the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate
Conception. 17 This was the beginning of “the principle of the salvation of all.” This was the beginning of the
building of the Temple of the Body of Jesus Christ (John 2:20-21).
Mary is saying that her conception was both “singular and hidden from the world.” Her conception was
singular in that she was preserved free from original sin. No one else has ever received this grace of being
conceived and born of parents who are sinners, yet of being preserved free from the original sin which comes
from being conceived and born of sinners. Jesus did not have original sin, but He was not born of a sinner, He
was born of the sinless Virgin Mary. Jesus did not need to be preserved from original sin because His mother
Mary did not have original sin to pass on to her Child.
Mary’s conception was hidden from the world in that the Immaculate Conception occurred solely by a
miracle of God, not by means of marital relations. This was not known to all. After a time, people found out
that Saint Ann was with child, but they likely assumed that the conception occurred in the usual way. Saint
Ann and Saint Joachim knew that their holy child’s conception occurred solely by a miracle of God; they had
permanently ceased from marital relations beginning at least several months prior to the Immaculate
Conception. 18
God’s friends have piously doubted of the Virgin Mary’s conception; first, because for a time all Christians
did not know that the Immaculate Conception preserved Mary free from original sin. Second, some of God’s
friends, even today, piously doubt that her conception was virginal and miraculous.
The phrase “till the truth became clear in its preordained time” refers to the time when the Church made
clear her teaching on the Immaculate Conception, that from the first moment of her existence the Virgin Mary
was preserved free from all sin and all tendency towards sin. And it refers to the time when the Church will
make clear her teaching that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was entirely virginal and
miraculous.
The Teaching of the Church
Is it currently the teaching of the Church that the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Holy Birth
each occurred in a completely virginal manner, solely by a miracle of God? I understand, clearly and without
any doubt whatsoever, that this teaching is God’s true teaching, found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred
Tradition, and is therefore a part of the Deposit of Faith lovingly guarded by the Holy Roman Catholic
Church. The Church has not yet explicitly and authoritatively defined the Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth
of the Virgin Mary. However, this teaching is the necessary and inexorable conclusion of the explicitly taught
12
Sacred Tradition of the Church that Mary’s Virginity is entirely perfect: “immaculate in every respect;
innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin;
all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence . . . singularly holy and most pure in soul and
body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity . . . .” 19
The teaching that Mary’s Virginity is entirely perfect is found in the Sacred Tradition of the Church and is
therefore a part of the Deposit of Faith. The Church has never taught that the Virginity of Mary is flawed,
lacking, or limited in any way. The Church has always taught and expounded upon the perfection of Mary,
including her perfect Virginity. The Church teaches that the perfect Virginity of Jesus Christ includes a Virgin
Conception and Virgin Birth. Therefore, the Church’s teaching that Mary’s Virginity is entirely perfect
implicitly contains the teaching that the perfect Virginity of Mary includes a Virgin Conception and Virgin
Birth.
The teaching that the Virgin Mary’s perfect Virginity necessarily includes a Virgin Conception and Virgin
Birth is also found in Sacred Scripture, in the words of Jesus about the holiness of John the Baptist (Mt 11:11;
Lk 7:28). In Sacred Scripture, as in Sacred Tradition, this teaching is also present in a manner which is implicit
yet irrefutable. Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition witness to this true teaching. Therefore, the
teaching that Mary’s perfect Virginity includes a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth must one day be the
explicit teaching of the Church.
I believe that the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church is God’s teaching, without exception. I am fallible,
but God is infallible and this teaching is God’s teaching. I write this teaching and believe it and teach it, but
this teaching comes from God, not me. This teaching is part of the Holy Deposit of Faith entrusted to the
Children of God.
Saint Joachim and Saint Ann
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary occurred in a most chaste and virginal manner by the
power and Mercy of God. It is not that Saint Ann and Saint Joachim were virgins. They had a most holy and
complete marriage. They had conceived a child, Mary Heli (cf. John 19:25), many years earlier, in the usual
way.20 Yet the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception occurred solely by a miracle of God, without marital
relations and within her parents’ complete purity of body, heart, mind, and soul. God alone could bring about
such a virginal and miraculous conception. 21
Saint Joachim and Saint Ann had been separated for several months prior to their meeting in the
passageway under the Temple. 22 They had ceased from marital relations beginning at least several months
before the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and they never resumed having marital relations, 23
because after the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary their union could not have produced a greater
fruit for God and for all creation.
The Immaculate Conception in Sacred Scripture
The Immaculate Conception is directly referred to by Sacred Scripture in the Gospel of John.
“The Jews then said to him, ‘What sign have you to show us for doing this?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this
temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he spoke of the temple of his body.” (John 2:18-21).
When the Jews said to Jesus, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,” they were referring to the
temple buildings. When Jesus spoke to the Jews, He was referring to the temple of His body. But all of Sacred
Scripture is God speaking to us. Therefore, in this passage, Sacred Scripture is using the words of the Jews
about the temple to refer both to the temple buildings and to Jesus’ body.
Sacred Scripture is telling us that the body of Jesus had, at that point in time, taken 46 years to build,
beginning with the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. The rebuilding of the Second Temple of
Jerusalem is also counted as beginning 46 years earlier. So then, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
Mary occurred at the time of the rebuilding of the Second Temple of Jerusalem.24
13
God would not allow the perfect and holy Christ to be born of a sinful woman. So, in order to build the
Perfect Temple of the Body of Jesus Christ, God began by preserving the Virgin Mary from sin, from all sin
and all tendency towards sin, from the first moment of her existence in the womb of her mother, Saint Ann.
The Purification of the Temple
At the time of the Passover, Jesus purified the temple of Jerusalem. “And they came to Jerusalem. And he
entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple . . . .” (Mark
11:15; cf. John 2:13-17). He then spoke about his death and Resurrection (John 2:18-21), which purifies the
Church.
The act of Jesus, the Son of God, purifying the temple is symbolic of the Immaculate Conception. In the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, God acted to purify a part of humanity in order to build the
temple of Christ’s body. After purifying the temple, Jesus speaks about His death and Resurrection, because it
is through the death and Resurrection of Jesus that the Virgin Mary was kept pure from all sin from the first
moment of her existence. The Immaculate Conception occurred by the power of the Passion, Crucifixion,
death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
By the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, God preserved the Virgin Mary from all sin, purifying a part
of humanity, so that her Son Jesus could purify all humanity by His Crucifixion and Resurrection. God made
the human nature of the Virgin Mary pure and holy, so that Mary could be the first and most perfect follower
of her pure and holy Son, the Son of God. Yet, it is only by the saving power of her Son Jesus Christ’s
suffering, death, and Resurrection that Mary could be perfect in purity and holiness and so be the Mother of
the Savior, who suffered and died for her and for all.
Jesus is God. Therefore, it is also true that Jesus Himself brought about the Immaculate Conception of the
Virgin Mary, so that He could become Incarnate and could suffer and die for her and for us all. In the
Immaculate Conception, Jesus purified a part of humanity, so that He could later become a part of humanity,
and suffer and die for His mother Mary and for all.
The Place and Time of the Immaculate Conception
It was fitting that the Immaculate Virgin Conception should occur in a passageway under the consecrated
part of the temple. The temple of Jerusalem was a symbol and foreshadowing of the Temple which is the
humanity of Jesus. The Immaculate Conception was the essential and indispensable beginning which prepared
for the subsequent creation of the humanity of Jesus at the Incarnation of God. The Immaculate Conception is
the foundation of the humanity of Jesus, and so the Immaculate Conception took place at the very foundation
of the temple.
It was fitting that the Immaculate Virgin Conception should occur at the time of the rebuilding of the temple
of Jerusalem. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was the beginning of the building of the Temple
of Jesus’ body, and so the Immaculate Conception rightly took place at the time of the beginning of the
rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem. Humanity is a temple for God now that God has become a part of
humanity in Jesus, who is God made human. The rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem symbolizes the
renewal which comes to humanity through Jesus and Mary, beginning especially with Mary's Immaculate
Virgin Conception. The rebuilding of the temple symbolizes the rebuilding of humanity through Jesus and
Mary into a fitting temple in which God dwells.
The Sinless Virgin Mary
In the Immaculate Virgin Conception, the Most Holy Trinity blessed the Virgin Mary through her Divine
Son Jesus Christ by keeping her entirely free from original sin and by giving her the grace to be entirely free
from personal sin. Throughout her entire life on earth, the Virgin Mary received from the Most Holy Trinity
through her Divine Son Jesus Christ the grace to be entirely free from all sin and all tendency towards sin.
Why should the Virgin Mary be exempted from sin?
Because from Mary came Jesus,
who is without sin;
14
because through Mary came Jesus,

who takes away sin.
So it is fitting that Christ Jesus should take away sin
through the Virgin Mary
and beginning most completely with the Virgin Mary.
The Virgin Birth of Mary
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich describes the Virgin Birth of Mary, as revealed to her in visions from
God.
“Anna opened the doors of a little cupboard in the wall which contained a casket with holy objects. . . .
Anna knelt before the little cupboard with one of the women on each side and the third behind her. . . . Then I
saw the room filled with supernatural light which became more intense as it wove itself round Anna. The
women sank to the ground as though stunned. The light round Anna took the exact form of the burning bush
of Moses on Horeb, and I could no longer see her. The whole flame streamed inwards; and then I suddenly
saw that Anna received the shining child Mary in her hands, wrapped her in her mantle, pressed her to her
heart, and laid her naked on the stool in front of the holy relics, still continuing her prayer.”25
St. Ann felt no pain in Mary’s birth. She prayed humbly to God, and God provided everything needed. The
Virgin Mary went directly from her mother’s womb to the outside world solely by a miracle of God and
without any part of the usual process of delivery. The Virgin Mother of God was born by solely by a miracle of
God, in a true perfect Virgin Birth, and not in the usual way.
“In the moment when the new-born child lay in the arms of her holy mother Anna, I saw that at the same
time the child was presented in heaven in the sight of the Most Holy Trinity, and greeted with unspeakable joy
by all the heavenly host.”26
The Virgin Life of the Virgin Mary
The Church speaks of the total Virginity of Mary in the Eucharistic prayer of Holy Mass:
“In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and
God.”27
The title “ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ” means not only that Mary kept a virgin marriage to Joseph,
but also that she is always a true and complete Virgin, in every way, throughout her entire life. To be ever-
virgin, Mary must have both a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth. If the conception and birth of the Virgin
Mary were not virginal and miraculous, then she would not be the ever-Virgin Mother of God that she is.
Beginning with the first moment of her existence at her Immaculate Virgin Conception, the Virgin Mary
remained always a Virgin, in every way and at all times, throughout her entire life, and continuing without
ceasing through the end of her life on earth. 28
Other holy women come of age, marry, conceive, and give birth in the usual way, but not so with the Virgin
Mary. The womb of the Virgin Mary never bled. At no time did God allow the holy womb which would carry
and which did carry the Savior of the world to bleed as with other women.
The true and complete Virginity of Mary included her entire self. Never in her life did the least unchaste
desire pass across her Virgin Heart. Never in her life was the least unchaste thought found even briefly in her
Virgin Mind. The Virgin Mary never had the least unchaste thought, desire, word, or action. She was always
completely pure and chaste in body, mind, heart, and soul.
Furthermore, Mary was entirely virginal, not merely by the absence of things contrary to chastity, but also
by the perfect presence of all things pure and holy. True perfect virginity is not merely an absence of things
impure, but also the presence of purity proceeding from the True Pure Spirit of God. Therefore, every desire
present in the heart of the Virgin Mary was true, pure, holy, and pleasing to the Most Holy Trinity. Every
thought ever entering into the mind of the Virgin Mary was true, pure, holy, and pleasing to the One True
15
God. Her entire soul was a continual hymn of truth, purity, holiness, and complete devotion to the will of
God.
Other holy disciples of Christ have been called “virgin” by the Church. Other true disciples of Christ have
kept themselves pure for Christ. But, compared to the perfect Virgin Mary, not even the holiest of Saints can
be called a perfect Virgin. Even the most virginal of Saints does not have virginity in the manner and to the
degree of the most pure Virgin Mary. Some virgins have sinned against virginity by the least impure thought or
desire, and so their virginity is not perfect. Other virgins are not entirely virginal in body and soul, having been
conceived and born in the usual way, having been conceived and born with original sin. And even if some
holy person was to remain entirely free from every unchaste thought, desire, and action for a long period of
time, such a one would not have anywhere near to the degree of presence of purity found in Mary, the perfect
imitator of the Son of God. Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are true perfect virgins; everyone else falls short
of the mark. Next to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, no other human being is perfect in virginity.
The complete Virginity of Mary includes every aspect of virginity, in body, mind, heart, and soul,
throughout her entire life, on earth as in Heaven. The Virgin Mary never failed in the least to please God in all
things throughout her entire being and throughout her entire life. So complete was the Virgin Mary’s love for
God that she was entirely faithful to God in every way and at all times. The Virgin Mary’s complete and total
dedication to God made possible her complete and total Virginity, and the Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth
of her Divine Son Jesus Christ.
The Virgin Marriage of Joseph and Mary
The marriage of the Virgin Mary to Saint Joseph was virginal, chaste, and pure. The Virgin Mary said to
Saint Bridget:
“Know most certainly that before he married me, Joseph knew in the Holy Ghost, that I had vowed my
virginity to my God, and was immaculate in thought, word, and deed, and that he espoused me with the
intention of serving me, holding me in the light of a sovereign mistress, not a wife. And I knew most certainly
in the Holy Ghost that my perpetual virginity would remain intact, although by a secret dispensation of God I
was married to a husband.” 29
When Joseph realized that his wife, the Virgin Mary, was with child, he did not suspect her of infidelity. He
knew that she was faithful to God.
“But when I had consented to the annunciation of God, Joseph, seeing my womb increase by the operation
of the Holy Ghost, feared vehemently: not suspecting anything amiss in me, but remembering the sayings of
the prophets, foretelling that the Son of God should be born of a virgin, deeming himself unworthy to serve
such a mother, until the angel in a dream ordered him not to fear, but to minister unto me in charity.”30
A True Virgin Marriage
In the present day, a man and woman often get engaged for a period of time, even as long as a year or more,
before their wedding ceremony and marriage. The word ‘betrothed’ is used today to mean ‘engaged to be
married.’ But in biblical times, the betrothal was considered to be the beginning of the marriage.
According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, when Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary were betrothed,
there was an elaborate ceremony, which was their wedding ceremony.31 This ceremony marked the beginning
of the marriage of Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Even though the Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph kept
always a virgin marriage, Sacred Scripture nevertheless teaches that they had a true marriage.
In Jewish religious law, which is the Law of God, a virgin betrothed to a man is legally considered to be his
wife, even before they come to live together (Deut 22:23-24). In the book of Deuteronomy, God commanded
that the man who lies with another man’s wife be put to death (Deut 22:22). The penalty for adultery at that
time in religious history was death. But if a man lies with a virgin who is not betrothed, he is punished, but
allowed to live, because his sin is not that of adultery (Deut 22:28-29). Now, in the case of a man who lies with
a betrothed virgin, the man is put to death (Deut 22:23-27). The man who lies with the betrothed virgin is
given the penalty for adultery because the betrothed virgin is legally another man’s wife. The man is stoned to
16
death, “because he violated his neighbor’s wife.” (Deut 22:24). Therefore, under the Law of God, the Virgin
Mary was legally Joseph’s wife, beginning with their betrothal, even though she remained a Virgin throughout
their entire marriage.
The Promise Fulfilled Through Joseph
God gave the Jewish people the Promise of a Messiah, who would be a descendant of Abraham and of
David. This Promise is fulfilled partly through Joseph, a descendant of Abraham and of David, who was
legally the husband of Mary, the Mother of the Messiah. Joseph was Jesus’ father by religious law (though not
by the body). That is why the Gospel of Matthew begins with the genealogy of Joseph, but calls it the
genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1, 16). One way that the Promise of a Messiah descended from Abraham and from
David was fulfilled is through the lineage of Saint Joseph, the legal father of Jesus Christ: “. . . and Jacob the
father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16).
For this reason, it was important that the betrothal of Joseph and Mary occur before the Incarnation, the
Virgin Conception of Jesus. In this way, Joseph, in fulfillment of God’s Promise, was legally the husband of
Mary and legally the father of Jesus the Messiah from the first moment of Jesus’ human existence.
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph,
before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a
just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly.” (Mt 1:18-19; cf. Lk 1:27).
In this passage, Sacred Scripture teaches that the betrothal ceremony was the beginning of the marriage of
Joseph and Mary. They “had been betrothed,” meaning that the betrothal ceremony had already taken place.
The phrase “before they came together,” means before they began to live in the same dwelling together. Yet
Sacred Scripture still calls Joseph “her husband,” because the betrothal was the beginning of the marriage.
And these three things: they were betrothed, they had not yet moved into the same house, and they were
already considered married, are stated together, one after another. Thus, Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that
the marriage of the Virgin Mary to Saint Joseph began before the Virgin Conception of Jesus Christ.
The Promise Fulfilled Through Mary
The Gospel of Luke (Lk 3:23-38) gives a different account of the genealogy of Jesus than is given by the
Gospel of Matthew. The reason for the difference is that Matthew is giving the genealogy of Jesus through
Joseph, Jesus’ father by law, whereas Luke is giving the lineage of Jesus through the Virgin Mary, the Mother
of Jesus.
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father
of Isaac . . . . And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah . . . . and Jacob the father of Joseph
the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:1, 2, 6, 16).
“Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of
Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat . . . the son of Nathan, the son of David . . . the son of
Abraham . . . .” (Lk 3:23, 24, 31, 34).
Notice that Joseph is descended from David by his son Solomon, whereas Mary is descended from David
by his son Nathan. Jesus was born only of Mary, not of Joseph and Mary. Even so, the Promise that the
Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham and of David was fulfilled in two ways. The Promise was fulfilled
through Joseph, because, being the husband of Mary, he was the father of Jesus Christ under the Law of God.
And the Promise was fulfilled through the Virgin Mary, who is also a descendant of Abraham and of David,
because Jesus was conceived and born of her, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
17
The Virgin Conception of Jesus Christ
“In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin
betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” (Luke
1:26-27).
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would bear a son, she was already betrothed
to Joseph. Yet she did not assume that Joseph would be the father of her child. “And Mary said to the angel,
‘How can this be, since I have no husband?’ ” (Luke 1:34). Mary asked the angel how she could bear a child,
because she knew God’s will that her marriage to Joseph remain virginal. Mary had already been betrothed to
Joseph, yet she had no husband in the usual sense of the word, for she had vowed her virginity to God.
“And the angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will
overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.’ ” (Luke 1:35; cf.
Mt 1:18-25).
God’s Sacred Infallible Scripture clearly teaches that the Holy Conception of Jesus Christ was entirely
virginal, occurring solely and entirely by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not in the usual way. Jesus is not
merely human, but is God Incarnate. God is the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is God.
God gave Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich a vision of the Annunciation and of the Virgin Conception of
Jesus Christ.
“Mary let the veil fall over her face and crossed her hands (but not her fingers) before her breast. I saw her
fervently praying thus for a long time, with her face raised to heaven. She was imploring God for redemption,
for the promised King, and beseeching Him that her prayer might have some share in sending Him. She knelt
long in an ecstasy of prayer; then she bowed her head on to her breast.”32
Then a light poured down from heaven and the Angel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary. They
spoke, as described in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:26-38).
“As soon as the Blessed Virgin had spoken the words, ‘Be it done unto me according to thy word’, I saw the
Holy Ghost in the appearance of a winged figure . . . . from whose breast and hands I saw three streams of
light pouring down towards the right side of the Blessed Virgin and meeting as they reached her. This light
streaming in upon her right side caused the Blessed Virgin to become completely transfused with radiance and
as though transparent . . . . her whole form was shining and transfused with light.” 33
“The Blessed Virgin knew that she had conceived the Messias, the Son of the Most High. All that was
within her was open to the eyes of her spirit.”34
The Virgin Conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary occurred solely by a miracle of God. The
Holy Spirit brought about the Virgin Conception of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, within the womb of the
Virgin Mary. The Virgin Conception of Jesus Christ occurred in a wholly miraculous manner, which cannot
be duplicated by nature, science, or human intervention.
The Virgin Mary described the Virgin Conception of her Son Jesus Christ to Saint Bridget:
“Still I deemed myself unworthy, and asked the angel not why or when, but how it should be done, that I,
unworthy, should be the Mother of God, not knowing man. And the angel answered me as I said: ‘Nothing is
impossible to God . . . .’ Hearing the words of the angel, I felt a most fervent desire to be the Mother of God,
and my soul spoke in love: ‘Here I am, let Thy will be done in me.’ At this word my Son was instantly
conceived in my womb, with unspeakable exultation of my soul and my whole body.”35
The body of Jesus, that is, the physical part of the humanity of Jesus, came from the body of Mary, by the
power of the Holy Spirit. The human soul of Jesus was created by God (as are all souls). The human life of
Jesus our Savior began at conception, (just as the lives of all human beings begin at conception). The Divinity
of Jesus Christ was united to His humanity from the first moment that His humanity was created at His Holy
18
Virgin Conception. At the beginning of the human life of Jesus Christ, His body, His soul, and His Divinity
were at once united. The body was not created first, awaiting a soul; nor was the soul created first, awaiting a
body. And body and soul, created together, did not wait to be united to the Eternal Divinity of the Second
Person of the Most Holy Trinity. In one and the same instant, the body and soul of Jesus were created and
united to His Eternal Divinity.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
The Virgin Mary spoke to Saint Bridget about the presence of the Son of God in her womb and about His
Virgin Birth.
“And when I had Him in my womb, I bore Him without pain, without any weight or feeling of
inconvenience. In all things I humbled myself, knowing that He was almighty whom I bore. And when I
brought Him forth, I brought Him forth without pain and sin, as I conceived Him . . . . And as He entered all
my members with the joy of my whole soul, so with the joy of my whole body, my soul exulting with ineffable
joy, He came forth, my virginity untouched.”36
“And therefore, know truly, that although men, according to human ideas, would assert that my Son was
born in the usual way, it is true beyond all doubt that He was born as I tell thee and thou hast seen.”37
The Virgin Mary clearly told Saint Bridget that her Divine Son Jesus Christ was not born in the usual way,
but rather in a way which was entirely virginal.
God also showed the Virgin Birth of Jesus to Saint Bridget:
“When all these things were ready, then the Virgin, kneeling with great reverence, placed herself in prayer,
with her back to the crib, her face eastward, raised to Heaven. She stood with uplifted hands, and eyes fixed on
Heaven, rapt as it were, in an ecstasy of contemplation, inebriated with the divine sweetness. And while she
thus stood in prayer, I beheld her Child move in her womb, and at once in a moment, and in the twinkling of
an eye, she brought forth her Son, from whom such ineffable light and splendor radiated, that the sun could
not be compared to it . . . and so sudden and momentary was that mode of bearing, that I could not perceive or
discern how, or in what part she brought forth. Nevertheless, I immediately beheld that glorious Babe lying
naked and most pure on the ground, His flesh most clean from all filth or impurity. . . . When the Virgin
perceived that she had been delivered, she immediately bowed her head, and joining her hands, adored her
Son with great respect and reverence, saying: ‘Welcome, my God, and my Lord, and my Son.’ ” 38
Saint Bridget says, “His flesh most clean from all filth or impurity,” meaning that there was no blood or
fluids or anything else on the body of Jesus when He was born. The miracle of the birth of Jesus Christ was
perfect and complete. There was no need to cut an umbilical cord. There was no afterbirth. Everything
necessary was provided by God miraculously. No midwife was needed because the miracle of the birth of
Jesus Christ was not lacking in any way. And the same is true for the miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary.
The birth of Jesus Christ occurred solely and entirely by a miracle of God and not in the usual way. When
Jesus was born, He went from His mother Mary’s womb to the outside world immediately and directly by a
miracle of God, without any part whatsoever of the usual process of delivery. First He was in the womb, then
He was out of the womb, without having to travel through any places in between. God alone could bring
about such a virginal and miraculous birth. The Virgin Births of both Jesus and Mary occurred solely, entirely,
and necessarily by means of a miracle of God and not in the usual way. 39
The visions given by God to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich also confirm that the birth of Jesus Christ
was virginal and miraculous.
“Joseph suggested to the Blessed Virgin that he should summon to her assistance some pious women whom
he knew in Bethlehem. She declined, however, saying that she needed no human help.”40
“I saw the radiance round the Blessed Virgin ever growing greater. . . . At midnight she was wrapt in an
ecstasy of prayer. I saw her lifted from the earth, so that I saw the ground beneath her. Her hands were crossed
on her breast. The radiance about her increased . . . . Then I no longer saw the roof of the cave; a pathway of
19
light opened above Mary, rising with ever-increasing glory towards the height of heaven. . . . Meanwhile the
Blessed Virgin, borne up in ecstasy, was now gazing downwards, adoring her God, whose Mother she had
become and who lay on the earth before her in the form of a helpless new-born child. I saw our Redeemer as a
tiny child, shining with a light that overpowered all the surrounding radiance, and lying on the carpet at the
Blessed Virgin’s knees. It seemed to me as if he were at first quite small and then grew before my eyes. But the
movement of the intense radiance was such that I cannot say for certain how I saw it.”41
The Eucharistic prayer from Holy Mass also clearly teaches that the birth of Jesus Christ was a Virgin Birth.
“In union with the whole Church we celebrate that day (night)
when Mary without loss of her virginity gave this world its savior.
We honor her, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ, our Lord and God.” 42
The phrase “without loss of her virginity” means that Jesus left the womb of the Virgin Mary solely by a
miracle of God and not in the usual way. Jesus went from being inside the womb to being outside the womb
solely by means of the power of God. This is what is meant by a virgin birth; other explanations are
insufficient and unacceptable. The births of both Jesus and Mary were Virgin Births. God is Truth; whoever
loves God will love the truth.
One Teaching
Jesus Christ is perfect in all things, including His Perfect Virginity. God alone is the Father of Jesus Christ.
God required the Holy Conception of Jesus Christ to be a miraculous Virgin Conception. Since Christ had a
Virgin Conception, He must also have had a Virgin Birth, for the Virginity of Jesus Christ is entirely perfect in
every way. The perfect, complete, and all-encompassing Virginity of Jesus Christ extends even to His perfect
Virgin Conception and His perfect Virgin Birth. This teaching is trustworthy and true; it cannot be otherwise.
God would not give the perfect-Virgin Jesus Christ a Virgin Conception within the womb of His mother,
Mary, without also giving Him a Virgin Birth out of the womb of His mother, Mary. His Holy Conception
was virginal and miraculous, therefore His Holy Birth was also virginal and miraculous. Every perfect Virgin
must have both a Virgin Conception and a Virgin Birth. Jesus Christ is perfect in Virginity. Therefore, Jesus
must have had both a Virgin Conception and a Virgin Birth, for without both His Virginity would not be
perfect, complete, and all-encompassing. The Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth are joined by God and
cannot be separated.
The Virginity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is so perfect, complete, and all-encompassing that even His
Holy Conception and His Holy Birth were entirely Virginal, occurring solely and entirely by a miracle of God
and not in the usual way. It is the infallible teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that both the Holy
Conception and the Holy Birth of Jesus Christ were entirely virginal and miraculous. This is the truth;
whoever loves God loves truth.
The life of the Virgin Mary is a perfect reflection of the life of Jesus Christ. The Virgin Mary is perfect and is
the chosen Mother of God because she resembles Christ in all things except His Divinity. The lives of Jesus
and Mary are joined by God and cannot be separated. God gave a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth to the
perfect-Virgin Jesus Christ. Therefore, God also gave a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth to His Mother, the
perfect-Virgin Mary. God would not give Jesus Christ a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth without also
giving His Holy Mother a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth. Gods wills that the Virgin Mary be like Christ
in all things except His Divinity.
The perfect Virginity of Jesus Christ requires that His Mother Mary also be perfect in Virginity. The perfect
Virginity of Jesus, the Son of God, brought about the perfect Virginity of Mary, the Mother of God. The
perfect Virginity of Mary results from and is dependent upon the perfect Virginity of Jesus. The Virgin Mary is
both a perfect Virgin and the perfect Mother. The Virgin Mary was required by God to be free from all sin and
all tendency to sin, throughout her entire life, so that she could be the sinless Mother of the sinless Son of God.
In the same way, the Virgin Mary was required by God to be entirely perfect in Virginity, throughout her
entire life, including her Immaculate Virgin Conception and her Holy Virgin Birth, so that she could be the
20
perfect-Virgin Mother of the perfect-Virgin Jesus Christ. This teaching is trustworthy and true; it cannot be
otherwise.
God required that the Virgin Mary be conceived within the womb of her mother, Saint Ann, in a virginal
manner, by means of a miracle of God. God also required that the Virgin Mary be born out of the womb of her
mother, Saint Ann, in a virginal manner, by means of a miracle of God. God would not give the perfect-Virgin
Mary a Virgin Conception within the womb of her mother, Saint Ann, without also giving her a Virgin Birth
out of the womb of her mother, Saint Ann. The Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth are joined by God and
cannot be separated.
The Virginity of Mary, the Mother of God, is entirely perfect, complete, and all-encompassing, like the
Virginity of her Son Jesus. Therefore, the Virgin Mary must have had a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth,
like her Son. Otherwise her Virginity would not be as perfect as it could be, as perfect as is her Son’s Virginity.
The Church has never taught and will never teach that the Virginity of the Mother of Jesus Christ is flawed in
any way. The Church has always taught that the Virginity of Jesus and the Virginity of Mary are entirely
perfect and without flaw. God desired that the Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, be so perfect,
complete, and all-encompassing that even the manner of her Immaculate Conception and her Holy Birth were
required by God to be entirely Virginal, occurring solely and entirely by a miracle of God, and not in the usual
way. This teaching is trustworthy and true; it cannot be otherwise.
The conception and birth of the Virgin Mary and the conception and birth of Jesus Christ were each fully
miraculous and fully virginal. Each occurred in a wholly pure and virginal manner, solely and entirely by a
miracle of God. This teaching is one teaching. All Christians should know this true teaching without any
doubt. May God give His special blessing to everyone who accepts this teaching without doubt.
Arguments and Objections
The theological arguments in favor of Mary’s virgin conception and virgin birth are as follows:
1. Perfect Virginity must include a virgin conception and a virgin birth — Christ’s life defines perfect virginity;
Christ’s life includes a virgin conception and a virgin birth. Therefore, perfect virginity must include a virgin
conception and a virgin birth. Sacred Tradition teaches that the Virgin Mary is perfect in all things, including
her perfect virginity. Therefore, Mary must have had a virgin conception and a virgin birth.
True perfect virginity must completely encompass the manner of conception and birth. Perfect virginity is
not merely the absence of sexual experience, nor merely a physical state. True perfect virginity encompasses
the whole person, body and soul, throughout that person’s entire life. Mary’s conception and birth were
entirely virginal, because Mary is entirely virginal. Thus, Mary’s perfect virginity must include a virgin
conception and a virgin birth.
2. Of all those born of women, none is greater than John the Baptist (Lk 7:28) — Christ and Mary are each
greater than John, therefore, Christ and Mary are not part of that group called “those born of women.” Christ
and Mary were each conceived and born. Christ has Mary as His mother; Mary has St. Ann as her mother.
Christ was conceived and born, not in the usual human way, but in a miraculous and virginal manner. The
phrase “those born of women” refers to that group of persons who were conceived and born, not by a miracle
of God, but in the usual human way. Mary is greater than John, therefore, Mary was conceived and born in a
miraculous and virginal manner.
3. Private revelation — Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich describes a virgin conception and a virgin birth for
the Virgin Mary. See above for quotes and references.
4. Immaculate Conception implies Virgin Conception — Mary is entirely free from all aspects of original sin.
Procreation by means of sexual relations is a result of original sin (see chapter two). Anyone entirely free from
original sin, such as Christ and Mary, must have been conceived without sexual relations, in an entirely
virginal and miraculous manner.
21
5. Comparison with Adam and Eve — Adam and Eve were each created in a miraculous and virginal manner,
without sexual relations. The conception of Christ and the conception of Mary could each be no less
miraculous and no less virginal than those of Adam and Eve, because Christ and Mary exceed Adam and Eve
in all things.
6. Mary as a figure of the Church — The Church was conceived in a miraculous and virginal manner, from the
side of Christ on the Cross. Mary is a perfect image of the Church and so she, too, was conceived in a
miraculous and virginal manner, by virtue of Christ on the Cross. 43
7. Prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were immortal in body and soul. — They would never have died, if they
had never disobeyed God. Even though sin and death made their bodies mortal, their souls remained immortal
because of the Mercy of God. After the Fall, God continues to create the immortal soul supernaturally, at the
time of each human person’s conception, while the mortal body is created by natural means. Since, before the
Fall, both body and soul were immortal, it was fitting that God create both body and soul supernaturally, by
means of miraculous virgin conceptions, not by means of nature. For, before the Fall, the body was immortal
and so was beyond nature. Thus, Adam and Eve would have conceived children in this way, solely by a
miracle of God, if they had not Fallen from grace. Christ and Mary are each completely untouched by the Fall
from grace, therefore they were each conceived in a miraculous and virginal manner.
8. Transmission of Original Sin — Since the third aspect of original sin, as it is in the body, is transmitted by
procreation, human persons who are entirely without original sin must be conceived miraculously, with both
body and soul created by God (see chapter two).
Some people think that a human person could be created by natural procreation and yet be preserved from
original sin by God. If the body is created by natural means, from parents who have original sin, then they can
only naturally create an imperfect body. Original sin is not the presence of something, whose transfer can be
prevented. Rather, original sin, as it is in the body, is an imperfection. If the body is created by the imperfect,
(by parents with original sin,) then the body will have the imperfection of original sin.
Preservation from all aspects of original sin includes the third aspect as it affects the body. Thus, in order to
preserve someone from original sin, God must create for that person a body which is perfectly ordered towards
the soul and towards God, not an imperfect body which can be directed towards many lesser things. Such a
body cannot be created by natural procreation from parents who have original sin. But, if the body is created
by God, Who is perfect, then the body will be perfectly ordered towards the soul and towards God.
If the body were created even partially by natural means, then the body would partially retain the
imperfection of original sin as it applies to the body, for original sin affects the entire body, in such a thorough
manner that no partial intervention would be sufficient to produce a child entirely without original sin.
9. In every case, persons entirely free from original sin were created miraculously by God. — Adam and Eve
were each created miraculously in body and soul. Christ’s human nature was created miraculously, body and
soul. In the general Resurrection, the resurrected Just will have new bodies created miraculously by God.
Their souls are the same souls they had on earth, which were created miraculously at their conception. The
resurrected Just will have no trace of original sin in body and soul. The angels do not have original sin, and
they are created miraculously by God, not by nature. Thus, all persons who are free from original sin are
created entirely and solely by a miracle of God. The Virgin Mary is entirely free from original sin, therefore,
she also was created, at her Immaculate Conception, miraculously in body and soul.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
The Birth of Christ necessarily occurred solely and entirely by a miracle of God, just as His conception took
place solely and entirely by a miracle of God. Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are each perfect virgins,
therefore, they each must have a perfect virgin conception and a perfect virgin birth.
22
If the conception of Jesus Christ had taken place even partially in the usual way, we would not call it a
virgin conception. The conception of Christ had to occur solely and entirely by a miracle of God in order to be
a perfect virgin conception. In the same way, the Birth of Christ also had to occur solely and entirely by a
miracle of God in order to be a perfect virgin birth.
Some persons claim that the Birth of Christ took place mostly in the usual way, but with a miracle to
preserve Mary’s virginity. On the contrary, true perfect virginity must completely encompass and permeate the
manner of conception and birth. Perfect virginity is not merely the absence of sexual experience, nor is it
merely a physical state. True perfect virginity encompasses the whole person, body and soul, throughout their
entire life. The Virgin Mary must have had a perfect virgin conception and a perfect virgin birth, because
perfect virginity must necessarily encompass the whole person, even from the very first moment of existence,
even in the very means of bringing that person into existence. For this reason, Christ and Mary must each have
been conceived and born solely and entirely by a miracle of God.
Christ’s conception occurred without any part of the usual process of conception and Christ’s birth occurred
without any part of the usual process of delivery, for conception and birth in the usual way are associated with
a lack of virginity. Mary’s conception occurred without any part of the usual process of conception and Mary’s
birth occurred without any part of the usual process of delivery, for conception and birth in the usual way are
associated with lack of virginity. Christ and Mary were each born solely and entirely by a miracle of God.
A miraculous virgin birth must occur without any part of the usual process of delivery: without any use of
the birth canal, without an after birth, without the need for any of the services usually performed by a midwife
or a physician. In a miraculous virgin birth, first the child is in the womb and then, in the next instant, the
child is out of the womb. The birth occurs solely and entirely by a miracle of God, and not by human will or
action. The child does not travel from the womb to the outside world, but rather is brought from one place to
the other instantly and miraculously. No other explanation of virgin birth is sufficient.
Objections and Replies
Objection 1: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (online, 1908 edition): “According to Ephiphanius it
was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that St. Anne conceived without the action of
man. This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth century. (Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi.) In 1677
the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary
remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9).”44
Reply 1: First, concerning the “error of Imperiali” and St. Anne’s virginity. St. Ann and St. Joachim were not
virgins. They conceived a child in the usual way, years before the Virgin Mary. This sister is mentioned in
Sacred Scripture: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of
Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (Jn 19:25). Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich believed that this was the older
sister of the Virgin Mary, and that this older sister was conceived and born to Joachim and Mary about 19
years prior to the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception. 45 Therefore, St. Anne was not a virgin.
Nevertheless, the Virgin Mary was conceived and born in a miraculous and virginal manner, even though
St. Ann herself was not a virgin. Mary’s conception and birth were entirely virginal, because Mary herself is
entirely virginal. Mary was not conceived and born of a virgin, but Mary was conceived and born in a manner
which was entirely miraculous and entirely virginal.
Did the Holy See condemn the idea that St. Ann remained a virgin in the conception and birth of Mary? I
cannot find a reference to support this claim. But, even so, it is true that St. Ann was not a virgin. St. Ann
could not have “remained a virgin,” if she was not a virgin before. Furthermore, the claim does not say that a
Pope or Ecumenical Council condemned the idea. Thus, we may infer that the claimed condemnation was
from an office within the Holy See, but not directly from the office of the Roman Pontiff. Such a decision on
doctrine would fall under the fallible Ordinary Magisterium, not the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
No claim is made that the Holy See condemned the idea that Mary herself was conceived and born in a
miraculous and virginal manner. The Holy See was likely aware of this teaching, since it was known to be
maintained by some persons as early as the fourth century and was revived again in the 15th century. Yet
neither the Pope, nor an Ecumenical Council, nor an office of the Holy See, has ever condemned the idea that
23
the Virgin Mary was conceived and born in a miraculous virginal manner. In fact, the Sacred Magisterium has
not yet decided this question definitively. It is an open theological question.
The document cited above (Benedict XIV, De Festis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi et Beatae Mariae Virginis)
was written by Pope Benedict XIV. According to the theologian Rev. William G. Most, “This was written as a
private theologian, not as Pope.” 46 Rev. William G. Most, writing about the tradition of the Rosary, also
states: “Benedict XIV...wrote in favor of the papal tradition before his election as Pope.”47 The footnote for
the preceding quote reads: “Pope Benedict XIV, De Festis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi et Beatae Mariae
Virginis, II, 12 (Pratt in typographia Aldina, 1843), IX, 294-98.”48 Also, this document (De Festis…) could not
have been written in 1677, for the author (who became Pope Benedict XIV) was born about the year 1675.49
The Latin cited above, “Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi,” means ‘Anna conceived by the kiss of
Joachim.’ This expression is a euphemistic way of saying that St. Ann conceived Mary in her womb, with
Joachim as Mary’s biological father, but entirely without sexual relations. It does not mean that Joachim and
Ann conceived by means of kissing. It correctly implies that Mary’s conception was miraculous and virginal.
The statement, “This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth century,” is no proof that this doctrine is
in error. The 1908 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this unsupported claim, but more recent
editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia do not mention the idea at all. Note also that the Catholic Encyclopedia
is not issued by the Church and is not an official document of the Magisterium.
Objection 2: Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (4th century), wrote against both the miraculous virgin
conception and the miraculous virgin birth of Mary: “For even if the account and the traditions concerning
Mary state that it was told to her father Joachim in the desert that his wife had conceived, <still> that did not
happen without their coming together, nor without the man’s seed…. For it cannot be that anyone is born
upon earth outside of the course of human nature; only <the Son?> was distinguished <in this respect ?>, and
to him alone did nature allow this….”50
Reply 2: Saint Epiphanius was wrong in his belief that St. Joachim and St. Ann conceived the Virgin Mary in
the usual manner and also wrong in his belief that St. Ann gave birth to the Virgin Mary in the usual manner.
He gives no theological argument to support his belief. Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich believed that the
Virgin Mary was conceived and born in a miraculous virginal manner, based on her visions from God.
Saint Epiphanius wrote the above quote in the context of criticizing a group of women, led by priestesses,
who seemed to worship the Virgin Mary. He calls this group the “Collyridians,” (cake-eaters,) because they
offered bread in Mary’s name in a religious ceremony. He correctly criticizes them for worshipping Mary, for
having women priestesses, and for having a ceremony with bread offered to Mary (in poor imitation of the
Eucharist). This group was wrong to worship Mary, because Mary is merely human, not Divine.
However, this group was not wrong in all things. Saint Epiphanius incorrectly criticizes them for saying,
about Mary: “We honor the queen of heaven.” The Magisterium and the faithful have frequently referred to
Mary as the Queen of Heaven. This group was also called the “Philomarianites,” (Mary lovers,) because of
their love for the Virgin Mary. They were correct in loving Mary and in holding her in high regard. As the
centuries have passed, Mary’s place in God’s plan has become ever-clearer.
It is not clear from what Saint Epiphanius says, whether or not the Collyridians actually believed that Mary
was conceived in a miraculous and virginal manner. In writing about this group, Saint Epiphanius argues
against this idea. He may have been refuting something that the group believed, which would be consistent
with their exaltation of Mary, or, he may have been making the point that Mary is merely human.
Objection 3: The idea that Mary was conceived miraculously and virginally is found in certain non-canonical
works, which have been condemned by the Church. Therefore, the idea itself is also condemned.
Reply 3: Non-canonical works from the early Church do not have God as their true author and so they are not
infallible. The Magisterium has not condemned these various non-canonical works per se, but has only taught
that these works are the fallible works of human persons, not infallible Sacred Scripture. These works were
written by some members of the early Church, who attempted to write about Christ and Mary and the things
of faith. These works contain some truths, such as that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our
24
Salvation. They also contain some errors, because they are the work of fallible human beings. The Summa
Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas also contains some errors, for the same reason.
The numerous theological arguments in favor of a miraculous virgin conception and miraculous virgin birth
for the Virgin Mary are based on Tradition and Scripture. None of the arguments are based on the apocryphal
works of the early Church. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich believed in the miraculous virgin conception
and miraculous virgin birth of Mary based on her visions from God. Her writings and ideas are not from non-
canonical works of the early Church, but are from her experience of God.
The apocryphal and non-canonical work called The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary states: “Therefore, when she
has grown up, just as she herself shall be miraculously born of a barren woman, so in an incomparable manner
she, a virgin, shall bring forth the Son of the Most High, who shall be called Jesus, and who, according to the
etymology of His name, shall be the Saviour of all nations.”51 This work is the fallible work written in the time
of the early Church. However, this particular quote is true. The Virgin Mary did have a miraculous birth, just
as Christ had a miraculous birth; yet these two births are properly called incomparable because Mary is merely
human, whereas Christ is the Son of God.
Objection 4: Most Bishops and theologians do not teach that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born in a
miraculous and virginal manner.
Reply 4: In the middle ages, most Bishops and theologians did not believe or teach that Mary had an
Immaculate Conception, free from the stain of original sin. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great—
each a Doctor of the Church as well as a Saint—taught that the Virgin Mary did not have an Immaculate
Conception. St. Thomas even wrote against the idea in the Summa Theologica. Blessed John Duns Scotus was
one of the few theologians who argued strongly in favor. Yet, as the centuries passed, the Church grew in love
for, and in knowledge of, the Virgin Mary. The people of God, including the religious orders and the ordained
Servants of God gradually began to accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception. Many centuries after the
idea was first proposed and debated, the Church infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
Mary.52
Furthermore, the Magisterium has never taught that the Virgin Mary had a conception and birth in the
ordinary manner. Theologians and Bishops do not, in general, specifically teach that Mary had an ordinary
conception and birth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not mention the question. There is no Papal
encyclical or document of an Ecumenical Council which answers the question. It is an open question.
Objection 5: Conception by means of marital relations is a good thing created by God. It is God’s will for the
human species to “be fruitful and multiply.” Sexual relations within marriage is a part of the Sacrament of
Marriage and is therefore not contrary to the will of God.
Reply 5: Yes, this is true; but virginity is a still greater good. And perfect virginity encompasses a person’s
whole life, even from conception and birth.
Objection 6: Mary’s conception and birth cannot be like Christ’s conception and birth, because Christ is
Divine and Mary is merely human.
Reply 6: Mary’s conception and birth are not entirely the same as Christ’s conception and birth. The three
main differences are as follows. First, Christ is Divine, whereas Mary is merely human. Thus, Christ's
conception was an Incarnation, whereas Mary's conception was not an Incarnation. Christ’s Birth is far greater
than Mary’s birth, because Christ is God Incarnate, whereas Mary is not. Second, Mary was conceived,
virginally and miraculously, of both her parents, (St. Joachim and St. Ann). Christ was conceived, virginally
and miraculously, of only one human parent, (the Virgin Mary). This difference indicates that Christ is Divine,
with God alone as His Father, (but it is not what makes Christ Divine). Third, Christ was conceived, virginally
and miraculously, of a perfect Virgin. Mary was conceived, virginally and miraculously, of Joachim and Ann,
who were not virgins. Joachim and Ann conceived and bore a child years earlier, the older sister of the Virgin
Mary (Jn 19:25).
25
Objection 7: Christ became Incarnate at His miraculous virgin conception. The claim that Mary was also
conceived miraculously and virginally is tantamount to saying that she also is Divine.
Reply 7: A miraculous virgin conception does not imply Divinity. For example, Adam and Eve were both
conceived miraculously and virginally, yet neither of them is Divine. Christ’s miraculous virgin conception is
not what causes Him to be Divine. Christ is Divine because His Divine Nature united with His human nature
from the first moment of His conception. Christ’s miraculous virgin conception was also an Incarnation, but
other miraculous virgin conceptions are not Incarnations.
“Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and
yet believe.’ ” (John 20:29).
“ ‘I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he
will guide you into all the truth . . . .’ ” (John 16:12-13).
“ ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they
shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.’ ” (John 10:27-28).
PRAISE BE TO GOD ALMIGHTY FOR ALL ETERNITY
26
Chapter 2
Original Sin
What is Original Sin?
Original sin is the sin which occurred at the origins of mankind. Original sin could also be called “first sin.”
It is the first sin committed within the human race. Adam and Eve committed the first personal sin against
God, within the human race. They deliberately and knowingly chose disobedience to God. Their sin against
God resulted in negative consequences for themselves, in body and soul, and for all their descendents, in body
and soul.
There are three possible types of defects in anything. 1) Flaw: the presence of something which should not
be present.53 2) Omission: the absence of something which should be present. 3) Imperfection: the presence of
something which should be present, but which is present in a lesser form or with a certain degree of disorder.
Original sin consists in all three types of defects. Original sin is like a negative image of the Trinity.
Anything perfect has no flaw, omission, or imperfection. The Most Holy Trinity is entirely without flaw,
omission, or imperfection. The Virginity of Jesus is entirely without flaw, omission, or imperfection. The
Virginity of Mary is entirely without flaw, omission, or imperfection. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is entirely
without flaw, omission, or imperfection.
Original sin has three meanings or aspects, each of which corresponds to the three possible types of defects:
1) First, original sin is the first personal sin within the human race. The personal sin at the origins of mankind
is the presence of something, sin, which should not have been present. The first personal sin within mankind is
the sin of Adam and Eve in disobeying God.
Adam and Eve are personally culpable for their sin against God, but their descendents are not personally
culpable for the sin of Adam and Eve. The personal guilt or personal responsibility for the sin of Adam and
Eve belongs only to Adam and Eve, not to their descendents. The sin of Adam and Eve was, for them, both
personal sin and original sin. But when the descendents of Adam and Eve sin, their sin is merely personal sin,
not original sin. Personal sin among the descendents of Adam and Eve is a result of original sin, but is not
original sin itself. When the descendents of Adam and Eve inherit original sin, they do not inherit the personal
guilt or personal responsibility of the sin of Adam and Eve. For the descendents of Adam and Eve, original sin
is not personal sin and personal sin is not original sin. But for Adam and Eve, their first personal sin was also
original sin.
2) Second, original sin is the absence of something which should be present: sanctifying grace. As a result of
their personal sin against God, Adam and Eve fell away from the grace of God. The first personal sin of Adam
and Eve is called the Fall from grace. When Adam and Eve sinned, they committed a mortal sin and lost
sanctifying grace. They lost their original state of holiness and justice and innocence and closeness to God.
They were given sanctifying grace from the very first instant of their miraculous creation by God, but, after a
time, they fell from grace by committing the first personal sin within the human race.
As a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, God no longer gives souls sanctifying grace from the first instant of
their creation. God still creates each soul miraculously, but He now requires us to obtain sanctifying grace by
means of Baptism. Since Baptism gives the soul the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace, Baptism completely
remedies the second aspect of original sin, the lack of sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is the supernatural
gift of Love, Faith, Hope. Thus, Baptism completely remedies the second aspect of original sin, by giving us
the supernatural gift of Love, Faith, Hope.
3) Third, original sin is an imperfection within the human person, resulting from both the personal sin of
Adam and Eve, and from the loss of sanctifying grace. This imperfection or disorder is experienced by each
individual as a tendency or incentive towards sin, which is termed “concupiscence.” In this disorder, the soul
27
is not consistently and unerringly directed solely towards God. Thus, the soul is imperfect in seeking God and
in knowing and doing God’s will. In this same disorder, the body also is not consistently and unerringly under
the direction of the soul and of God. Thus, the body rebels against the soul and against God, according to the
expression: “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mt 26:41)—and sometimes the spirit is weak as
well. As a result, the body is imperfect and is subject to injury, disease, aging, and death. (The process whereby
human beings deteriorate in body and mind due to advancing age is a result of original sin.)
Adam and Eve
Some say that Church teaching on original sin does not require belief in Adam and Eve, as two particular
individuals at the origins of mankind. On the contrary, original sin must have had a beginning within the
human race, for God did not create mankind in a fallen state. And original sin could only have entered the
human race through the culpable personal sins of human persons. Humanity could not have contracted
original sin without fault and without guilt. Humanity would not have been allowed by God to be affected by
original sin, except through the deliberate informed choice of human freewill against God, which choice is
called sin. Thus, the only way that original sin could have entered the human race is by the sins of particular
human beings. Since original sin affected all of the human race, the personal sin resulting in original sin must
have occurred at the origins of mankind. Therefore, the Fall from grace was an actual historical event.
Original Sin and the Trinity
The three aspects of original sin are each related to the other in the manner of a negative image of the Most
Holy Trinity. The personal sin of Adam and Eve, the Fall from grace, is the first and most fundamental aspect
of original sin; the other two aspects depend upon the first and arise from the first. The Father is the First
Person of the Trinity; the Second and Third Persons depend upon and arise from the First Person.
The second aspect of original sin proceeds directly from the first. The loss of sanctifying grace is a direct
result of the personal sin of Adam and Eve. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Son, proceeds directly from
the First Person of the Trinity, the Father.
The third aspect of original sin proceeds primarily from the first aspect and secondarily from the second
aspect. The Third Person of the Trinity proceeds primarily from the First Person and secondarily from the
Second Person. The incentive towards sin within the human person results primarily from the Fall from grace
of Adam and Eve, and secondarily from the lack of sanctifying grace. The Sacraments, especially Baptism,
provide us with sanctifying grace to counter that disorder within ourselves which tends towards sin. But this
incentive to sin proceeds primarily from the sin of Adam and Eve, and only secondarily from the lack of
sanctifying grace. Thus, we cannot completely rid ourselves of this tendency to sin, at least not in this life.
Original sin is one defect with three aspects. The Trinity is One God of Three Persons. When Adam and
Eve turned away from the Trinity, the result was like a negative image of the Trinity. Love, Faith, Hope is one
gift with three aspects, and is like a positive image of the Trinity. (See “Love, Faith, Hope” below).
Procession within the Trinity
The Third Person of the Trinity proceeds primarily from the First Person of the Trinity and secondarily from
the Second Person of the Trinity. It cannot be otherwise. The Father-Son-Spirit is one God. The Spirit cannot
proceed only from the Father, because Father and Son and Spirit are One. Neither can the Spirit proceed
equally from the Father and the Son, for the Father is greater than the Son. The Spirit proceeds primarily from
the Father and secondarily from the Son. No other explanation suffices.
The Second Person of the Trinity proceeds solely from the First Person of the Trinity. The Second Person is
not primary, but secondary. The Second Person cannot proceed from the Third Person, because what is
second is before what is third. The Third Person cannot proceed primarily from the Second Person, because
the Second Person Himself is not primary but secondary. The Third Person cannot proceed primarily from
both Father and Son, because Father and Son are primary and secondary in their relationship with one
another.
28
Original Sin
The First Person of the Trinity does not proceed from the Second Person or the Third Person. The First
Person of the Trinity is First and so He does not proceed at all.
The statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is correct, but incomplete. This
statement cannot be interpreted to mean that the Spirit proceeds equally from Father and Son, for Father and
Son are not equal. The statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father is correct, but incomplete. The Spirit
also proceeds from the Son, but secondarily. Those two incomplete statements become complete when joined
together. The first correctly states that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son; the second correctly
places procession from the Father above procession from the Son.
Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the
first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the
merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a
doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”54
The Immaculate Conception is the preservation of the Virgin Mary from all three aspects of original sin.
Original sin is like a negative image of the Trinity. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is like a
negative image of original sin. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception is a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity,
and must be three-fold. The Immaculate Conception is usually explained as an absence of original sin, but
original sin is itself a kind of negative or absence. The Immaculate Conception can also be explained in
positive terms, as one gift with three aspects,—a reflection of the Three Persons of the One Holy Trinity.
Original sin is one defect with three aspects. The Immaculate Conception is one gift with three aspects. Each
of aspect of the Immaculate Conception is opposed to a corresponding defect of original sin.
1) The first aspect of original sin is the personal sin of Adam and Eve, their disobedience to God, which
caused them to Fall from grace. The first sin of Adam and Eve was, for them, both personal sin and original
sin. The Virgin Mary is the new Eve, created without original sin. If even the least personal sin were
committed by Mary, she would have fallen from grace, just as Eve did. The least personal sin committed by
the Virgin Mary would have been, for her, both personal sin and original sin. The Immaculate Conception
preserves the Virgin Mary from all aspects of original sin. Therefore, by virtue of her Immaculate Conception,
Mary was preserved from all personal sin for her entire life. Mary was completely unable to sin during her
entire life. Any personal sin committed by the Virgin Mary would have been for her also a type of original sin.
Therefore, by virtue of the supernatural gift of the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary was unable to
commit the least personal sin throughout her entire life.
The first aspect of the gift of the Immaculate Conception is that the Virgin Mary was created incapable of
committing any personal sin whatsoever throughout her life. It is not true that the Virgin Mary could have
sinned, if she had chosen to sin. Rather, it was entirely impossible for Mary to sin at all throughout her life.
Mary was preserved from even the sheer possibility that she would Fall from grace, as Adam and Eve did.
Mary had freewill, but she both freely chose not to sin and was completely incapable of choosing to sin. God
kept the Virgin Mary free from all sin from the first moment of her conception.
“Lord, accept this sacrifice on the feast of the sinless Virgin Mary. You kept her free from sin from the first
moment of her life. Help us by her prayers, and free us from our sins.”55 In the Liturgy for the Feast of the
Immaculate Conception, the Prayer over the Gifts states that God kept Mary free from sin beginning with her
Immaculate Conception. Mary’s sinlessness is a work of God. She was preserved from all sin by God’s grace,
not merely by her own freewill.
The Virgin Mary has freewill, so how is it that she was unable to use her freewill to choose sin? The Elect in
Heaven have freewill, yet they also, now that they are with God in Heaven, are completely unable to choose to
sin. The Elect in Heaven cannot use their freewill to choose sin, because they are united with God in true
Love. The Virgin Mary was entirely unable to use her freewill to choose sin, because she was united with God
in true Love from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception and throughout her entire life. Therefore,
the gift of the Immaculate Conception began at Mary’s conception, but persisted throughout her entire life.
29
The gift of the Immaculate Conception was not limited to the time of Mary’s conception, but rather was a
continuing gift, which began at the time of Mary’s conception. Similarly, Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit to the
Church at Pentecost was a continuing gift of the continuing presence of the Spirit within the Church.
In other words, at her Immaculate Conception, Mary was given the supernatural gift of complete life-long
Obedience to God, and therefore she was incapable of sinning in the least against God. Our Lord said: “If you
keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide
in his love.” (Jn 15:10). Obedience to God is Love of God and Love of God is Obedience to God. The first
aspect of the gift of the Immaculate Conception is true Love of God, which made the Virgin Mary incapable of
being disobedient to God in the least, just as the Elect in Heaven, united to God in Love, are incapable of
being disobedient to God in the least. This first aspect of the Immaculate Conception, the God-given ability to
love God and neighbor, is identical to Obedience to God. The first aspect of the Immaculate Conception,
Obedience to God, is the opposite of the first aspect of original sin, disobedience to God.
At the Immaculate Conception, Mary was given the supernatural gift of complete Love for God, which is
the same as complete obedience to God, and which precludes all sin. In so far as anyone sins, they do not love
God. “No one who abides in him sins….” (1 Jn 3:6). In so far as anyone loves God, they do not sin. “For this
is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 Jn 5:3). The first aspect of the Immaculate
Conception is the supernatural gift of Love/Obedience.
This first aspect of the Immaculate Conception corresponds to the First Person of the Trinity. Obedience to
God is a reflection of the First Person of the Trinity, because even the Son and the Spirit are obedient to the
Father. There is Obedience even within the Trinity itself. Obedience and Love are identical within the Trinity.
God is Love, therefore, there is obedience within the Trinity. Love is first in all things good, just as the Father
is first in all things good.
2) The second aspect of original sin is the lack of sanctifying grace. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the
sanctifying grace that God had given them from the first moment of their creation. Thereafter, God decided to
give sanctifying grace to each descendent of Adam and Eve, not from the first moment of each person’s
conception (at the time of creation of body and soul), but instead, later in life. For Christians, sanctifying grace
is generally given at the time of their Baptism. Before the Christian faith was established, and even now for
many non-Christians, sanctifying grace is given to those persons who cooperate with God’s grace during their
life. God is able to lead them into a state of sanctifying grace, despite their lack of faith in Christ.
Each human person, conceived by parents with original sin, is conceived without sanctifying grace. The
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is the sole exception (because she was conceived, of both her
parents, by a miracle of God, in an entirely virginal manner). The Virgin Mary’s parents had original sin;
nevertheless, the Virgin Mary was conceived with the fullness of the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace.
Mary was preserved from the lack of sanctifying grace. Jesus Christ did not have original sin, but his sole
human parent, the Virgin Mary, also did not have original sin.
The second aspect of the Immaculate Conception is sanctifying grace. The Virgin Mary had the gift of
sanctifying grace from the first moment of her conception. The Virgin Mary never received the Sacrament of
Baptism; her Immaculate Conception is like a more excellent form of Baptism. At Baptism, we receive the gift
of sanctifying grace. But Mary received the gift of sanctifying grace at her conception. The gift of sanctifying
grace given to the Virgin Mary at her conception is the same as the gift of sanctifying grace given to us at our
Baptism. Nevertheless, the gift of sanctifying grace given to the Virgin Mary (as the second aspect of her
Immaculate Conception,) is more excellent for two reasons. First, Mary had sanctifying grace from the first
moment of her existence; it is better to receive sanctifying grace earlier in life, rather than later. Second, the gift
of sanctifying grace was more effective within Mary’s life, because she also had the two additional gifts of the
Immaculate Conception, which kept her obedient to God and perfect in worship of God her entire life.
The gift of sanctifying grace is the supernatural gift of Love-Faith-Hope. But sanctifying grace can also be
called, simply, Faith, because true Faith is the acceptance of all that God offers us, including the gift of
sanctifying grace.
In order to receive the gift of Faith, or any grace offered by God, we must have the help of God’s grace. This
doctrine was infallibly taught by the Council of Orange (c. A.D. 529), Canons 3 to 9.56 The opposite opinion
was condemned by that same Council. The idea that we can seek God’s grace with our freewill, or do
30
Original Sin
anything good, or even merely accept any grace offered by God, without God’s grace also working in us from
the very beginning, is an idea condemned as heresy by the Council of Orange. Rather, God not only gives us
grace, His grace helps us receive grace. When someone hands you a book, they give and you receive. But
when God hands you His grace, He gives and, at the same time, He also helps you receive. What shall we call
the grace which helps us accept the gift of sanctifying grace? Let’s call that grace, Faith, because it is the start
of the full and true gift of Love-Faith-Hope and because Faith is the acceptance of all that God offers,
especially the acceptance of what is needed for salvation. Thus, true Faith is, all at once, both a supernatural
gift from God and the means by which we accept grace from God.
The second aspect of the Immaculate Conception, the acceptance of sanctifying grace, is the opposite of the
second aspect of original sin, the loss of sanctifying grace. The Virgin Mary had perfect Faith in God. She
entirely accepted every grace given to her, for she was entirely Obedience to God. The second aspect of
original sin, the loss of sanctifying grace, proceeds from the first aspect of original sin, the disobedience of
Adam and Eve. The second aspect of the Immaculate Conception, the acceptance of sanctifying grace,
proceeds from the first aspect of the Immaculate Conception, Obedience to God. In other words, true Faith in
God proceeds from true Love of God. True Love of God is the first aspect of the gift of the Immaculate
Conception and true Faith in God is the second aspect of the gift of the Immaculate Conception.
The second aspect of the Immaculate Conception corresponds to the Second Person of the Trinity.
Sanctifying grace comes to us through the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second
Person of the Trinity. The Son accepts everything that the Father gives to the Son. Faith is the acceptance of
sanctifying grace and of everything that the Father gives to us.
3) The third aspect of original sin is the disorder of body and soul, wherein the soul is not directed solely
towards God as our highest good and Heaven as our everlasting home, and wherein the body is not directed
solely towards God by serving and obeying the soul. The third aspect of the Immaculate Conception is the
perfection of body and soul given to the Virgin Mary, wherein her soul was directed solely and entirely
towards God as her highest good and Heaven as her everlasting home, and wherein her body was directed
solely and entirely towards God by serving and obeying her soul. The saying, “the spirit indeed is willing, but
the flesh is weak,” does not apply to the Virgin Mary, because this weakness of body (and, truly, of soul also)
is a result of original sin.
Stated in positive terms, at her Immaculate Conception, Mary was given the supernatural gift of Hope.
Hope is not the mere human ability to desire something with some expectation of obtaining what is desired.
The supernatural gift of Hope is the God-given ability to direct one’s body and soul towards God. Prayer is the
fruit of true Hope, because in prayer we direct our whole selves, body and soul, towards God. Therefore, at
her Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary was given the life-long gift of perfect prayer. Throughout her life,
at every moment without exception, Mary’s whole being was directed solely and entirely towards God. Mary
was always in perfect prayer to God. God wills us to “pray constantly,” (1 Thess 5:17) but only Jesus Christ
and the Virgin Mary have been able to fulfill that command perfectly.
This third aspect of the Immaculate Conception corresponds to the Third Person of the Trinity. The Spirit is
ever directed towards the Father and the Son, just as the gift of Hope directs our whole selves towards God.
True Hope is to have body and soul entirely directed towards God and Heaven. “And every one who thus
hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” (1 Jn 3:3). Hope proceeds primarily from Love/Obedience and
secondarily from Faith, just as the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son.
Sometimes we say that Love is a gift from God, and Faith is a gift from God, and Hope is a gift from God.
But Love, Faith, Hope is actually not three separate gifts, but one gift with three aspects. Whoever has Love,
has Faith and Hope; whoever has Faith, has Love and Hope; whoever has Hope, has Love and Faith. Even as
the Father-Son-Spirit is One inseparable God, so also Love-Faith-Hope is one inseparable gift. And that one
gift with three aspects is a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity.
The Immaculate Conception is one gift with three aspects, just as the Trinity is One God of Three Persons.
The three aspects to the gift of the Immaculate Conception are: Love, Faith, Hope. Love is a reflection of the
Father, Faith is a reflection of the Son, Hope is a reflection of the Spirit. Love-Faith-Hope is one gift with three
aspects, just as the Father-Son-Spirit is Three Persons of One God.
31
The one gift (with three aspects) of the Immaculate Conception is the opposite of the one offense (with three
aspects) of original sin. Thus, original sin is a negative image of the Trinity. Love is first in all things good, just
as the Father is first in all things good. Love gives rise to Faith and Hope, just as the Father gives rise to the
Son and the Spirit. Love-Faith-Hope is one, just as the Father-Son-Spirit is one. Love-Faith-Hope is one holy
gift from the one holy God.
The Virgin Mary was entirely perfect in her worship of God throughout her entire life. She was able to be
perfect in worship of God because of the one gift with three aspects of her Immaculate Conception. At her
Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary was given a gift which persisted with her throughout her life. The
gift of the Immaculate Conception was not confined to the moment of conception.
Notice that the three aspects of the Immaculate Conception, Love-Faith-Hope, are also the three aspects of
sanctifying grace. The Immaculate Conception is a threefold reflection of the Trinity, but the second aspect of
the Immaculate Conception, sanctifying grace, is also a threefold reflection of the Trinity. Yet the Immaculate
Conception is more than merely the presence of sanctifying grace from conception.
The Virgin Mary was given sanctifying grace (Love-Faith-Hope) at conception, but she was also given the
gift of Obedience/Love of God to a preeminent degree. The Virgin Mary was given sanctifying grace at
conception, but she was also given Faith to a greater degree than any other human person, except Christ
Himself. The Virgin Mary was given the gift of Love-Faith-Hope, which is also called sanctifying grace, at
conception, but she was also filled so completely with Hope that her prayers were perfect devotion to God of
her whole self, body and soul. The gift of sanctifying grace is part of the gift of the Immaculate Conception,
but sanctifying grace is also a reflection of the Immaculate Conception. That is why they each are properly
called the gift of Love, Faith, Hope. And, when we each receive the gift of sanctifying grace at our Baptism, it
is a reflection of the gift of the Immaculate Conception, which was, in a sense, a gift to the whole Church.
Some people doubt the reality of original sin. But the Immaculate Conception is the preservation of Mary
from original sin. So, if there is no original sin, then there is no Immaculate Conception. Anyone who rejects
the idea of original sin, rejects the idea of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
The perfect gift of Love, Faith, Hope, as it was given to the human nature of Christ and also to Mary, is
infallible, irrevocable, and irreformable. This gift has no flaw, omission, or imperfection. This gift cannot fail,
cannot be withdrawn, and cannot be damaged in the least.
Love-Faith-Hope
The state of grace in a human soul consists in the supernatural gift from God of Love, Faith, Hope. This gift
is one gift with three aspects. Love is distinct, but not separate, from Faith and Hope. Faith is distinct, but not
separate, from Love and Hope. Hope is distinct, but not separate, from Faith and Love. Love-Faith-Hope is a
reflection of the Most Holy Trinity, the Father-Son-Spirit. The gift of salvation in our souls is like an image of
the Trinity printed on our souls. The gift of saving grace comes from God, so of course that gift resembles
God. Sanctifying grace is saving grace. Whoever has sanctifying grace at the time of their death is saved and
will go to Heaven. Sanctifying grace is Love-Faith-Hope.
“The apostles said to the Lord, ‘Increase our faith!’ And the Lord said, ‘If you had faith as a grain of
mustard seed, you could say to this sycamine tree, “Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,” and it would
obey you.’ ” (Lk 17:5-6).
The Apostles asked Jesus to increase their Faith. He did not deny their request. He told them how to arrive
at an increase in Faith. Who can say to a tree, “Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,” and have it obey
him? Only someone who is completely obedient to God. All things become obedient, to him who is obedient
to God. Obedience to God is Love of God. And, since Love-Faith-Hope is one gift, whoever is obedient to
God will have Faith and Hope as well. Therefore, Jesus was saying that if you want to increase your Faith,
increase your Obedience to God. Faith proceeds from Love/Obedience of God, just as the Son proceeds from
the Father. The disciples asked Christ for an increase in Faith, and so Christ told them that the way to increase
Faith is to be obedient to God.
32
Original Sin
The Israelites were taught obedience to God through the Law and the prophets. Their obedience to God,
imperfect though it was at first, reached perfection in the life of the Virgin Mary, who was entirely obedient to
God. Faith in Christ is the fruit of the obedience of the Israelites to God, for Christ was born of the Israelites.
In this way, Obedience brought forth Faith.
The Virgin Mary was ever-perfect in Love-Faith-Hope. She had perfect obedience to God, and therefore, all
things will become obedient to her. The Virgin Mary fulfills the saying of Christ: “ ‘If you had faith as a grain
of mustard seed, you could say to this sycamine tree, “Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,” and it would
obey you.’ ” (Lk 17:6). The Virgin Mary also fulfills the saying of Christ: “ ‘Truly, I say to you, whoever says
to this mountain, “Be taken up and cast into the sea,” and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what
he says will come to pass, it will be done for him.’ ” (Mk 11:23). These sayings are not only metaphorically
true, but also, for those are completely obedient to God, literally true.
Do you love God? Yes, so you think. But your love for God is measured only by your obedience to God.
Are you obedient to God? Do you obey all of the teachings of God’s Holy Catholic Church? In so far as you
are obedient to God and to the teachings of the Church, so much do you have true Love for God. In so far as
you are disobedient to God and to the teachings of the Church, so much do you lack true Love for God. But
even if you are obedient to all the teachings of the Church, you must also be obedient to God’s will for you, in
small things and in great things, in your life. Only then would you be truly obedient to God. Only then would
you have true Love for God, in all its fullness. Any less Obedience to God is also less Love of God.
Why do so few theologians and Scripture scholars today have Faith?—because they do not obey the
teachings of the Church and they do not obey God’s will. Lack of true Obedience to God is lack of true Love
of God. A decrease in Obedience to God results in a decrease in Faith and Hope, because Love-Faith-Hope is
one gift from God. Thus, your Faith can be measured by your obedience to God. Whoever obeys God in all
things, will have Faith in all things. Whoever disobeys God and the Church, will lack Faith. Whoever is
lacking in Faith in the teachings of the holy Catholic Church, is also lacking in Love and Hope.
Whoever is engrossed in worldly things, is lacking in Hope. The true supernatural gift of Hope gives us the
ability to direct our whole selves towards God and Heaven. Whoever is lacking in Hope is also lacking in
Faith and Love. Therefore, whoever is engrossed in worldly things, is lacking in Love of God and in Faith and
in Hope.
The gift of God, which was lost by Adam and Eve through their personal and original sin against God, is
the gift of Love-Faith-Hope. The gift of God given to us at Baptism is the gift of Love-Faith-Hope. The gift of
sanctifying grace is the gift of Love-Faith-Hope. Whoever has the supernatural gift of Love-Faith-Hope has
sanctifying grace. The gift of sanctifying grace is the state of grace in our souls for salvation; it is saving grace.
Adam and Eve lost this gift through the Fall from grace. Adam and Eve were each able to obtain sanctifying
grace again through repentance and prayer later in their lives. We today obtain sanctifying grace, which is the
gift of Love-Faith-Hope, through Baptism. And we maintain that state of grace in our souls through the other
Sacraments as well as through prayer, self-denial, and works of mercy.
Original sin is three-fold: the personal/original sin of Adam and Eve, the loss of sanctifying grace, and the
disorder in body and soul (wherein we are not wholly directed towards God) resulting in a tendency towards
sin. Love-Faith-Hope is a three-fold remedy for original sin. True Love of God is holy Obedience to God,
which helps us avoid personal sin. Faith is the acceptance of sanctifying grace, which remedies completely the
loss of sanctifying grace due to original sin. Hope directs our whole selves towards God and Heaven, which
partially remedies the disorder in body and soul resulting in a tendency towards sin.
True Love of God is not our love for God or for friends and family. True Love of God is a supernatural gift,
an undeserved free gift given to us by God, which allows us to choose true spiritual love for God and neighbor.
“In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins.”
(1 John 4:10). Many people, who (in some sense of the word) love their spouse, their children, their other
family members, and their friends, do not have true Love of God. They do not have true spiritual love for their
family or friends, nor even for themselves. In order to truly love anyone, one must accept and use the gift of
true Love from God.
33
True Love of God is the same as true Obedience to God. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments.” (1 John 5:3). Love/Obedience is a reflection of the Father, to whom even the Son and the
Spirit are obedient. Nothing is good or right without Obedience to the Father. There is no true love apart from
Obedience to God the Father. True Love of God is a supernatural gift from God, which makes us willing and
able to obey God. The Virgin Mary was given true Love of God, that is, true Obedience to God, from the first
moment of her existence at her Immaculate Conception. Mary was entirely unable to sin throughout her life,
because even the least personal sin would have been contrary to this first aspect of the gift of the Immaculate
Conception.
True Faith is not our adherence to a set of ideas, statements, or doctrines. Faith is not our human ability to
trust something or someone. True Faith is a supernatural gift from God. True Faith is acceptance of God. True
Faith is the acceptance of God in your life. True Faith is the acceptance of sanctifying grace from God. True
Faith is the acceptance of Christ and His teachings and His Way of Truth. We exercise our gift of Faith by
following the Way of Christ. True Faith is the acceptance of the graces needed for salvation. True Faith is
correctly defined as the acceptance of all that God offers, most especially sanctifying grace. True Faith, at a
minimum, is the acceptance of sanctifying grace. Whoever accepts from God the graces needed for salvation
has True Faith and eternal salvation. True Faith, perfect and complete, is the acceptance of God’s whole will,
including all graces offered by God. Only Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary have perfect true Faith. Perfect
True Faith is the acceptance of all that God offers.
Typically, the acceptance of sanctifying grace from God includes adherence to certain truths, such as the
truth that Christ is the Son of God. However, there is nothing to prevent the acceptance of sanctifying grace
from occurring without adherence to one particular set of beliefs or another. Thus, the Israelites of the Old
Testament were able to accept sanctifying grace without direct knowledge of Christ. And persons who adhere
to religions other than Christianity, or to no religion at all, can still possibly accept sanctifying grace in spite of
the obstacle of their failure to accept Christian teachings. However, in the world today, where information on
religion is widely available, there is usually some degree of culpability in one who does not find the truth of
Faith in Christ.
Many Protestants insist that Faith alone is needed for salvation. Anyone who has true Faith, and retains it
through the last moment of their life, is certainly saved, for true Faith is the acceptance of sanctifying grace.
The Church teaches that anyone who dies in a state of sanctifying grace is saved. However, no one can have
true Faith without also having true Love and true Hope, for Love-Faith-Hope is one gift from God. Whoever
accepts the Son, also accepts the Father and the Spirit. Whoever accepts true Faith, also accepts true Love and
true Hope. Whoever accepts sanctifying grace has Love-Faith-Hope, for Love-Faith-Hope is sanctifying grace.
Although one may possibly adhere to a set of beliefs, without true Love of God and without true Hope, such
an adherence is not true Faith, but only the empty shell of Faith. Therefore, true Faith, defined as the
acceptance of sanctifying grace, is sufficient for salvation, but it is never alone. True Faith is always
accompanied by true Love and true Hope, just as the Son is never alone and is always accompanied by the
Father and the Spirit.
Christ found greater faith in a soldier than in all of Israel. Did this Roman soldier adhere to the ideas of the
Jewish faith more completely than any of the Jews? No, the great faith of which Christ spoke was acceptance
of the will of God, not merely acceptance of a set of ideas. “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such
faith.” (Lk 7:9).
True Faith is a reflection of the Son, for it is the Son of God who suffered, died, and rose that we might have
sanctifying grace. True Faith is a reflection of the Son, for the Son accepts all that the Father gives to Him.
True Faith proceeds solely from true Love of God. Without true Love of God, that is, without true Obedience
to the Will of God, there can be no true Faith, and thus no sanctifying grace. True Love of God is always
accompanied by Faith, for Faith proceeds from Love, just as the Son proceeds from the Father.
True Hope is not the mere human ability to want something and to expect to receive it. True Hope is the
ability to direct our whole selves towards God as our highest good and Heaven as our final reward. True Hope
is a supernatural gift from God. We cannot direct our selves towards God without that gift. Those who have
true Hope desire God and seek God and conform their lives to God’s will.
34
Original Sin
The third aspect of original sin opposes true Hope. Concupiscence, or the incentive towards sin, results from
a disorder of the human person, wherein body and soul are not wholly directed towards God and Heaven, but
rather are directed towards themselves (selfishness, desires of the flesh) and towards the world (worldly
possessions, wealth, society and culture). Hope partially remedies the third aspect of original sin, by enabling
us to direct ourselves towards God.
Prayer is the fruit of the supernatural gift of true Hope. In true and sincere prayer, we direct our whole selves
towards God. Prayer is an expression of the virtue of Hope, because prayer is the direction of body and soul
towards God. Now, you might think that prayer only involves directing the soul towards God, for the body
might not seem to do much during prayer. But prayer involves one’s mind, which is part soul and part body
(the brain). Prayer involves one’s heart, which is part soul (freewill) and part emotion (when properly ordered
towards God). Prayer is the direction of body and soul towards God. Prayer comes from the Divine gift of
Hope.
True Hope is the supernatural gift from God which enables us to direct body and soul towards God. True
Hope is a reflection of the Spirit, for the Spirit is directed towards Father and Son. The Spirit is directed
primarily towards the Father and secondarily towards the Son, just as Hope is directed primarily towards Love
and secondarily towards Faith. True Hope proceeds primarily from Love and secondarily from Faith, just as
the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son. Hope is never separate from Faith
and Love, for the three Persons of the Trinity are One God.
Baptism
At Baptism, each of us receives sanctifying grace. Love-Faith-Hope is sanctifying grace. At Baptism, each of
us receives the one supernatural gift with three aspects: Love-Faith-Hope. Baptism, through the gift of true
Faith, completely remedies the loss of sanctifying grace due to original sin. Baptism, through the gift of true
Love of God, helps us turn away from sin and towards God, that we may not fall from grace through serious
personal sin, as Adam and Eve did. Baptism, through the gift of true Hope, helps us direct body and soul
towards God, so that we may eventually be with God forever in Heaven.
Mary did not need to be baptized in order to receive sanctifying grace. Mary’s Immaculate Conception
superceded the Sacrament of Baptism; her Immaculate Conception was like a more excellent form of Baptism.
The gift of the Immaculate Conception was the gift of Love-Faith-Hope, but this gift was given to Mary more
completely than to us in the Sacrament of Baptism. When we receive the gift of Love-Faith-Hope in our
Baptism, some aspects of original sin still remain. We still have some degree of disorder in body and soul,
which results in concupiscence or the tendency towards sin. And we do not have the gift of Love/Obedience
to such an extent that we can never sin.
At her Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary was completely filled with the gift of Love-Faith-Hope.
She was given the supernatural gift of Love-Faith-Hope to such a high degree that the gift of Love/Obedience
entirely prevented her from sinning her entire life. The same gift of Love-Faith-Hope was given to Adam and
Eve, but it was subject to freewill, and so Adam and Eve were able to sin and to lose this gift, just as we are
able to sin seriously and to lose this gift.
Mary was given the supernatural gift of Faith to such a high degree that she could not fail to accept all the
truth and grace offered to her by God without exception. The gift of Faith gave her true knowledge of God and
the ability to accept all the graces that God offered her throughout her life. Mary was given the gift of Faith in
all its fullness, so that she could not possibly refuse any truth or grace offered to her by God throughout her
life, just as she could not disobey God and fall into sin in the least throughout her life. True Faith is the only
path to God, for Faith allows us to accept all good gifts from God. Unlike Mary, the faithful in this life do not
have Faith to such a degree as to necessarily accept all that God offers. The Blessed in Heaven do have Faith
to such a degree.
Mary was given the gift of Hope in all its fullness, so that she could not possibly fail to direct her whole self
towards God every moment of her life. The gift of Hope allowed the Virgin Mary to pray to God with all her
heart, mind, body, and soul, and to direct her whole self and her whole life towards God. We do not yet have
35
Hope to such a degree as to be able to pray constantly and perfectly, as Mary did. Only in Heaven to we
achieve what Mary had from the first moment of her existence at the Immaculate Conception.
Mary and Eve
The perfect Virgin Mary had the Divine gift of sanctifying grace throughout her entire life, beginning with
the first moment of her existence at her Immaculate Conception. The Virgin Mary had sanctifying grace from
the first moment of her creation, just as Adam and Eve had sanctifying grace from the first moment of their
creation. But the gift of sanctifying grace was given to the Virgin Mary in a far more excellent form than to
Adam and Eve.
Mary and Eve have similar gifts from God. Eve was created in body and soul by a miracle of God. Eve was
not created by the usual means of procreation, sexual relations. Eve was not conceived of man and woman;
she was created by a miracle of God. Eve’s creation was virginal and miraculous. The Virgin Mary was
created in body and soul by a miracle of God. Mary was not created by means of sexual relations. Mary’s
creation was virginal and miraculous.
There are also significant differences between Mary and Eve. Mary was conceived in the womb of her
human mother (St. Ann); Eve has no human mother and was not conceived in the womb. Even though Mary
was conceived in a virginal and miraculous manner, she was conceived of both her parents (St. Joachim and
St. Ann), by a miracle of God.
Mary and Eve each were given the gift of sanctifying grace from the first moment of their creation, but Mary
received that gift in the most complete and perfect form possible. Mary is completely sinless in every possible
way. Eve was only sinless until her Fall from grace. Eve was able to sin and to Fall from grace. Mary was
completely incapable of sinning and of Falling from grace. Eve, with Adam, was the beginning of original sin.
Christ, with Mary, was the beginning of the end of all sin.
The complete and perfect gift of Love-Faith-Hope given to Mary at her Immaculate Conception made her
infallible throughout her entire life. The Virgin Mary is a reflection of the Church. Thus, both the Church and
the Virgin have a gift of infallibility. The gift of infallibility given to the Church (in this life) is limited to
Tradition, Scripture, and the Sacred Magisterium. By comparison, the Virgin Mary was completely infallible
in all that she said and did. The infallibility of the Church in this life is limited, because the members of the
Church on earth are sinners, whose ability to seek and find truth has been impaired by original sin and
personal sin. The infallibility of the Virgin Mary encompassed all she said and did, without exception, because
she was entirely free from original sin and personal sin.
The Virgin Mary always did God’s whole will. She was free from all sin, because she was entirely filled with
the grace of God. The Virgin Mary is ever infallible because she is ever filled with grace. Even as a humble
child, Mary was infallible. She never spoke any false word, for this would be contrary to the will of God. She
never did anything unjust, even unintentionally, for this would be contrary to the will of God. She never
mistakenly thought she knew that something was true, only to find out it was false, for God is Truth. Mary is
perfect to God.
Interestingly, Adam and Eve also had a degree of infallibility (before their Fall from grace).
“So that, as long as the state of innocence continued, it was impossible for the human intellect to assent
to falsehood as if it were truth. For as some perfections, such as clarity, were lacking in the bodily
members of the first man, though no evil could be therein; so there could be in his intellect the absence
of some knowledge, but no false opinion.” 57
However, Adam and Eve were able to sin, therefore, they were not infallible in all things. They also had less
knowledge and understanding than Christ or Mary. Consider the analogy of two books. Both books contain
only truths, being entirely free from all falsehoods. However, one book contains much more knowledge than
the other book. Christ and Adam (before the Fall from grace) were each infallible, but Christ understood much
more truth than Adam. Mary and Eve (before the Fall from grace) were each infallible, but Mary understood
much more truth than Eve. The infallibility of the Sacred Magisterium is not so unusual: it was foreshadowed
by the infallibility of humanity before the Fall and is surpassed by the infallibility of Christ and Mary.
36
Original Sin
The ever-perfect Virgin Mary has always been infallible. However, she is merely human, and so has always
had a number of limitations. Mary never misunderstood anything, but she did not know all things. She did not
even know, as a young girl, that she would be the Mother of the Messiah. She is not God, and so she is not
All-knowing. But, now that she is united with God in Heaven, she can obtain any knowledge from God. Even
so, Mary does not understand all things in one timeless Eternal Act. She is not God, and so she is not Eternal
(in the sense of having always existed). But, now that she dwells in Heaven, with God Who is Eternity, she
lives forever. It is said that God finds fault even in His angels, but God never finds any fault in the ever-perfect
Blessed Virgin Mary.
Sexual Relations and Original Sin
Procreation by means of sexual relations is a result of original sin. Before the Fall from grace, when Adam
and Eve were in a state of original innocence, they lived for God. Their bodies were solely at the service of
their souls and their souls solely at the service of God. They were more like the angels, living almost as if they
were purely spiritual, and less like the lower animals, who live almost as if they are merely material. God
created Adam and Eve miraculously, in soul and body. Thus, before the Fall, all conceptions would have been
entirely virginal and miraculous, wherein God creates both soul and body.
When they Fell from grace, Adam and Eve became less like the angels and more like the lower animals. So,
after the Fall, all conceptions, (except those untouched by original sin,) are like those of the lower animals,
that is, conception by bodily means, wherein God creates the soul, but allows nature to create the body.
The conceptions of Mary and Jesus were each entirely free from every aspect of original sin; therefore, the
conceptions of Mary and Jesus were each entirely miraculous and virginal. The explicit teaching of the Church
is that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary kept her entirely free from every aspect of original sin.
But this teaching necessarily implies that the Immaculate Conception was a miraculous virginal conception,
because procreation by means of sexual relations is a result of original sin. Neither Mary nor Jesus could be
conceived by means of marital relations, because such a means of procreation only occurred as a consequence
of the Fall from grace of Adam and Eve, that is, as a consequence of original sin. Both Mary and Jesus must
necessarily have been conceived solely by means of a miracle of God and in a wholly virginal manner, because
that is the means of procreation intended by God for humanity before the Fall from grace. The pure and
innocent conceptions of Mary and Jesus were entirely untouched by original sin. Original innocence prevailed
within the conceptions of Mary and Jesus, because Jesus and Mary are like humanity before the Fall, when
original innocence prevailed within human nature.
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich believed that the Virgin Mary was conceived in a miraculous and
virginal manner, and that all conceptions would have been miraculous virgin conceptions, if Adam and Eve
had not Fallen from grace. “I understood, that as a result of the grace here given, the conception of Mary was
as pure as all conceptions would have been but for the Fall.”58 Before the Fall from grace, there were no sexual
relations. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were much like Christ and Mary: holy, pure, and innocent virgins.
If Adam and Eve had not fallen from grace, they would still have conceived children, but not by means of
sexual relations. Their children would have been conceived in a miraculous and virginal manner, like the
conception of the Virgin Mary in the womb of St. Ann.
Before the Fall from grace, that is, before original sin entered the world, there was no sexual intercourse.
Adam and Eve were created miraculously by God, not by means of sexual relations. Since Christ came to
fulfill what Adam could not, it was fitting that His conception be miraculous, like the creation of Adam. And,
since Mary was created by God to fulfill what Eve could not, it was fitting that her conception be miraculous.
The conception of Christ and the conception of Mary could each be no less miraculous and no less virginal
than those of Adam and Eve, because Christ and Mary exceed Adam and Eve in all things.
Procreation by means of sexual relations entered this world because of original sin; it is a consequence of
original sin. Christ and Mary are entirely free from original sin, thus they were each conceived, not by marital
relations, but by a virginal miracle of God. If Adam and Eve had never fallen from grace, all procreation
would occur in a miraculous virginal manner, like the Virgin Conception of Mary. Since Mary was preserved
37
from all aspects of original sin, she must have been conceived miraculously, without marital relations. Christ
and Mary are what mankind is meant to be, without the effects of original sin.
Marital relations is not intrinsically evil. Natural sexual relations between husband and wife is a part of the
Sacrament of Marriage. There is often some venial sin accompanying marital relations, because we are sinners
whose minds and hearts are not completely pure and innocent. However, the marital act is not itself a sin.
Procreation by means of sexual relations is not intrinsically sinful, but it is a result of original sin. Furthermore,
the sin of Adam and Eve, at their Fall from grace, was not sexual relations, but rather disobedience to God.
Since marital relations is not a sin, why did Adam and Eve refrain from marital relations before the Fall?
Adam and Eve did not have the Sacrament of Marriage, but they were nevertheless married in the Old
Testament sense (cf. Mt 19:3-9). Yet procreation by means of marital relations did not yet exist for Adam and
Eve. In the state of original innocence, the body was entirely at the service of God, by means of obedience to
the soul, and the soul was entirely directed towards God. The reason that Adam and Eve did not have marital
relations is similar to the reason that clergy and religious take a vow of celibacy,—so as to be devoted entirely
to God. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were perfect in their devotion to God. They were each entirely
directed, in body and soul, towards God. By comparison, even a holy priest or Bishop, or even a Saint or
Blessed, is not completely directed towards God, in body and soul, at all times and in all things.
Interestingly, St. Joachim and St. Ann achieved a state of devotion to God close to that of Adam and Eve
before the Fall. In this way, they were prepared to receive a gift of God, which Adam and Eve would have
received but for the Fall: to conceive a child solely by means of a miracle of God, in a wholly virginal manner
(completely without marital relations).
God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
“…for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Gen 2:17). Adam and Eve did not literally die on the day
that they disobeyed God, but they died metaphorically, (that is, they changed for the worse in body and soul),
on that day. Also, beginning on the day that they disobeyed God, they became mortal and were able to die.
Prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were immortal in body and soul. They would never have died, if they had
never disobeyed God. But, even though death made their bodies mortal, their souls remained immortal
because of the Mercy of God. For this reason, after the Fall, God continues to create the immortal soul
supernaturally, at the time of each human person’s conception, while the mortal body is created by natural
means. Before the Fall, both body and soul were immortal, therefore, it was fitting that God create both body
and soul supernaturally, by means of miraculous virgin conceptions, not by means of nature. Before the Fall,
the body was immortal and so was beyond nature. Adam and Eve would have conceived children in this way,
if they had not Fallen from grace. Christ and Mary were each conceived in a miraculous and virginal manner,
because they are each completely untouched by the Fall from grace.
After the general Resurrection, when the souls of the just are given glorified bodies, both body and soul will
be entirely free from original sin and all its effects. Christ taught that after the general Resurrection there is no
marriage (and, therefore, no sexual relations).
“ ‘In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.’ And Jesus
said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to
attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they
cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.’ ”
(Lk 20:33-36).
The expressions, “sons of this age” and “sons of the resurrection,” refer to men and women, for men marry
and women are given in marriage. The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, and they have sexual
relations. But the sons of the resurrection are like the angels. They are totally dedicated to God. The sons of
the resurrection also have no original sin; every aspect of original sin has been completely wiped away. The
sons of the resurrection are given a purity and holiness greater than Adam and Eve before the Fall. The sons of
the resurrection never sin in the least; they have the fullness of sanctifying grace unceasingly; they are wholly
directed towards God in body and soul. The sons of the resurrection have no concupiscence, that is, no
tendency towards sin. Thus, the sons of the resurrection have no original sin and no personal sin whatsoever.
And, as a result, they never marry, nor are given in marriage, nor do they have sexual relations at all. Notice
also that the sons of the resurrection have new glorified bodies, created by a miracle of God. Those who have
no original sin in body and soul are also created by God miraculously in body and soul.
38
Original Sin
In summary, Tradition and Scripture teaches us about three situations where human nature is completely
free from original sin and all its effects. In each of those situations, sexual relations and procreation by means
of sexual relations are entirely absent. And in each of those situation, both body and soul were created by God
miraculously and virginally.
1. Adam and Eve before the Fall. They did not have sexual relations before the Fall, for Scripture says
that Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived a child (Gen 4:1), but this was after Adam and Eve fell
from grace and were driven out of the garden of Eden (Gen 3:1-24). Adam and Eve were each created
by God, in body and soul, miraculously and without sexual relations.
2. Jesus and Mary are each completely free from original sin and all its consequences. Jesus and Mary
are each perfect virgins. Jesus and Mary were each created by God, in body and soul, miraculously and
virginally.
3. After the general Resurrection, when the souls of the just are given glorified bodies, both body and
soul will be entirely free from original sin and all its effects. Christ taught that after the general
Resurrection there is no marriage, and therefore, no sexual relations (Lk 20:33-36). The soul is created
miraculously by God at the time of each person’s conception. The glorified bodies given to the
resurrected just are created miraculously by God at the time of the Resurrection from the dead.
Procreation by means of sexual relations is found only among those who have original sin. Procreation by
sexual relations did not occur before the Fall from grace and will not occur after the Resurrection of the just.
Procreation by means of sexual relations is a consequence of original sin. All those who are entirely free from
original sin are created by God, in both body and soul, in a miraculous manner and without sexual relations.
The Virgin Mary was preserved from all aspects of original sin; therefore, she was conceived, without sexual
relations, in a wholly virginal manner, solely and entirely by a miracle of God.
Secondary Effects of Original Sin on the Individual
Original sin is three-fold: the personal sin of Adam and Eve, the loss of sanctifying grace, the imperfection
of body and soul which inclines us towards sin. However, there are other effects of original sin, which result
from this three-fold defect. Procreation by means of sexual relations is a secondary effect of original sin. The
mortality of our bodies is also a secondary effect of original sin. And there are other effects.
Before the Fall, there was no disease or injury or death. The body was obedient to the soul and the soul
obedient to God. Adam and Eve found the truths they sought, much more easily than we, and they could not
be mistaken in what they knew and in what they understood, for their minds and hearts were not injured by
original sin. God’s grace prevailed within human nature.
After the Fall, Adam and Eve and their descendents were subject in body to disease, injury, and death. The
third aspect of original sin, (the imperfection of body and soul, which inclines us towards sin,) allows the body
to be more subject to nature and less subject to the soul. As a result, the body can become diseased and the
soul cannot heal the body. Body and soul can become separated in death, contrary to the will of the person
who dies, because the body is not entirely directed towards soul and soul not entirely directed towards God.
Christ and Mary did not have original sin, therefore, they were unable to die except when they consented to
the separation of body and soul in accordance with the will of God.
The third aspect of original sin also allows the soul to turn away from God, towards lesser things. As a result
of turning away from God, Who is Truth, the soul understands less easily and adheres to known truths less
firmly. A human person with original sin finds the truth with difficulty, sometimes mistaking a falsehood for
the truth, and other times understanding the truth imperfectly. A human person with original sin can know the
truth and adhere to it, but can also be dissuaded and be turned away from that truth. The saying, “the spirit is
willing but the flesh is weak,” means that the flesh is weak and that the spirit is weakened by the flesh.
39
The minds and hearts of human persons with original sin are imperfect because they are not entirely ordered
towards the will of God. John the Baptist was very holy, yet he had original sin. He baptized Jesus (Mk 1:9)
and he proclaimed Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:36). Yet, later on, he still inquired, through his
disciples, whether Jesus was the One, or whether they were to wait for another (Lk 7:19). Despite his great
holiness, John’s mind and heart were still imperfect due to original sin. Divine Revelation is a great help and
comfort to us, then, for we cannot entirely trust our own minds and hearts to lead us along the correct path.
Secondary Effects of Original Sin on Groups
Original sin also has secondary effects upon society. Groups of persons who each have original sin show
secondary effects, as a group, of original sin. This includes families, groups of friends, villages, towns, cities,
states, countries, governments, and organizations of every kind. It also includes disorganized groups of human
persons, such as a crowd on a street or a group of persons using the same building or public transportation.
Where two or more are gathered, there is original sin in their midst.
The effects of original sin on groups of human persons are seen everyday, throughout the world. A few
examples should suffice. In some groups of persons, there is one or a few among them whose example
everyone else follows, regardless of whether it is a good example or a bad example. When a group is overly
influenced by a leader or a small group of leaders, this is an effect of original sin. When our minds and hearts
are not completely directed towards God, (as in the third aspect of original sin), we are more easily influenced
by individuals or groups of persons around us. This same effect of being easily influenced can occur between
two individuals. Sometimes one human person has an excess of influence over another. God should be the first
and greatest influence on each person. Because we are not completely directed towards God in body and soul,
we end up being overly influenced by individuals and groups around us. This manifests in many ways,
including: peer-pressure, cliques, hero-worship, cults, mob-violence, persecution, et cetera.
Group conflicts of various kinds, including civil unrest and wars between nations, are a result of original sin.
If there was no original sin, there would be no war. Because of original sin, we are less ordered towards God’s
will, and more ordered (or disordered) towards our own wills. As a result, groups of persons, whom God
wants to live in harmony and peace, end up in conflict and dissension. The disorder within the human person,
resulting from original sin, results in disorder among groups of persons as well.
The effects of original sin are also seen on intellectual groups. For example, if all of the researchers in a
particular field adhere to a certain theory, or accept a certain premise, it is difficult for the individual to
consider contrary theories or to question the validity of widely-accepted premises. Theories and ideas which
are contrary to group consensus are quickly and vehemently rejected by that group, without due consideration.
If most people think that the Sun revolves around the earth, it becomes exceedingly difficult to consider in
one’s own mind, and to discuss with a group of persons, the idea that the earth revolves around the Sun. If
most people think that the earth revolves around the Sun, it becomes exceedingly difficult to consider in one’s
own mind, and to discuss with a group of persons, the possibility that it is just as true to say that the Sun
revolves around the earth as to say that the earth revolves around the Sun. 59
Of course, many negative social effects, due in part to original sin, are also due to personal sin. The more
personal sin there is in the world, the more sufferings and evils there will be in the world. Since we sinners
have both original sin and personal sin, often the effects of each are hard to distinguish.
After the General Resurrection
When a person dies in a state of grace, they go to Heaven, (often by way of Purgatory). The Blessed in
Heaven are present with God in soul, but not in body. The Blessed in Heaven are completely free of all effects
of original sin in their souls. But they will not have bodies again until the general Resurrection.
At the time of the general Resurrection, the Blessed in Heaven descend to earth and receive resurrected
bodies, which will reflect the glory of the risen Christ. Then God will take away Heaven and earth, and make a
new Heaven and a new earth. A new Heaven is needed, because the Blessed then have both body and soul.
The bodies and souls of the Blessed after the general Resurrection will be entirely free from original sin. They
will be holier and more glorious than Adam and Eve before the Fall. They will resemble the body and soul of
40
Original Sin
Jesus, after His Resurrection and Ascension, and the body and soul of Mary, after her Resurrection and
Assumption.
Adam and Eve, before the Fall, could still experience some pain of the body and some sorrow of the soul.
God protected them from severe pain and sorrow, yet they had a range of human emotions and experiences.
After the general Resurrection, the Blessed will not have sufferings in body or in soul: “he will wipe away
every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any
more, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:4). Thus, the final state of human nature, after the
general Resurrection, will be greater than the first state of human nature, before the Fall from grace.
Human nature, after the general Resurrection, will be perfect—entirely as it was meant to be by God—and,
therefore, also entirely free from original sin and all its effects. Notice that, in the Resurrection from the dead,
there will be no marriage and no sexual relations. That is because humanity at that time will be completely free
from original sin and all its effects. Procreation by means of sexual relations is a consequence of original sin.
There was no sexual relations before the Fall from grace, and there will be none after the Resurrection.
There will be no sexual relations and no procreation by sexual relations after the general Resurrection. As a
result, there will be no need for women to menstruate. Procreation by sexual relations is a result of original sin.
A woman’s monthly reproductive cycle is a preparation for procreation by sexual relations and, therefore, is
also a result of original sin. The Resurrected Just will have no original sin whatsoever, therefore, the women
among the Resurrected Just will have no menstruation. Eve before the Fall from grace, and the Virgin Mary
throughout her life, each had no original sin and no menstruation.
Secondary Effects of the Immaculate Conception
Original sin has secondary effects in body and soul. These effects include the susceptibility to injury, disease,
and death as well as a reduced ability to understand truth and to persevere in doing good. Since the
Immaculate Conception frees the Virgin Mary from all aspects of original sin, she must also have been freed
from every secondary effect of original sin, in body and soul.
Mary was like Eve before the Fall in that she could experience some pain of the body and some sorrow of
the soul. Mary had a range of human emotions and experiences. Mary, like Eve, was more under the rule of
God than of nature. Mary did not have the susceptibility to injury, disease, and death, which comes as a
consequence of original sin.
However, unlike Eve before the Fall, God allowed the Virgin Mary to experience severe pain and sorrow, so
that she could follow the Way of the Cross. Mary was permitted by God to have much more suffering than
Eve, because Mary is more like Christ than she is like Eve. Christ had to suffer for the sake of our salvation.
Even so, God prevented Mary from any pains and sorrows which were not a part of God’s plan for her.
At the end of her life on earth, the Virgin Mary died. But her death was not due to injury or disease or old
age. Being free from all effects of original sin, Mary was not subject, in body or in soul, to nature. In all things,
the Virgin Mary was subject, in body and soul, only to the will of God. Mary was therefore unable to die of
natural causes. She was also unable to become sick, or to be injured, except if specifically and directly willed
by God. And Mary was able to die only by the will of God, by the supernatural, rather than the natural. Mary
could only die when she consented to the will of God that her body and soul be separated in death.
When Mary died, she did not suffer, just as she did not suffer in giving birth to the Christ Child. When
Mary died, her death was miraculous, just as the birth of the Christ Child was miraculous. Mary’s body and
soul, being free from all aspects of original sin, were more subject to God than to nature. Thus, when Mary
gave birth to the Child Jesus, the birth occurred solely and entirely by a miracle of God, and not at all in the
usual natural way. Similarly, when Mary died and joined Christ Jesus in Heaven, her death occurred solely
and entirely by a miracle of God, and not at all in the usual natural way. She died, not of natural causes, but of
supernatural cause—the Love of God took Mary’s soul to Heaven. Her body remained on earth, for a brief
while longer, until her Resurrection and Assumption.
Jesus Christ was also entirely free from all aspects of original sin. Therefore, the same can be said about
Christ. God the Father allowed Christ to suffer pain and sorrow, so that Christ could redeem us by His
suffering and death. But Christ was unable to suffer or die, except by the will of God the Father. When the
time of His Passion arrived, Jesus was able to suffer because He consented to the will of God the Father.
41
When His Passion was nearly completed and the time of His death arrived, Jesus was able to die only because
He consented to the will of God the Father that His body and soul be separated in death. Jesus willingly gave
up His soul to the Father. “ ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!’ ” (Lk 23:46). Jesus did not die because
of the injuries He received in Crucifixion. He died because He consented to the separation of body and soul in
death according to the will of the Father.
The mind and heart of the Virgin Mary were also free from all effects of original sin. Freewill is injured by
original sin. We are unable to freely choose good apart from the grace of God. And, even after Baptism
restores us to a state of sanctifying grace, our freewill chooses good less easily than the freewill of Adam and
Eve before the Fall. Our freewill is not entirely aimed at finding and doing God’s will, thus we find truth with
greater difficulty and we adhere to that truth less firmly. We do good with less than completely selfless
motives. We are often divided in mind and heart between doing good and pleasing ourselves.
The Virgin Mary was free from all of these effects of original sin. She was always single-minded in seeking
truth, doing good, and pleasing God in all things. Mary’s mind and heart more easily found truth, because her
freewill was unencumbered and her ability to reason was unimpaired by the effects of original sin. Even in
someone with original sin, but no personal sin whatsoever, the mind and heart are clouded by concupiscence.
Even when concupiscence is unable to bring someone, on a particular occasion, to the point of sin, it still
inclines mind and heart away from the fullness of truth and goodness, making these more difficult to find and
to retain. Mary’s mind and heart had the absolute clarity which comes from an absence of personal sin and
original sin.
At her Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary received more than Eve received before the Fall. At her
Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary was preserved from all aspects of original sin. Mary was given
greater gifts of grace at her conception than Eve possessed when she was in a state of original innocence. Mary
was given the fullness of the gift of Love-Faith-Hope. Therefore, the secondary effects of Mary’s Immaculate
Conception exceed the secondary effects of the state of original innocence. In other words, Mary was given
even greater gifts than Eve had before the Fall.
Mary’s ability to understand truth and to persevere in doing good exceeded the faculties of human nature.
Her gift of Love-Faith-Hope kept her so close to God throughout her life, that she could obtain certain truths
which would have been beyond the reach of her human nature alone. Mary’s mind and heart were informed
and led by the grace of God. For example, she understood that her child was the Christ Child, and that He
would suffer and die for the sake of our salvation. She also understood something of her own role in our
salvation: “henceforth, all generations will call me blessed” (Lk 1:48). Such a depth of understanding was
beyond the abilities of mere human nature. The grace of God enabled Mary to understand things beyond the
reach of even a human nature free from personal and original sin. The Blessed Virgin Mary understood more
than Eve. Mary had more than a perfect human nature, she had a perfect human nature filled with the grace of
God.
“And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you, but my Father who is in heaven.’ ” (Mt 16:17). Jesus said these words to Peter, because Peter was able to
understand that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. The expression, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you,” means that Peter arrived at this understanding not merely by means of the abilities of his human nature.
Peter did not reach this understanding solely by reason and intelligence. His mind and heart were informed
and led by the grace of God. Mary had this same gift to a preeminent degree.
The Council of Orange
The Ecumenical Council of Orange was held in the early sixth century A.D. The Council was called in part
to respond to theological errors on the topics of original sin, freewill, and grace. St. Augustine and Pelagius
debated many of these ideas in the early fifth century A.D., but both died long before the Council of Orange,
which settled several of the controversies authoritatively. The Council of Orange established several important
ideas about original sin, as follows.
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed
for the worse” through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains
42
Original Sin
unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and
contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not
know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you
obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19). 60
This first Canon condemns the idea that only the body is affected by original sin. This Canon teaches that both
body and soul are adversely affected by original sin.
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at
least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that
sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice
to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man
and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
This second Canon condemns the idea that original sin only affected Adam and Eve, and also condemns the
idea that only the negative consequences of the body (not also of the soul) were passed on to their descendents.
This Canon teaches that the negative consequences of original sin, in body and soul, affect Adam and Eve,
and all their descendents, that is, the human race. The Immaculate Conception preserved the Virgin Mary
(and, in effect, Jesus Christ) from original sin, but all other human persons, descendents of Adam and Eve, are
affected by original sin.
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others
through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the
transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free
will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been
affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by
themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by
declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as
he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is
Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).
This eighth Canon teaches that freewill has been corrupted and weakened by original sin. It also teaches (along
with the other Canons of this Council) that God’s grace is required for every good act of the human person,
especially the act of seeking eternal salvation. Canon 9 adds: “…for as often as we do good, God is at work in
us and with us, in order that we may do so.”
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first
man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who
was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free
indeed” (John 8:36).
This thirteenth Canon teaches that the loss of sanctifying grace (due to original sin) “destroyed” freewill. It is
not that freewill ceases to exist without sanctifying grace, but rather that freewill is corrupted and weakened by
the loss of sanctifying grace due to original sin. The word “destroyed,” in this case, means damaged, but not
obliterated.
A human person without grace can make decisions and choices, but he can do nothing which is truly good,
nor anything of true worth, in God’s eyes. Thus, freewill without grace is merely the empty shell of freewill,
able to choose, but not able to truly do anything good or holy. A human person without sanctifying grace can
still receive some grace from God, for grace is needed even to bring someone to the state of mind and heart
where he can seek and accept sanctifying grace. But a human person without sanctifying grace has freewill
which is limited, for such persons are not yet able to freely choose to do God’s will in all things.
Baptism restores sanctifying grace to the human person, thereby enabling freewill to be truly free by
choosing to do what is good and holy. The perfect exercise of freewill is to do God’s will in all things.
Sanctifying grace is necessary for the human person to be able to do God’s whole will. Without sanctifying
grace, freewill is not completely free; without grace of any kind, freewill is an empty shell.
43
Freewill is made able to do God’s whole will by sanctifying grace (received in Baptism). But even the
freewill of someone with sanctifying grace is weakened by concupiscence. Baptism completely remedies the
lack of sanctifying grace due to original sin, but Baptism does not completely free us from the tendency
towards sin. This tendency, together with the personal sins we commit, weakens freewill, making it more
difficult to do what is good and holy, what is God’s will for us.
CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made
him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has
done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according
to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).
This fifteenth Canon teaches that it was Adam and Eve’s own iniquity, their own personal sin, which changed
them for the worse and which brought original sin, with all its effects, into the human race. God’s grace
remedies the negative effects of original sin.
CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the
interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows.
The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love
God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has
preceded him.
The Council of Trent
About a thousand years after the Council of Orange, the Counsel of Trent revisited old “dissensions touching
original sin, and the remedy thereof….”61 Some of the Canons of Trent reaffirm and expound upon the
teachings of the Council of Orange.
1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment
of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that
he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and
consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity
under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire
Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be
anathema. 62
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and
that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us
also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the
body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:
—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin
death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by
propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own,—is taken away either by the powers of human
nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he
denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of
baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name
under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God
behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized,
have put on Christ.
The Council of Trent teaches that “this sin of Adam” is “transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation.”
In other words, original sin is inherited; it is passed on to all those who are descended bodily from Adam and
44
Original Sin
Eve. How and why original sin is passed on through the propagation of the species is an interesting theological
question. See “Transmission of Original Sin” below.
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung
from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins,
but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of
regeneration for the obtaining of life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the
form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false,—let him be anathema.
For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so
death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the
Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from
a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this
cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration,
which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt
of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of
sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased,63 or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those
who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who
are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but,
putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent,
immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so
that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is
sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is
left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus
Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle
sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be
called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.
This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree,
where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that
the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in
the said constitutions, which it renews.
The Council of Trent stopped short of making an infallible declaration of the Virgin Mary’s preservation from
original sin in her Immaculate Conception. Instead, the Council merely reaffirmed previous decisions of the
temporal authority of the Church, (wherein Sixtus IV established the feast of the Immaculate Conception), and
of the Ordinary Magisterium, on the subject of the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception was
not infallibly defined until the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, in 1854.
The guilt of original sin (in n. 5 above) is not the same as the personal guilt which corresponds to our
personal sins, but rather is a different kind of guilt. It is not the guilt of personal culpability, but of shared
participation in the damage to human nature resulting from the Fall from grace. We all share the same benefits
of all the good things in human nature. And we also share in the damage done to the good human nature
created by God, which damage results from the sin of Adam and Eve.
John the Baptist and Original Sin
“And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled
with the Holy Spirit….” (Lk 1:41).
At the Visitation, when the Virgin Mary visited Elizabeth, Jesus was in the womb of Mary, and John the
Baptist was in the womb of Elizabeth. The Visitation is Mary visiting Elizabeth and John, as well as Jesus
visiting John and Elizabeth.
45
Sacred Scripture tells us that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and that John the Baptist in her womb
leaped for joy (Lk 1:44). John leaped for joy because he too was filled with the Holy Spirit. Anyone filled with
the Holy Spirit must possess sanctifying grace. Prior to receiving sanctifying grace, it is certainly possible to
receive various graces from God, such as the graces needed to repent from sin and to convert (making the
sinner ready to receive sanctifying grace). However, for Sacred Scripture to state that someone is filled with the
grace of the Holy Spirit, such a person must necessarily have either received sanctifying grace previously (e.g.
Lk 1:28), or must receive sanctifying grace in being filled with the Holy Spirit.
John the Baptist could not have received sanctifying grace at his conception, for only the Virgin Mary
received the singular grace of the Immaculate Conception, which includes the gift of sanctifying grace from
conception. Therefore, John the Baptist received sanctifying grace at the time of the Visitation, when he was
filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Interestingly, Sacred Scripture also declares that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; therefore, she also
must have either received sanctifying grace previously, or received it at the time she was filled with the Spirit.
Since Sacred Scripture clearly states that Zechariah and Elizabeth were holy, they each possessed sanctifying
grace prior to the time of the Visitation. “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” (Lk 1:6).
From the above quoted references from the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent, it should be clear
that John received in the womb, from Christ through Mary, the gift of sanctifying grace, which we receive in
the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism completely remedies that aspect of original sin, which is the lack of
sanctifying grace. Therefore, John was born with sanctifying grace, whereas we are born without sanctifying
grace and must obtain it, usually through the Sacrament of Baptism given not too long after birth.
Nevertheless, John the Baptist was not born entirely without original sin. That aspect of original sin, the
lack of sanctifying grace, which is remedied in us through Baptism, was remedied in John at the Visitation, by
a special act of God. But John still retained the disorder of body and soul, which results in a tendency towards
sin, called concupiscence. (More about John the Baptist and original sin is found in chapter 3.)
The Transmission of Original Sin
The Council of Trent teaches that original sin is “transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation.”
Therefore, original sin is transmitted by the propagation of the species, that is to say, it is, in some sense,
inherited. Original sin is present in each descendent of Adam and Eve from conception. The Virgin Mary was
preserved from original sin at her conception, and Jesus was conceived of Mary, who did not have original sin
to pass on to Him. But, for the rest of humanity, original sin is present from conception.
There are three aspects of original sin—which are passed on and how? The first aspect of original sin is the
personal sin of Adam and Eve. This aspect of original sin is not transmitted; it is present only in Adam and
Eve; they committed the first sin of the human race, the rest of us did not. Adam and Eve had all three aspects
of original sin; we have only two aspects.
The second aspect of original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace. Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace. God
decided, thereafter not to give the state of original innocence, (which includes sanctifying grace,) to their
descendents automatically from conception. Rather, God decided to make their descendents seek sanctifying
grace and cling to it amidst adversity, and this, not merely as a punishment, (though it could be called so,) but
as an effective and fitting Way of accomplishing our salvation. God creates, so to speak, an unfinished work:
a freewill which needs more than it possesses. The soul needs sanctifying grace, but is created without it, and
therefore, the soul susceptible to sin, even as it seeks its true happiness in God. A soul without grace is like a
fish without water.
The second aspect of original sin is transmitted to us, not so much as an heirloom handed down from
generation to generation, but more like an heirloom which was lost by a previous generation and so could not
be handed down. The second aspect of original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace. An absence cannot,
strictly speaking, be inherited or transmitted.
If Adam and Eve had not fallen from grace, their descendents would have been given the gift of sanctifying
grace from conception—but by a supernatural act of God, not by inheritance. Even today, when parents (who
are in a state of grace) conceive a child, the sanctifying grace they possess is not passed on to their child,
46
Original Sin
because the soul is created directly by God. A human person’s soul is not created by or from their parents’
souls. The soul is created directly by God at conception and so sanctifying grace cannot be inherited.
The third aspect of original sin is the disorder of body and soul, in which body and soul are not directed
wholly towards God alone. This disorder results primarily from the sin of Adam and Eve, and secondarily
from the lack of sanctifying grace. It gives us a tendency or incentive towards sin, called concupiscence, but it
is not in itself sin. The soul is not inherited, but is created directly by God. Therefore, this disorder, as it is in
the soul, is not inherited. Nor can this disorder, as it is in the soul, be something evil or harmful, which is
present in the soul, for God does not create evil. This disorder of the soul is an imperfection: God creates a
soul which is not directed solely towards Him from the first moment of its existence.
When God created Adam and Eve, He created their souls to be directed solely and entirely towards God.
That is why the sin of Adam and Eve could only have been a mortal sin; because they were directed in body
and soul only towards God, and yet turned away. When God creates the souls of those human persons with
original sin, He creates something imperfect, a person with freewill which is not directed only towards God,
but which is able to choose to direct itself towards lesser things.
Human persons, who have original sin, lack original innocence, and so they have the imperfection of body
and soul which results in concupiscence. God decided that, after the Fall from grace, He would not give the
state of original innocence to human persons from conception, but would make them work towards receiving
this and more in this life and in the Resurrection on the last day. Christ and Mary are the exceptions; they had
the state of original innocence and more, from conception.
The third aspect of original sin, as it is in the body, is inherited directly from our parents and ancestors, back
to Adam and Eve. When Adam was created, without original sin, his body and soul were both created
miraculously by God. When Eve was created, without original sin, Eve’s body was created miraculously from
Adam’s body by God and her soul was created directly by God. Eve’s body was created from Adam, who (at
the time) was without original sin. Because of the Fall of Adam from grace, God no longer creates both body
and soul mirac ulously. For those of us with original sin, God only creates the soul miraculously; the body is
created by nature.
Because the body is created by nature, rather than by a miracle of God, it is imperfect. In those of us with
original sin, the body has a similar imperfection to the soul. The body is not wholly under the direction of the
soul. When the soul became disobedient to God, the body rebelled against the soul and became disobedient to
the soul and to God. The body which rebels against the soul, also rebels against God; for the soul is (meant to
be) the representative and servant of God to the body.
The wife who rebels against her husband, also rebels against God; for the husband is (meant to be) the
representative and servant of God to his wife. When a husband rebels against God, his wife will also rebel
against him, for all things are disobedient to him who is disobedient to God.
The third aspect of original sin, as it is in the body, is inherited directly because our imperfect bodies are
created by the imperfect bodies of our parent by means of procreation. The imperfect cannot create the perfect.
The imperfection of the bodies of Adam and Eve, caused by the Fall from grace, is transmitted to all
subsequent generations because, after the Fall, procreation of the body occurred by natural means, rather than
supernatural means. As a consequence of the Fall, God ordained that the body be created by nature, and no
longer be created miraculously by God, as were the bodies of Adam and Eve. Fallen human nature cannot
create un-fallen human nature. Fallen human nature can only create a fallen body. The imperfection of body is
transmitted because the imperfect creates the imperfect. A child is created in the likeness of its parents, so if the
parents have a fallen imperfect body, so will the child. Thus, the only direct inheritance of original sin is the
third aspect of original sin as it is in the body.
Transmission from Both Parents
St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, expresses a theological opinion not uncommon in past
centuries.
“Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the
father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother,
47
but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not
contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it.” 64
The belief that original sin is transmitted through the father, not the mother, comes from two premises. The
first premise concerns the biology of the procreation of the body. A lack of understanding about how human
life is conceived and develops is evident in Aquinas’ description and in similar texts from past centuries. More
recent medical knowledge does not support the premise that the biology of procreation consists in an active
principle of generation from the father and a passive matter from the mother.
The second premise (implied but unstated in the above quote) is the philosophical and theological principle
that the husband is the head of the family and his wife is subordinate in role and function. This principle can
be applied to procreation, such that, the lineage of a child is primarily through the father. In the Jewish faith,
lineage is through the paternal line, not the maternal line. This premise is sound; the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke each give a paternal lineage. However, the conclusion Aquinas gives above is incorrect, for the following
reasons.
Prior to original sin, there was no procreation by means of sexual relations. Procreation was intended by
God to occur through a miraculous virgin conception and birth. If Adam had sinned and Eve had not, or vise
versa, then one would be predisposed to procreation by natural means and the other to procreation by
supernatural means. Thus, if one had fallen from grace but not the other, they would never have procreated at
all. A man with original innocence would not procreate with a woman who had fallen from grace, and a
woman with original innocence would not procreate with a man who had fallen from grace.
The transmission of original sin, takes place through propagation of the species, that is, through human
reproduction, because the body is created in a natural process that draws from the human natures of both
parents. If both parents have a fallen human nature, then that natural process produces a human being with a
fallen human nature. Both parents contribute substantially to the human nature of their offspring from each of
their human natures. Thus, both parents pass on to their child a fallen human nature. Original sin is therefore
inherited from both parents. Furthermore, since original sin began with Adam and Eve, it can be correctly said
that each of us has inherited original sin from both Adam and Eve.
Conception without Original Sin
Since the third aspect of original sin, as it is in the body, is transmitted by procreation, human persons who
are entirely without original sin must be conceived miraculously, with both body and soul created by God.
Some people think that a human person could be created by natural procreation and yet be preserved from
original sin by God. But preservation from all aspects of original sin includes preservation from the third
aspect as it affects the body. Thus, in order to preserve someone from original sin, God must give that person a
body which is perfectly ordered towards the soul and towards God, not an imperfect body which can be
directed towards many lesser things.
If the body is created by natural means, from parents who have original sin, then they can only naturally
create an imperfect body. Original sin is not the presence of something, whose transfer can be prevented.
Rather, original sin, as it is in the body, is an imperfection. If the body is created by the imperfect, (by parents
with original sin,) then the body will have the imperfection of original sin. If the body is created by God, Who
is perfect, then the body will be perfectly ordered towards the soul and towards God.
There are three possibilities for conception:

(a) Conception entirely by natural means, without supernatural intervention. The Council of Trent
teaches that original sin is transmitted by propagation of the species, that is, by procreation by means of
sexual relations. If conception occurs by means of sexual relations, so that the body is created by natural
means, then original sin is transmitted to the child.65 This is the case for those of us with original sin.
However, the Virgin Mary was preserved from all aspects of original sin from the first moment of her
conception. Mary could not have been conceived without the intervention of God because such a
conception would transmit original sin.
48
Original Sin
(b) Conception entirely by supernatural intervention, that is, solely by a miracle of God. Original sin
would not be transmitted in such a case, because God creates both body and soul. Such a conception
occurs without sexual relations, in a miraculous and virginal manner. If not for the Fall from grace, all
conceptions would occur in this manner. Jesus Christ was conceived solely by a miracle of God, in a
miraculous virgin conception, of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary was conceived solely by a miracle
of God, in a miraculous virgin conception, of both Joachim and Ann.
(c) Conception by natural means, with some degree of supernatural intervention. Some claim that the
Virgin Mary was conceived in this way, by natural procreation of both her parents, but with some
degree of intervention from God, as much as was needed to preserve her from inheriting original sin.
But what degree of supernatural intervention is needed to completely prevent original sin, as it affects
the body, from being transmitted by natural procreation to the child? If the body were created even
partially by natural means, then the body would partially retain the imperfection of original sin as it
applies to the body, for original sin affects the entire body, in such a thorough manner that no partial
intervention would be sufficient to produce a child entirely without original sin.
In order to be entirely free from original sin as it affects the body, the body must be entirely created by
supernatural means, for original sin is transmitted by natural procreation. Original sin, as it is in the body, is
not the presence of something, whose transfer could be prevented. Rather, original sin, as it is in the body, is
an imperfection which permeates the entire body. In order to entirely prevent this imperfection in the bodies of
the parents from being transmitted to the child, God must entirely create the body. He cannot merely intervene
in a natural procreation to a certain degree, because original sin thoroughly affects the entire body. Therefore,
God must create the body entirely by a miracle, without natural procreation, in order to create a child entirely
without original sin, from parents with original sin.
There is no other possibility. Either the body is created naturally, so that original sin is transmitted, or else
God entirely intervenes to create body and soul which, from conception, are without original sin. But, in the
latter case, no partial intervention will result in a body which is entirely without original sin. God must
intervene to such an extent that the whole body is created solely and entirely in a miraculous manner.
Therefore, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, in which she was preserved from all aspects of
original sin, must necessarily have been a miraculous virgin conception. The doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception necessarily implies a miraculous virgin conception, because a natural conception, even with the
added partial intervention of God, would not provide the complete preservation from original sin from the first
moment of conception.
In every case we know of, persons entirely free from original sin were created miraculously by God. The
angels do not have original sin, and they are created miraculously by God, not by nature. Adam and Eve were
each created miraculously in body and soul. Christ’s human nature was created miraculously, body and soul.
In the general Resurrection, the resurrected Just have new bodies created miraculously by God. Their souls are
the same souls they had on earth, which were created miraculously at their conception. But their bodies have
no original sin, therefore, these are not the same bodies as when they were sinners on earth, but new bodies,
which in some respects may resemble the old, and which are created solely and entirely by a miracle of God.
The resurrected Just will have no trace of original sin in body and soul. Thus, all persons who are free from
original sin in body and soul are created, in body and soul, by a miracle of God. The Virgin Mary is entirely
free from original sin in body and soul, therefore, she also was created, at her Immaculate Conception,
miraculously in body and soul. In the end, at the general Resurrection, we too shall be like the Virgin Mary
and Christ Jesus, who were created miraculously by God, in body and soul, and who are entirely free from
original sin.
Fallen Angels
Original sin is not the first sin ever committed within Creation. Some of the angels, created by God, sinned
against God and fell from grace; these fallen angels are called demons or devils. Angels have such a pure and
49
clear knowledge of God, that the deliberate choice of an angel to sin against God is always gravely immoral
and necessarily changes the angel for the worse irrevocably.
Humans are often said to be partly good and partly bad. But an angel is only spirit, not body and spirit, and
so an angel is a much simpler being than a human. Angels are so pure and simple in their nature, that they can
only be good or evil. Once an angel has turned against God, the angel becomes thoroughly evil. Since there is
no good left in a fallen angel, and since angels are simple beings, they cannot repent and turn back to God.
Fallen angels cannot repent, therefore, they cannot be forgiven by God and return to grace. God only forgives
those who are repentant.
I suppose that God is able, strictly speaking, to turn a fallen angel back into a good angel, for all things are
possible to God. However, it would not be a fitting act of the justice, mercy, and perfection of God to turn an
evil fallen angel back into a purely good angel. The angels who turns against God through freewill will not
have that free choice made null and void by an act of God.
50
Chapter 3
John the Baptist Never Sinned
“CANON XXIII. If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that
therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his
whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,—except by a special privilege from God, as the
Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”66
The above quote from the Council of Trent is a teaching of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. This definitive
decision on doctrine by the Council was issued in opposition to certain false teachings which were prevalent
during that time period (mid sixteenth century A.D.). Canon 23, quoted above, condemns two false teachings.
First, the Canon condemns the idea that true justification makes one unable to sin ever again. This false
teaching would mean that anyone who ever sinned had not been justified and had not received the grace of
salvation from Christ. On the contrary, persons who have received saving grace from God in the Sacraments
are still able to sin, even seriously, and they are also able to repent.
Second, the Canon condemns the idea that people in general are able to avoid all sins, including venial sins,
for their entire lives, except by a special privilege from God. Notice that there are clearly stated qualifications,
which are essential to the Canon. The Canon does not condemn the idea that people are able to avoid all
mortal sin for their entire lives, but only that they are unable to avoid all sin, including all venial sin. People
are able to avoid all mortal sin for their entire lives.
Furthermore, the Canon allows that one is able to avoid all sin, even venial sin, by means of a special
privilege from God. The Canon cites the example of the sinless Virgin Mary, but it does not state that she is
the only one who has ever, or will ever, receive such a special privilege. The Virgin Mary is the only one who
has ever, or will ever, receive the “singular grace and privilege” of the Immaculate Conception. 67 For this
reason, the privilege is called “singular.” However, the Council of Trent does not call the privilege from God,
of avoiding all sins throughout one’s entire life, a “singular” privilege. The Council of Trent makes frequent
use of the word “singular” in its documents, but not with regard to this privilege. It is called a special privilege,
because it is not given to most human persons to be able to avoid all sins, including venial sins, their entire
lives. But neither is this privilege unique to Christ and Mary. Therefore, the idea that some persons, other than
Christ and Mary, are also given this privilege, is not contrary to this doctrine of the Council of Trent.
Canon 23 above gives the example of the Virgin Mary, who was able to avoid all personal sin, even venial
sin. But the Canon does not say that Mary is the only mere human being who has ever, or could ever, avoid all
personal sin. Nor does the Canon say that one must be free of original sin in order to receive the special
privilege from God to be able to avoid all personal sin. The Canon mainly refers to “a man once justified,”
that is, to persons with original sin who have received the saving grace of Christ in the Sacraments, most
especially the Sacrament of Baptism. The second part of the Canon refers to the same situation with the words:
“or, on the other hand, that he is able. . . .” Therefore, this Canon considers the possibility that a human being
with original sin might be able to avoid all personal sin, but only by means of a special privilege from God.
The question discussed below is whether or not human persons, who have original sin, have ever, or could
ever, avoid all personal sin, by means of a special privilege from God.
Original Sin
Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary each had neither original sin nor personal sin. They did not have original
sin, because the Virgin Mary was preserved free from original sin at her Immaculate Conception. She did not
have original sin to pass on to her child Jesus. So, in effect, the Immaculate Conception preserved both Mary
and Jesus from original sin. And neither Jesus nor Mary ever committed the least personal sin during their
51
entire lives. Adam and Eve, before they fell from grace, also were free from both original sin and personal sin.
God created Adam and Eve without original sin.
Since all the descendants of Adam and Eve, except Jesus and Mary, inherited original sin, no one on earth
today is free from original sin. The Immaculate Conception, which preserved Mary from original sin, was a
singular event (occurring only once). The Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, states that the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary was “different from the conception of all other human beings” and that it
resulted from a “singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God.” 68
Most people who have ever lived on earth have had both original and personal sin. However, it is possible,
by a special privilege of God for a person to have original sin, and yet never commit any personal sin
whatsoever, not even the least semi-deliberate veni al sin.
Avoiding Sin
It must be possible for someone who has original sin to still avoid particular occasions of personal sin.
When someone commits a personal sin, they cannot say to God that they were unable to avoid that sin. God’s
grace is always available to help anyone avoid any sin. Each instance of sin is avoidable.
However, is it possible for someone who has original sin to avoid all occasions of personal sin, even the least
venial sin? The Council of Trent teaches that it is possible for someone with original sin to avoid all personal
sin, but only by means of a special privilege of God. In other words, most people are unable to avoid all
personal sin whatsoever, because they have not been given that special privilege. The main reason most people
are unable to avoid all personal sin is that Baptism and the other Sacraments do not remove completely the
tendency towards sin (“concupiscence”), which is an effect of original sin.
“But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an
incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but
resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.
This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic
Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but
because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.” 69
Who Can Avoid All Personal Sin?
“For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his
grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus . . . .” (Romans 3:22-24).
This passage is sometimes used by some Protestants to argue that the Virgin Mary is not sinless. However,
the infallible teaching of the Sacred Magisterium is that the Virgin Mary was justified by God’s grace and
redeemed by Christ Jesus so thoroughly that she was preserved free from all sin (both original sin and personal
sin) throughout her entire life. Though the Virgin Mary never sinned, it was only by the suffering and death of
her Divine Son Jesus Christ that she was kept free from all sin. Mary would have had both original and
personal sin, if not for the grace of Redemption which proceeds from Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Mary is
an exception to the statement that all have sinned, but only because she was “justified by his grace as a gift,
through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus . . . .” (Romans 3:22-24). Mary is not an exception to the need
for Redemption by Jesus Christ, she was simply redeemed in a more excellent manner.
Between conception and birth, a child has original sin, but no personal sin. A child who, unfortunately, dies
in the womb, has not committed any personal sins in their life. The same can be said of infants. Thus, in
addition to the Virgin Mary, there are other exceptions to the phrase “all have sinned.” But there are no
exceptions to the statement by Sacred Scripture that all are redeemed from sin by Christ Jesus.
The expression “all have sinned” can also be interpreted to refer to original sin. So, anyone who has original
sin, but no personal sins, would, in that sense, not be exceptions to the statement that all have sinned. Thus, it
would not contradict the above Scripture passage, if some human persons with original sin were able to avoid
all personal sin. They would be able to avoid personal sin, even though they have original sin, by the same
52
grace of redemption from Jesus Christ which preserved the Virgin Mary from original sin and personal sin
throughout her entire life.
It is conceivable that someone born with original sin could avoid all personal sin throughout their entire life,
even though they live into their adult years. However, even the holy Saints, canonized by the Church, went to
confession and admitted committing some sins. These holy disciples of Christ may have committed no mortal
sins in their life, and some may even have completely avoided any fully-deliberate venial sins, but even the
Saints did commit some small acts of selfishness, that is, some partly-deliberate venial sins, if only in their
thoughts or in the least of their actions. But how are we to know, among those persons with original sin, which
persons have committed only a few of the smallest personal sins, and which persons, if any, have committed
no personal sins at all? We must look to God’s Sacred Infallible Scripture to find the answer.
The First Fruits
“Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand
who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the
sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers
playing on their harps, and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and
before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been
redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is
these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God
and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.” (Rev 14:1-5).
These holy Christians, who are called the First Fruits, are redeemed from the earth by Jesus Christ during
the end time (the time described in the book of Revelation). Sacred Scripture tells us that they follow Jesus
Christ, the Lamb, wherever He goes. This expression means, not that they travel with Jesus everywhere, but
that they follow His example in all things. Clearly, the First Fruits are very holy.
The words of Sacred Scripture, “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are
chaste,” mean that the First Fruits have not committed any sexual sins. The word translated as “chaste,” can
also be translated as “virgins” (as the note in the RSV states). The First Fruits have followed Jesus Christ in all
things, even in His Holy Virginity. Therefore, they could not have committed any sexual sins at all, not even
the least impure thought or desire, otherwise they could not be said to have followed the Lamb wherever He
goes. So, when Sacred Scripture describes the First Fruits as being chaste and free from defilement, the true
meaning is that they are completely free from all sexual sins. How thoroughly chaste a person must be to be
called chaste by God’s Sacred Infallible Scripture!
The expression “have not defiled themselves with women” has both a literal and a figurative meaning.
Literally, it means they have not had sexual relations with women. Figuratively, it also means that they are
free from all sexual sins. Thus, the First Fruits might not be men only. The First Fruits might include some
women, for that expression has a general meaning, which excludes any kind of sexual sin, and is not limited to
men refraining from relations with women. (Note also that the phrase “First Fruits” is not gender specific.)
God’s Ineffable Grace is equally effective in men and in women. Also, in the sinlessness of Adam and Eve
before the Fall, we have the holy example of both a man and a woman. In the sinlessness of Jesus and Mary
after the Fall, we have the holy example of both a man and a woman. Thus, the First Fruits would likely
include both men and women, the biological descendents of Adam and Eve, but the spiritual descendents of
Jesus and Mary.
These First Fruits have been holy their entire lives, for they never committed the least sexual sin and have
imitated Christ in all things. Since they have been holy from their earliest years, it is also possible that some of
the First Fruits are children. God’s unfailing Grace is equally effective in adults and in children.
Sacred Scripture also reveals that “in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.” (Rev 14:5). No
one among the First Fruits has ever told a lie in their entire lives. They are completely free from lies, and so,
they must also be completely free from deceitfulness and guile. Here again, they “follow the Lamb wherever
he goes,” meaning that they imitate the Christ in everything.
“For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man,
able to bridle the whole body also.” (James 3:2).
53
People in general make many mistakes, but if any persons could be found who make no mistakes in their
words, such persons must also be perfect, and so free from every kind of sin. The word “mistakes” here means
the kind of mistakes which offend God, that is, sins. The same logic applies to sexual sins. If any persons could
be found who commit no sexual sins whatsoever, not even the least impure thought or desire, such persons
would be perfect, and so free from every kind of sin.
Sacred Scripture reveals that the First Fruits have no lie whatsoever in their mouths, meaning also that they
commit no sins in their words. Since the First Fruits never lie and have no sin at all in their words, and since
they also never commit the least sexual sin, they must be perfect and free from all sin. The last part of verse 5
makes this point clear: “. . . for they are spotless.” (Rev 14:5).
The First Fruits could not be called spotless by God’s Sacred Infallible Scripture, if they had ever sinned.
The First Fruits never lie, never commit any sexual sins; they imitate Christ Jesus in all things and are spotless.
Therefore, these men, women, and children, the First Fruits which Christ Jesus redeems from mankind, are
free from all personal sins. They will be able to avoid all personal sin, even though they have original sin, by
means of a special privilege of God.
The First Fruits belong to the latter part of the time described in Revelation, that is, to a future time. So,
even the holiest of Saints in our present time and in past times are not those who are called First Fruits. How
amazing that God’s grace can produce the holiest of the disciples of Christ, even during the most terrible years
which the earth will ever see!
The First Fruits are redeemed from mankind by Jesus Christ (Rev 14:3), and so they are members of the
human race and descendants of Adam and Eve. The grace by which the Virgin Mary was preserved free from
original sin at the first moment of her Immaculate Conception, even though her parents had original sin, was a
singular grace; it is not given to anyone else. Therefore, the First Fruits have original sin, even though they
have no personal sins whatsoever in their entire lives.
John the Baptist
“ ‘Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet
he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.’ ” (Mt 11:11).
Jesus Himself testifies to the great holiness of John the Baptist. When Jesus says that John is great, He could
not mean greatness as measured by this world, (power, money, fame, etc.), but rather greatness in God’s eyes,
which is measured by holiness.
Jesus does not say that no one is greater than John the Baptist. Instead, He says that, among those of a
certain group, no one is greater than John. And Jesus does not say that John is the greatest among that group.
He leaves open the possibility that some might be equal to John in holiness within that group.
Jesus is greater than John the Baptist, yet Jesus says that “among those born of women none is greater than
John….” Therefore, the group of persons indicated by the expression “those born of women” does not include
Jesus. The Virgin Mary is also greater than John the Baptist, and so she is not included in that group of
persons either. Yet Jesus had the Virgin Mary as His mother, and Mary had Saint Anne as her mother. So
then, in what way can it be said that Jesus and Mary were not born of women?
Birth implies conception. If someone was born, they must also have been conceived. By saying “those born
of women,” Jesus implies a group of persons ‘conceived and born of women.’ Yet Jesus and Mary are not part
of that group, because Jesus and Mary are each greater than John.
The phrase “those born of women” cannot mean simply those persons who have mothers, otherwise the
expression would include Jesus and Mary. The phrase “those born of women,” cannot mean merely those
persons who have been conceived and born, because Jesus and Mary were each conceived and born. Yet, the
group of persons called “those born of women” cannot include Jesus or Mary, because they are each greater
54
than John. John himself admits that Jesus is much greater than he (Lk 3:16). Therefore the phrase “born of
women” means something else.
In what way does the conception and birth of Jesus differ from those of John and other persons? The holy
conception of Jesus Christ was a miraculous virgin conception (Lk 1:31-35), but John’s conception was not
(Lk 1:23-24). The birth of Jesus was a miraculous virgin birth, 70 but John’s birth was not.71
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich tells us, based on her visions from God, that John was not born in the
same way as Jesus. John the Baptist’s mother, Elizabeth, was speaking to the Virgin Mary about John’s birth.
“Elisabeth said to her: ‘You have been more favoured in giving birth than other women: the birth of John was
a joy indeed, but it was otherwise than with you.’ ” 72 Jesus was born by means of a miracle of God, whereas
John was born in the usual way. 73
The phrase “those born of women” means those conceived and born in the usual human way, who were not
conceived and born by means of a miracle of God. Jesus is not part of that group, ‘conceived and born of
women,’ because Jesus had a miraculous virgin conception and a miraculous virgin birth. Anyone whose
conception was a miraculous virgin conception and whose birth was a miraculous virgin birth is excluded from
that group of persons among whom none is greater than John the Baptist. The Virgin Mary is certainly greater
than John the Baptist, therefore, she too must have had both a miraculous virgin conception and a miraculous
virgin birth.
When Jesus said, “among those born of women none is greater than John” (Lk 7:28), He was saying that, of
all those human persons conceived and born without the miraculous intervention of God, none is greater than
John the Baptist, but some may be his equal. Jesus deliberately spoke in such a way as to exclude Himself and
His holy Mother from that group of persons, among whom none is greater than John. This passage of Sacred
Scripture reveals that the conceptions and births of Jesus and Mary were each entirely miraculous and entirely
virginal, accomplished solely by the will and action of God, and not by means of human will or action. 74
The Conception of John the Baptist
John could not have had an Immaculate Conception, that is, he could not have been conceived without
original sin, because the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was singular.75 Also, John’s parents,
Zechariah and Elizabeth were holy, but they were not without sin. Zechariah, for example, sinned in not
believing the annunciation of John’s birth given by the angel, Gabriel. His punishment for his sin was to be
unable to speak until the angel’s announcement had been fulfilled (Lk 1:20). Zechariah and Elizabeth had
original sin to pass on to John, and God did not intervene, (as occurred in the Immaculate Conception of
Mary), to prevent John from having original sin. Therefore, John the Baptist did have original sin.
John’s conception occurred in the usual way, through marital relations between Zechariah and Elizabeth.
After receiving the annunciation from Gabriel that he and his wife would bear a son, Zechariah stayed to
complete his service in the Temple, before returning to his wife. After he returned home to his wife, she
conceived (Lk 1:23-24) in the usual way.
Zechariah doubted the angel’s word that he and Elizabeth could bear a child: “For I am an old man, and my
wife is advanced in years.” (Lk 1:18). In other words, he and his wife were past the age when conception
would usually occur. “But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in
years.” (Lk 1:7). Elizabeth was unable to conceive, even when she was of age, and both were now too old to
conceive. Yet God did not bring about John’s conception in a miraculous and virginal manner, as He did with
the Virgin Mary, or as He did with Jesus Christ. Rather, God intervened prior to conception by miraculously
making both Zechariah and Elizabeth fertile, despite their advanced ages. Thus, the conception of John the
Baptist was not miraculous, but a miracle from God prepared for his conception. Since John was conceived in
the usual human way, not by an act of God, and since his parents had original sin, he was conceived with
original sin. When Jesus said, “among those born of women none is greater than John” (Lk 7:28), He was
saying that, of all those human persons with original sin, none is greater than John the Baptist, but some may
be his equal.
No one with original sin is greater than John the Baptist. The First Fruits have original sin, but no personal
sin whatsoever. The First Fruits were not conceived and born by means of a miracle of God, but rather in the
55
usual human way. The First Fruits are members of that group, whom Jesus calls “those born of women.”
Therefore, the First Fruits cannot be greater than John. But, if John had even the least personal sins, they
would be greater than he. Therefore, John the Baptist, like the First Fruits, never committed the least personal
sin his entire life. The First Fruits are not greater than John, but they are his equal in holiness. John the Baptist
and the First Fruits are the greatest of those persons conceived and born with original sin. They are each holier
than any of the other Saints of the Church, who had both original sin and personal sin.
John the Baptist and Original Sin
The phrase “born of woman” means conceived and born in the usual human way, not by means of a
miracle of God. Therefore, “those born of women” must also have been conceived and born with original sin.
Human beings, conceived other than by a miracle of God, have original sin, passed on to them from their
parents. Since “those born of women” were conceived and born with original sin, John the Baptist must also
have been conceived and born with original sin. Therefore, among those persons conceived and born with
original sin, none is greater than John. There are some persons who have a level of holiness equal to that of
John the Baptist; they are called the First Fruits. They have original sin, but, like John the Baptist, they never
commit the least personal sin their entire lives. They are completely free from personal sin.
Some of the faithful hold the opinion that John the Baptist was conceived with original sin, but that he was
entirely freed from original sin at his “leap of joy” in the womb (Lk 1:44). The Holy Spirit filled Elizabeth and
the child in her womb, John, at the time of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary (Lk 1:41). The idea is that John
was thereby freed completely from original sin.
On the contrary, John the Baptist retained the stain of original sin, despite the graces of the Visitation. First,
John is a member of that group of persons called “those born of women,” who differ from Christ and Mary in
that they were conceived and born with original sin and in the usual human way.
Second, John’s life showed the presence of both great personal holiness and, nevertheless, the continuing
effects of original sin. For example, John was unsure whether Jesus was the Messiah, or merely a precursor to
the Messiah: “…they said, ‘John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, “Are you he who is to come, or shall
we look for another?” ’ ” (Lk 7:20). John’s intellect was not marred by personal sin, but original sin still limited
his ability to understand the truth. Thus, John baptized Jesus, but later wondered if Jesus was the Messiah.
Third, the grace given to the Virgin Mary, to be conceived without original sin, even though her parents
were sinners, was a singular grace.76 If John was conceived with original sin, but soon after was entirely freed
from original sin, then the result would be too similar to the grace of the Immaculate Conception because John
would become entirely sinless, like Mary. Not only was Mary’s Immaculate Conception unique in preserving
her from original sin, even though her parents had original sin, but she herself is unique because she is the only
mere human person who was entirely free from original sin and personal sin throughout her entire life. (Jesus
is a person both human and Divine, so He is not merely human.) The claim that John was freed from original
sin, when he was in the womb, conflicts with the singularity of Mary’s sinlessness and of the grace given to her
at the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, John was not entirely freed from original sin, when he was in the
womb, but he did remain free from personal sin his entire life.
In partial agreement, though, John did receive great graces at the time of his “leap of faith” in the womb.
Mary, at that time, had the child Jesus in her womb. The Holy Spirit was sent upon John at the time of the
Visitation (Lk 1:41), through the Presence of Jesus the Messiah within the womb of the Virgin Mary. It was
partly by means of this great blessing that John was able to live a life of extreme holiness, from his earliest days
to the very end of his life on earth. John was able to avoid all personal sin, even though he had original sin, by
means of a special privilege of God.
Fourth, when Jesus came to John for Baptism in the Jordan, John objected by saying that he needed to be
Baptized by Jesus. Baptism provides us with the sanctifying grace that we lack because we have inherited
original sin. Baptism is given to us to counteract original sin. If John had no original sin, or if he had had
original sin removed at his leap of faith in the womb, then he would not need to be Baptized.
56
The Least in the Kingdom of Heaven
The least in the kingdom of Heaven are greater than John, even though such persons did have original sin
and personal sins. Once one enters into Heaven, original sin and every effect of original sin (including
concupiscence) is completely removed. Once one enters Heaven, all personal sins have been forgiven and
atoned for and every effect of every kind of sin has been completely removed. Even the least in Heaven are
now sinless and flawless. The least in Heaven are greater than John the Baptist was on earth, because John on
earth still had original sin, even though he had no personal sin whatsoever.
Also, the least in the kingdom of Heaven are greater than John, because they are one with God, enjoying
the beatific vision. Before John went to Heaven, he did not have the beatific vision and the high degree of
closeness to God which proceeds from the beatific vision.77 Thus, even the least in the kingdom of God have a
greater degree of holiness than John had on earth, though he committed no personal sins his entire life.
Notice that Jesus does not say that the least in the kingdom of Heaven are greater than Mary, for the least in
Heaven, and even the Saints in Heaven, do not have the degree of holiness and closeness to God that the
Virgin Mary had on earth. Mary did not have the beatific vision on earth, yet her holiness on earth exceeded
that of those who have the beatific vision in Heaven. Even John the Baptist in Heaven is not greater than the
Virgin Mary was on earth. While she was still on earth, the Virgin Mary was greater than any in Heaven,
except for Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.
So, the least in Heaven are greater than John the Baptist and the First Fruits on earth. John and the First
Fruits in Heaven are among the greatest in Heaven, but are still less than Mary and Jesus on earth or in
Heaven. John and the First Fruits are greater than any on earth who also have original sin.
The Virgin Conceptions of Mary and Jesus
The Holy Conception of Jesus Christ was a virgin conception, occurring solely and entirely by a miracle of
God, and not in the usual way (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35). The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was also a
virgin conception, occurring solely and entirely by a miracle of God, and not in the usual way. (It is not that
Saint Ann was a virgin, but that the manner of conception in her womb was virginal.) The Holy Births of both
Jesus and the Virgin Mary were each virgin births, occurring solely and entirely by a miracle of God, with
nothing of the usual process of delivery. The conceptions and births of Jesus and Mary were each entirely
virginal and entirely miraculous. A virgin conception implies a virgin birth and a virgin birth implies a virgin
conception.
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich said that, if not for the fall of Adam and Eve from grace, all conceptions
would have been like the Virgin Mary’s conception. “I was also told that Mary was conceived just as
conception would have been effected, were it not for the fall of man.”78 She also said: “I understood, that as a
result of the grace here given, the conception of Mary was as pure as all conceptions would have been but for
the Fall.”79 If Adam and Eve had never sinned, they would still have conceived children, every conception
would have been free from original sin, and every conception would have been a miraculous virgin
conception. However, all conceptions would not have been exactly like the Immaculate Conception of the
Virgin Mary. For the Immaculate Conception was singular in that the Virgin Mary was preserved free from
inheriting original sin from her parents who had original sin. If Adam and Eve had not fallen from grace, there
would be no original sin to inherit.
After the General Resurrection
“And Jesus said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are
accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in
marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of
the resurrection.’ ” 80 (Lk 20:34-36).
At the time of the general resurrection, when God takes away Heaven and Earth and makes a new Heaven
and a new Earth, then all shall be as all should be (Rev 21:1-5). After the general resurrection, there will be no
57
sexual desire, no sexual relations, and no marriage (Lk 20:34-36). The perfect will of God, seen clearly in the
lives of Jesus and Mary, will be fulfilled in the human race after the resurrection of the just.
Before the Fall
Adam and Eve before the Fall could not die, for death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12). Adam
and Eve before the Fall had neither original sin or personal sin, for they were like the angels and were sons of
God. Therefore, the teaching of Christ about the sons of the resurrection also applies to Adam and Eve before
the Fall, and to what humanity would have been if the Fall from grace had not occurred.
If there had been no Fall from grace, then there would be no sexual desire and no sexual relations. Sexual
relations within a loving Christian marriage is not, in and of itself, sinful. However, had sin not entered the
world, there would be no sexual desire and no sexual relations, only a desire to do the will of God. And, had
sin not entered the world, human persons would be so close to God that miracles would attend their every
need and even the conception of children would occur solely by a miracle of God.
The Immaculate Conception was the result of a unique and singular grace. The Virgin Mary is the only
human person to be conceived without inheriting original sin, from parents who had original sin. But, if there
had never been a Fall from grace, neither original sin nor personal sin would exist, and then all conceptions
would have been miraculous virginal conceptions and all births would have been miraculous virgin births. The
conception and birth of the Virgin Mary shows us what conception and birth was meant to be, in the pure and
holy will of God, if humanity had not fallen away from the grace of God. The Virgin Mary’s conception was
as pure as all conceptions would have been, if sin had never entered into the world by means of the Fall from
grace. If Adam and Eve had not fallen from grace, there would be no sexual relations, even within marriage.
And all children would have been conceived and born in a miraculous virginal manner, solely and entirely by
the power of God.
John Was Born in the Usual Way
According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, the Virgin Mary told Saint Elizabeth (the mother of John
the Baptist) about the miraculous birth of her Divine Son Jesus. “Elisabeth said to her: ‘You have been more
favoured in giving birth than other women: the birth of John was a joy indeed, but it was otherwise than with
you.’ ”81 Here Saint Elizabeth indicates that the birth of Saint John the Baptist occurred in the usual way, and
not in the miraculous way that Jesus was born.
Elizabeth’s comment to Mary is like her comment found in Sacred Scripture: “ ‘Blessed are you among
women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!’ ” (Luke 1:42). One meaning of the expression “Blessed are you
among women” is the superlative that, of all women, Mary is the most blessed. And one of the ways that the
Virgin Mary is blessed among women is in the virgin conception and virgin birth of her Son, Jesus our
Redeemer.
Jesus and the Virgin Mary did not have original sin; they each had a virgin conception and a virgin birth.
When Jesus says “among those born of women,” He means that, among those whose conceptions were not
virgin conceptions and whose births were not virgin births, none is greater than John the Baptist. He also
means that, among those who were conceived and born descendants of Adam and Eve, and who thus
inherited original sin, none is greater than John the Baptist. Jesus and Mary are descendants of Adam and Eve
in the sense that Adam and Eve were their ancestors, but they are not descendants of Adam and Eve in the
sense of inheriting the sin of Adam and Eve, called original sin. That is why Jesus and the Virgin Mary are not
included in the group Jesus refers to by the words “among those born of women.” John the Baptist is included
in that group, therefore John had original sin and did not have a virgin conception or a virgin birth.
58
Original Sin without Personal Sin
John the Baptist did have original sin, for he was born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, who were Israelites and
descendants of Adam and Eve (Lk 1:5). And John was not kept from inheriting original sin at his conception,
for this unique grace is found only in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
The First Fruits also have original sin, for much the same reasons. Therefore, the First Fruits do not have
miraculous virgin conceptions nor do they have miraculous virgin births. Because they have original sin, and
are conceived and born in the usual way, they are included in the group among whom none is greater than
John. The First Fruits have original sin, but no personal sins whatsoever, yet they are not greater than John.
Therefore, John the Baptist must also have had original sin, but no personal sins whatsoever. John the Baptist
never committed the least personal sin in his entire life, not even a single semi-deliberate venial sin. John never
committed the least of sins in his heart, mind, words, or actions, not even once during his entire life.
How Can This Be?
How was John the Baptist able to avoid all personal sin? Sacred Scripture tells us the words of the angel who
spoke to Zechariah about his future son (John the Baptist). “ ‘…he will be great before the Lord…and he will
be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.’ ” (Lk 1:15). John the Baptist was filled with the
Holy Spirit even before he was born, when he was a child in his mother Elizabeth’s womb.
Sacred Scripture describes the visit of the Virgin Mary to Elizabeth. “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting
of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit….” (Lk 1:41). When
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, so too was the child within her womb filled with the Holy Spirit. At
that time, the child Jesus was in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and John the Baptist was in the womb of
Elizabeth. Thus, it was through Jesus, present in the Virgin Mary’s womb, that the Holy Spirit was sent upon
Elizabeth and upon John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit enabled John to avoid all personal sin, throughout his
entire life, even though he had original sin.
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich spoke of John the Baptist, based on her visions from God.
“He sees, he knows, he speaks only Jesus…. In the desert, blameless and pure as a babe in the
mother’s womb, he comes forth from his solitude innocent and spotless as a child at the mother’s
breast. ‘He is pure as an angel,’ I heard the Lord say to the Apostles. ‘Never has impurity entered
into his mouth, still less has an untruth or any other sin issued from it.’ ” 82
According to Blessed Anne Catherine, Jesus taught the Apostles about the great holiness of John the
Baptist. To avoid speaking any untruth and any other kind of spoken sin is to be perfect (James 3:2). And to be
pure as an angel, one would have to be sinless.
The teaching that John the Baptist never sinned is firmly based on a devout and prayerful interpretation of
Sacred Scripture (Mt 11:11; Lk 1:15, 41; Lk 7:28). Private revelation to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
also tells us that John never sinned, but this teaching does not depend upon private revelation.
Saint Catherine of Siena
Saint Catherine of Siena stated her belief that John the Baptist never sinned in her work Dialogue of Saint
Catherine of Siena, A Treatise of Prayer. In that work, Saint Catherine of Siena tells us what the Virgin Mary said
to her:
“And once more I gave you the light to see your true path, namely, humiliation of yourself, and
you answered the Devil with these words: ‘Wretch that I am, John the Baptist never sinned and was
sanctified in his mother's womb. And I have committed so many sins, and have hardly begun to
know them with grief and true contrition, seeing who God is, who is offended by me, and who I am,
who offend Him.’ ” 83
59
Here the Virgin Mary is repeating what Saint Catherine had said on an earlier occasion. This quote about
John the Baptist is mainly a statement of Saint Catherine’s own understanding. However, the sinless Virgin
Mary would not even have repeated these words, “John the Baptist never sinned,” without correction, if these
words were in error. Therefore, a second source of private revelation also agrees that John did not have
personal sin. Nevertheless, this teaching does not originate from private revelation, but rather is implicit within
Sacred infallible Scripture.
The Least in the Kingdom of God
If John has original sin, but no personal sins whatsoever, then how can the least in the kingdom of God be
greater than he? The usual interpretation of this passage is that the kingdom of God here refers to the Church
on earth, and that Jesus was saying that even the least Christian is greater than John the Baptist. That
interpretation is false. What honest Christian, who goes to confession and admits to God his/her own sins,
would stand up and say that they are greater than John the Baptist? Saint Catherine of Sienna compared
herself to John the Baptist and found herself lacking.
John was filled with the Holy Spirit, even before he was born. John lived in self-denial and prayer in the
desert from his childhood until his ministry to prepare the Lord’s way (Lk 1:80). John was chosen by God to
baptize our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Even we Christians today who have the Sacraments, and the New
Testament, and the Teaching of the Catholic Church (things which John mostly lacked), are not holier or
greater than John.
In this passage from Sacred Scripture, the kingdom of God refers to Heaven, and the least in the kingdom of
God means the least souls who are in Heaven. All the souls in Heaven are greater even than John the Baptist
was, when he was on earth, because the souls in Heaven have been freed from all their sins, including original
sin. John the Baptist retained original sin throughout his life on earth. And even those least souls in Heaven
have the Beatific Vision, that is, they see God and are one with Him. 84 John did not have the Beatific Vision
during his lifetime on earth.
John the Baptist remained completely free from all personal sin, throughout his whole life, by means of the
grace and redemption which came to him from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Of all those persons with
original sin, none is, nor ever will be, greater than John the Baptist, not even the holiest of canonized Saints,
because, by grace of the Holy Spirit, John never committed the least personal sin whatsoever.
60
Chapter 4
Time and Eternity
“As if in present time for tense has no meaning
For that which stands outside of time” 85
Creation
Anything created has a beginning; its creation is its beginning. God is the Creator of all things. God existed
before all the things that God created. If God were created, then something would have to exist before God in
order to create God. But God is the Creator of all things. Therefore, God must be Uncreated.
The Uncreated has no beginning, because a thing’s creation is its beginning. Anything that exists and has no
beginning must always have existed. God exists and is uncreated, therefore God has no beginning and has
always existed. God exists always, even before Time began, even beyond Time. Time is a created thing, and so
Time had a beginning, but God has no beginning and no end. Time cannot always have existed, because then
Time would be an uncreated thing, like God. There is only one God. God is the One Creator of all things,
therefore there is only one uncreated thing. God alone is Uncreated.
Time and Place
Time is the ordering and separation of events into a fixed sequence of before and after. Within Time, events
occur in a fixed sequence. First one event happens; next another event happens. The ordering is absolute in the
sense that, once a sequence of events has occurred, the order of the events cannot be changed. The order is
fixed and cannot be altered. Events are not only ordered by Time, they are also separated by Time. Time
orders and separates events.
For example, if you (a) break a vase, and then (b) glue the vase together, you cannot then change the order
of those events to (b) glue the vase, and then (a) break a vase. You could follow the gluing of the vase with a
new third event, (c) breaking the vase again. But you cannot change the order of events. In another example,
the things you did on Monday were followed by the things you did on Tuesday. But on Wednesday you
cannot change the order, so that the things you did on Tuesday were placed before the things you did on
Monday. And the things you did on Monday are separated in Time from the things you did on Tuesday, and
so on. Events within Time are separated and ordered, and as a result, the order of events within Time is fixed.
Time is the fixed ordering and separation of events into before and after.
Place is the ordering and separation of things. Place is the separation and ordering of things and events into
here and there. Notice that the definition of Place is basically the same as the definition of Time. Time and
Place are basically the same. Some scientists talk about a space-time continuum, i.e. that time and space are
different aspects of the same thing. Time and Place order and separate events and things.
Time and Place is the ordering and separation of created things. Without created things, there is no Time or
Place. God created all things from beyond Time and Place. God created Time and Place by creating all things.
Time and Place are basically the same, and so timelessness is basically the same as placelessness. Therefore,
Eternity must be both timeless and placeless, must be both beyond Time and beyond Place. God created all
things from Eternity.
God Is One
Saint Augustine said: “God is truly and absolutely simple.”86 God is not divided into parts. God is not
divided into qualities, such as love, mercy, justice, knowledge, etc. God is not divided into qualities that God
possesses and the use of those qualities by God. God is not divided into who God is and what God does. God-
is-good and God-does-good are the same in God. God is One.
61
Everything that God Is/Does is One
All that God is, and all that God does, is One Divine Act. 87 Love, mercy, justice, and every other good
found in God, are all one in God. And God does not possess these as qualities or attributes. God does not
possesses love or mercy or justice or knowledge. God is love, mercy, justice, knowledge, etc. And these words,
when applied to God, are merely different descriptions of the same exact thing.
In God, being is doing and doing is being. God is love because God unceasingly and eternally loves. God
unceasingly and eternally loves because God is love. Being love and doing love are one and the same in God.
God does not possess any unused potential to love, nor any unused potential at all. If a human being stops
loving, that human being does not stop existing. But if God stopped loving, then God would stop existing.
Existence and Love (and all other good found in God) are One in God. Existence and Love are One Divine
Act in God. Love, mercy, justice, patience, knowledge, will, thought, etc. are all the One Divine Act of
being/doing that is God.
God is One Divine Eternal Act
God is not divided by Time. God is Eternal, existing beyond Time, unbounded by Time. God is able to be
present throughout all Time and throughout all Creation, without being in any way limited by Time or Place.
Everything is as if present tense to God, because God stands outside of Time. Everywhen—past, present,
future,—is as if present tense to God, because God stands throughout Time and beyond Time. But even the
expression “present tense” is not completely accur ate, because God is beyond even the present tense of Time.
Everything is timeless to God.
All that God Is and all that God Does is One Divine Eternal Act. The One Divine Eternal Act is Existence,
Love, Mercy, Justice, Willing, Knowing, Creating, or whatever other descriptive terms our limited and
imperfect human language might apply. God is One Divine Eternal Act.
God’s act of sending the just to Heaven and the wicked to Hell is One Act. And that One Act Is God. Is it
God’s Justice that sends the damned to Hell? Yes, but God is One. Therefore, God’s Love and Mercy, as well
as His Justice, send the damned to Hell. Is it by the Mercy of God that we enter into Heaven? Yes, but God is
One. Therefore, God’s Justice, as well as His Love and Mercy, send the Elect to Heaven. The One Divine
Eternal Act of Existence and Knowledge and Will (and Love and Mercy and Justice and so on) sends the just
to Heaven and the wicked to Hell.
Everything that God is/does, throughout Time and beyond Time—every grace, every miracle, every act of
Providence, everything without exception,—is One Divine Eternal Act. Everything that God is/does,
throughout all Time and all Creation and beyond, is One Divine Eternal Act. And the One Divine Eternal Act
is beyond Time and Place. And the One Divine Eternal Act is God.
Grace and Providence
Why does God do one thing and not another? The true complete answer is: God. All that God is/does is
One, therefore, God’s “reason” for doing something with His Grace and Providence can only be one thing:
God. All that God is/does is the reason for anything that God does. God is the Reason. Any other
explanation for anything that God is/does can only ever be a partial explanation, because God is One. God’s
reason for anything and everything must be One. God is the One Reason for everything God is/does. God is
His own Reason.
Grace is the effects wrought by God in the soul. Providence is the effects wrought by God in the course of
events. Since God understands all Creation, throughout all Time, all in One Divine Eternal Act, God
dispenses His Grace and Providence all in One Divine Eternal Act. God does not give Grace and Providence
to one situation, then see what the result is, then decide what to do next based on the result. God understands
everything all at once, so God knows what to do with Grace and Providence all at once. Therefore, the future
is not conditional to God.
62
Time and Eternity
Some people think that God waits to see what people will do, and then changes His plan for the future
based on how people have responded to His Grace and Providence. Some people say that predictions which
come from God, such as Bible prophecy or private revelation, are conditional and could change or be delayed
based on our response to God’s Grace and Providence. Not so.
How does God decide which events to influence, and how to influence them, to produce a desired result? It
is not the case that God sees an event in the present, then figures out what the effect of influencing that event
will be in the future. Rather, God is present throughout all Time and all Creation, and beyond Time and
Creation, as One Divine Eternal Act. Time is no obstacle to God. God is not stuck in Today, remembering
Yesterday and figuring out Tomorrow. God exists beyond Time. God understands everything, throughout all
Time and all Creation, all in One Divine Eternal Act. God is One Divine Eternal Act. Divine Revelation
about future events, (such as the Book of Revelation), cannot be altered or delayed and cannot fail to occur.
The One Divine Eternal Act has taken all things into consideration. God is never surprised. God is Eternal
and Unchanging.
When a human being puts together a jigsaw puzzle, he connect the pieces one at a time. First he puts down
one piece, then he finds a piece that fits that first piece, next he looks for another piece to fit those pieces.
When God puts together a jigsaw puzzle, He sees and understands all the pieces and how they best fit together
all at once. God puts together the jigsaw puzzle all at once. From the human point-of-view, the puzzle of
human events is ordered and separated across Time and Place. We only understand the puzzle a little at a
time; we only experience the puzzle one day at a time, from one place or another. But, to God, the puzzle—of
Time and Place and all the events of Creation—is already complete. Consummatum Est.
God puts together Creation, by seeing and understanding all persons, things, and events—everywhere and
everywhen—and how they all best fit together, all at once. God creates all things, answers all prayers,
performs all miracles, dispenses all Grace, governs all Creation with His Providence, throughout all Time and
all Place and all Creation, all in One Divine Eternal Act.
Trinity
God is Three Divine Persons as One Divine Being. The Three Persons are One Divine Eternal Act. Trinity
is the One Act of Existence, Love, Mercy, Justice, and so on. Trinity is the One Act of everything God is/does
throughout all Time and all Place and all Creation and beyond.
How can God be Three, since is God is so thoroughly One? The One Divine Eternal Act is the Act of Being
the Father and of Being the Son and of Being the Spirit. The Father-Son-Spirit is One Divine Eternal Act.
When a human person does one thing, only one thing is done. But the One Divine Eternal Act accomplishes
All in One Act. The Act of the Father Existing and the Act of the Son proceeding from the Father and the Act
of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is One Divine Eternal Act.
The Son proceeds from the Father; the Father does not proceed from the Son. The Son is dependent upon
the Father; the Father is not dependent upon the Son. The Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and
secondarily from the Son. The Spirit is primarily dependent upon the Father and secondarily dependent upon
the Son.
The First Person of the Trinity does not proceed from the Second Person of the Trinity or the Third Person
of the Trinity. The Second Person of the Trinity proceeds from the First Person of the Trinity. The Third
Person of the Trinity proceeds primarily from the First Person of the Trinity and secondarily from the Second
Person of the Trinity. The Second Person of the Trinity is dependent upon the First Person of the Trinity. The
Third Person of the Trinity is primarily dependent upon the First Person of the Trinity and secondarily
dependent upon the Second Person of the Trinity. The First Person of the Trinity is not dependent upon the
Second Person of the Trinity or the Third Person of the Trinity.
God is Eternity
Everything that God Is/Does is One Divine Eternal Act. God is Timeless and Placeless. God is everywhere
at once and He is beyond Place. God is everywhen at once and He is beyond Time. God is within Time and
beyond Time. God is within Place and beyond Place.
63
People say, “God is everywhere.” But God can only be everywhere because He is beyond Place. Otherwise,
He would be distributed in pieces, part of Him here and the rest of Him there. God is One, therefore, God
cannot be stretched out in Place or stretched out in Time. God is One, therefore, God must be beyond Time
and beyond Place. God is unbounded by Time and Place.
It is not correct to say that God knows an event before it happens and remembers that event after it happens.
God is beyond Time. God knows all events, throughout all Time and beyond Time, all in the One Divine
Eternal Act that is God. His knowledge of events is Eternal, unbounded by Time.
God is present throughout all of Creation and throughout all of Time, and beyond Time and Place, all at
once. God is so thoroughly One that He is not even divided by Time or Place. Everything that God is and
everything that God does, everywhere and everywhere, is One Divine Eternal Act. Trinity. Unity. Eternity.
Eternity is God. Only God is Eternal. Eternity means that God is uncreated. Eternity means that God is
before, beyond, and within all created things. Eternity means that God is everywhere and is before and beyond
Place, is everywhen and is before and beyond Time. God does not literally “dwell in Eternity,” for Eternity is
God. God cannot be contained within anything. God alone is Eternal.
To be truly and completely Eternal is to exist always, with no beginning and no end. Every created thing has
its creation as its beginning. Therefore, no created thing is truly and completely Eternal. God alone is Eternal.
God is Eternity.
God is truly and completely One. Eternity and Existence and Love and Will (and all other terms correctly
applied to God) are the same in God. God is One Divine Eternal Act. Eternity is the One Divine Act.
Everything that God is/does is Eternal, because God is One Divine Eternal Act.
Heaven is Timeless
“Not a word concerning things of earth entered into our conversation; but, just as in former days, we
lifted longing eyes to Heaven, so now our hearts strained after the joys beyond time and space, and, for
the sake of an eternal happiness, we chose to suffer and be despised here below.”— Saint Thérèse of
Lisieux.88
Heaven is not divided into different times or different places. Heaven is not divided into different moments,
seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years. Heaven is not divided into different houses, streets,
cities, states, countries, continents, planets, galaxies, etc. Heaven is timeless and placeless.
When someone travels, they start at one place and time, they move through different places at different
times, and they arrive at another place at a later time. Heaven is not like travel. You cannot travel in Heaven,
because Heaven is timeless and placeless. Events in Heaven are not ordered according to when and where.
Heaven is like all Time put together at once, or like no Time at all.89 Heaven is like all Place put together at
once, or like no Place at all. Heaven is beyond Time and beyond Place. Heaven is both timeless and placeless.
Heaven does not refer merely to timelessness, or timefullness, but also to placelessness, or placefullness.
Heaven is beyond Time and Place. Heaven is not a place in the material universe. Heaven is not closer to
one city, and farther from another city. There is no set of directions by which one can travel to Heaven as a
location. Heaven is just as close to, and just as far away from, one city as another, one planet as another, one
galaxy as another. If you die in one city, your journey to Heaven is no shorter, nor any longer, than if you died
in another city, or another country, or any other place in the universe. Heaven is no place within the universe.
If Heaven were a place in the material universe, then it would be closer to one city and farther from another,
and it would have a location that could be specified by a map and a set of directions.
Heaven contains created things, such as the souls of the Blessed, the body and soul of Jesus Christ, the body
and soul of the Virgin Mary, and the angels. Heaven was created by God as a type of container for certain
created things. Heaven is like all Place put together at once, or like no Place at all. Heaven could be called
placeless, or even place-full. Yet Heaven is outside of Place and beyond Place. Heaven is for the Blessed who
dwell with God, Who is Eternity. To be with God is to be beyond Time and Place.
Heaven is a created thing. God exists Eternally, but Heaven has not always existed. Heaven was created by
God. Heaven has a beginning, just as all created things have a beginning. When was Heaven created? Heaven
is outside of Time, so Heaven was not created within Time. You could say that Heaven began before Time
64
Time and Eternity
began, but this is only a figure of speech. Heaven could not have had its beginning a certain length of time
before Time began, because there was as yet no time. Heaven was created beyond Time and Place. From
Heaven, the Blessed can see the creation of Time and the creation of the Universe as it happens, as if in present
tense.
Heaven is not within Time. Heaven is with God, Who is Eternity. For the souls in Heaven, Time does not
pass as on earth, hour after hour, day after day, year after year. Heaven is outside of Time and beyond Time.
Heaven is timeless, but not Eternal, for Heaven has a beginning and the first Heaven has an end (Rev 21:1).
Heaven is sometimes called eternity, because Heaven is with God, Who is Eternity. But, strictly speaking,
Heaven is not Eternity, because Heaven has not always existed.
If you die today, and your spouse dies ten years later, you do not arrive in Heaven ten years before your
spouse. You are not waiting in Heaven for ten years to pass, until your spouse dies and joins you in Heaven,
because Heaven is outside of Time and beyond all Time. If you die today and your spouse dies ten years later,
and if you both end up in Heaven, neither really arrives before the other.
Within Time, there is an absolute order to the occurrence of events. One event occurs before and another
event occurs after. From the point of view of someone within Time, your spouse dies ten years after you died.
But from the point of view of Heaven, you have both always been there, since Heaven began until this Heaven
ends. You enter into the Timelessness of Heaven from a particular point in Time. Your spouse enters into the
Timelessness of Heaven from another particular point in Time. But once you are within Heaven, you dwell in
the Timelessness between the beginning of this Heaven and its end. Even so, the Blessed in Heaven, and
Heaven itself, are not Eternal as God is Eternal. Heaven and the Blessed in Heaven have not always existed.
However, within the boundaries of Heaven (its beginning and its end), the Blessed in Heaven dwell in
Timelessness with God, Who is Eternal.
Since Heaven is beyond Time and unbounded by Time, within Heaven there is no absolute before and after.
When you die, your friend welcomes you into Heaven. And when your friend dies, you are there to welcome
your friend into Heaven, regardless of who died when. There is no fixed order of events within Heaven, for if
there were, then Heaven would be within Time and limited by Time. On the contrary, those who are in
Heaven are with God, Who is Eternity. Thus, Heaven takes on much of the aspect of Eternity. God is beyond
all Time and unbounded by Time. God is Eternal. Therefore, those who dwell in Heaven are not within Time,
but are with the Eternal God.
A child dies today, but her parents die many years later. When that child arrives in Heaven, her parents are
already there to greet her. She does not have to wait and wait, as time passes, for her parents and other loved
ones to finally join her in Heaven. There is no waiting in the Timelessness of Heaven. From the point of view
of one bounded by Time, it seems as if one person arrives in Heaven before another. But from the point of
view of Heaven, everyone who ever will arrive in this Heaven is already there. When a person goes to Heaven,
they leave Time and all of its constraints. Heaven is ever present tense.
Heaven is sometimes called Eternity, but this is not literally true. Heaven is very similar to Eternity, because
Heaven is with the Eternal Triune God. But only God is truly Eternal. Every created thing has a beginning
and so no created thing is truly Eternal. Even the Blessed in Heaven, who dwell beyond Time and Place and
who will never cease to exist, are not Eternal. The soul can be called “eternal” because, although each soul has
a beginning, the soul will never cease to exist. However, this is a second and lesser meaning to the word
eternal. The true and full meaning of Eternal can only ever apply to God, because He is the only uncreated
thing, the only thing which has always existed. The first Heaven (Rev 21:1) cannot even be called eternal, even
in the second sense of the word, for Heaven and earth will pass away, and then God will make a new Heaven
and a new earth. The second Heaven is eternal in the second and lesser meaning of the word, for the second
Heaven is never replaced by a third Heaven (as far as I know).
Heaven itself has a before and an after. Heaven had a beginning, for Heaven was created by God. And this
Heaven will have an end. “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth
had passed away, and the sea was no more.” (Rev 21:1). This first Heaven is for the souls of the just. When
someone dies and their soul goes to Heaven, their body is buried in the earth. This first Heaven is fitting for the
65
souls of the just. At the time of the general Resurrection, on the last day, the souls of the just come down from
Heaven and are united with their resurrected bodies. This event is said to take place on the last day (Jn 11:24),
because on that day God takes away Heaven and earth and makes a new Heaven and a new earth. Time does
not end on the last day, for “a new earth” must include both Time and Place. That day is the last day for the
first Heaven and the first earth, but not the last day ever.
After the general Resurrection, the just are assumed into the new Heaven. The new Heaven is fitting for
both body and soul. That is why a new Heaven is needed, because now the just have both body and soul in
Heaven. Unlike the first Heaven, this new Heaven never ends. Even so, the new Heaven is not Eternal (in the
sense that God is Eternal), for the new Heaven is just as much a created thing as the first Heaven.
Between the two events of Heaven’s beginning and its end, that is to say, within Heaven itself, there is no
absolute ordering of events into before and after. You cannot arrive late for Heaven. When you get to Heaven,
no one can say to you, “You should have been here yesterday. You missed the coolest thing.” Once you enter
Heaven, there is no “before you entered Heaven”—you can’t miss anything by arriving late.
Once you enter Heaven, there is no division of the events occurring within Heaven into those occurring
before, and those occurring after, you arrived. Once you enter Heaven, there is no division of the events
occurring on earth into those occurring before, and those occurring after, you arrived. Once you are in
Heaven, you have always been there, from the beginning of Heaven to its very end (i.e. the end of the first
Heaven).
Once Christ entered into Heaven, He has always been there, from the beginning of the first Heaven to its
very end. Heaven was created before and beyond Time. Even from the beginning of the creation of the
universe, Christ was present in Heaven in His Human Nature as well as His Divine Nature. When Adam and
Eve were created, Christ was present in Heaven, body and soul and Divinity. When Moses parted the Red
Sea, Christ was already present in Heaven even in His Human Nature. When the Immaculate Virgin was
conceived, Christ’s body and soul and Divinity were already in Heaven. When Christ walked this earth and
taught and healed, He was also present in body and soul and Divinity in Heaven, beyond Time and Place.
Christ will descend from Heaven to earth at the end of the Antichrist’s reign, and again at the end of the
Millennium of peace and holiness. But, when Christ descends to earth, He never actually leaves Heaven,
because Heaven is beyond Time and Place.
Is God constantly surrounded by the angels and the souls of the just? Yes, and yet God exists Eternally, and
created things do not exist Eternally. Thus, there is ever within God a certain solitude. No matter how many
created angels and souls are with God in Heaven, there is ever that aspect of the Eternal Uncreated Triune
God existing beyond Time and Place and Heaven and all created things, wherein God is alone.
The Son exists Eternally, beyond Time and Place. Yet the Son entered Time and Place to become Incarnate.
The Son ascended to Heaven beyond Time and Place. When did the Son arrive, Incarnate, in Heaven? Since
Heaven is beyond Time, the Son Incarnate has existed in Heaven, from Heaven’s beginning to the first
Heaven’s end (Rev 21:1).
Heaven is outside of Time. When Time and the Universe were created, Christ Incarnate was in Heaven,
with the Virgin Mary and all the souls who ever arrive in the first Heaven. Christ Incarnate dispenses Grace,
with the assistance of the Virgin Mary, from the Timelessness of Heaven to all Creation, throughout all Time
and Place.
Christ and Time
“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ ” (Jn 8:58). Jesus is God, and so
Jesus says “I am,” using the present tense, rather than the past tense. Jesus did not say that before Abraham
was, Jesus was, nor does He say that before Abraham was, Jesus existed. The past tense is not used because
God exists Eternally, and Jesus is God.
Those who dwell in Heaven with God exist beyond Time and Place, but they do not exist Eternally. Jesus is
God and so, in His Divine Nature, He exists Eternally, even before and beyond Heaven. The Blessed in
66
Time and Eternity
Heaven have only been with God, Who is Eternity, from the beginning of Heaven. But the Divine Nature of
Jesus Christ has always existed.
Ever since the Humanity of Christ was created, Christ’s Human Nature has remained always united to His
Divine Nature. Even at the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, when Jesus’ body and soul were separated,
each remained ever united to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity.
“And he said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’ ” (Luke 23:43). Jesus
could be with the good thief on the cross that day in Heaven, because Heaven is beyond Time. There is no past
or future in Heaven; everything is as if present tense. Christ, in both His Human and Divine Natures, is ever
present in Heaven, even from Heaven’s very beginning, before the Universe was created.
The Human Nature of Jesus Christ had a beginning point within Time. At the Holy Conception of Jesus
Christ, which is the Incarnation, the Human Nature of Christ began. The physical part and the spiritual part of
the Humanity of Christ—His Body and His Soul—had a beginning within Time and Place. The Divinity of
Christ exists beyond Place and Time, before and beyond all Creation, including Heaven. But the Humanity of
Christ does not exist before and beyond Heaven, before and beyond Creation. The Humanity of Christ is a
created thing. The Divinity of Christ is Uncreated and Eternal. Once the Humanity of Christ entered into
Heaven, beyond Time and Place, Christ’s Humanity could be present to all Creation, throughout Time and
Place, because Heaven is beyond Time and Place.
Even so, Christ’s Divinity is infinite and Eternal, whereas Christ’s Humanity is finite and has not always
existed. Therefore, there is ever that aspect of the Divinity of Christ, which exists beyond the reach of even the
Humanity of Christ, wherein God is alone.
God is Eternity. The Divine Nature of Christ is Eternity. The Divine Nature of Christ is intimately,
thoroughly, and irrevocably united to the Human Nature of Christ . Therefore, Eternity is intimately,
thoroughly, and irrevocably united to the Human Nature of Christ. It is not only Christ’s Divine Nature which
saves all Creation. The One Person of Jesus Christ, in both His Human and Divine Natures, can pour out
Grace and Mercy from Eternity to all Creation. The Humanity of Christ is beyond Time and Place, not only
because Christ dwells in Heaven, but also because Christ’s Human Nature is united with His Divine Nature,
which is Eternity. The Divine Nature of Jesus Christ is so intimately, thoroughly, and irrevocably united to
His Human Nature that the One Person of Jesus Christ is truly and properly called Divine.
Even though things and events have a fixed order within Time and Place, any event can be reached,
anywhere and anywhen, in any order, from the timelessness and placelessness of Heaven. Thus, Christ, even
in His Humanity, can be present to all persons from the very beginning of Time, and can dispense His
Merciful Grace to all persons throughout Time and Place. Sacred Scripture, in the first letter of Paul to the
Corinthians, speaks of this:
“I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and
all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank
the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock
was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:1-4).
The word “Christ” is the title of the Messiah, who, when Saint Paul the Apostle wrote this letter, had only
recently arrived, Incarnate, on earth and within Time. The word “Christ” refers to the Incarnation of God as
our Savior and Messiah. Yet Saint Paul in Sacred Scripture tells us that Christ was present and dispensing
Grace during the time of Moses. As the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son exists even before Time and
beyond Heaven. But Sacred Scripture uses the word “Christ,” rather than the word “God,” or the words
“Eternal Son of God,” because Christ was present to Moses and the Israelites, in both His Humanity and His
Divinity, from Heaven and from Eternity.
The death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the source of salvation for all Creation, throughout all Time
and Place. Those persons who lived and died before Christ’s Incarnation still received Grace from the Cross of
Christ, because Christ dwells in Heaven and because Christ is Eternity. From Heaven and from Eternity,
Christ pours out His Merciful Grace, which comes from the Cross of Eternal Salvation, on persons throughout
all Time and Place.
67
Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Church of the Eucharist), wrote that
Christ and His saving work is beyond the limits of Time.
The Church has received the Eucharist from Christ her Lord not as one gift—however precious—
among so many others, but as the gift par excellence, for it is the gift of himself, of his person in his
sacred humanity, as well as the gift of his saving work. Nor does it remain confined to the past, since
“all that Christ is—all that he did and suffered for all men—participates in the divine eternity, and so
transcends all times”.90
Christ’s saving work reached its apex in His sacrifice on the Cross. Therefore, the redeeming sacrifice of Christ
on the Cross “participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times.” 91
From Heaven, the blessed constantly view Christ suffering and dying for our salvation on the Cross. The
Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is ever present tense to the Blessed in Heaven. Grace continually pours forth
from Christ on the Cross to the Blessed in Heaven. Grace continually pours forth from Christ on the Cross to
all of God’s children throughout Time and Place.
Jesus Christ has both a Human Nature and a Divine Nature, united in One Person. However, Christ is not
half human and half Divine. The One Person of Jesus Christ is not partially Divine. The Divine Nature of
Jesus Christ is so thoroughly, completely, and intimately united to His Human Nature that the One Person of
Jesus Christ is entirely Divine. The Divine Nature of Christ is infinite; the human nature of Christ is finite.
The Divine Nature permeates Christ’s entire Human Nature so thoroughly that Christ’s entire Person is
correctly called Divine. However, the Human Nature of Christ is finite and can never completely reach to all
that is Divine in Christ. The Human Nature within the One Person of Jesus Christ contains the fullness of
human nature, but that One Person also has a Divine Nature. Jesus Christ is both Human and Divine, but,
since Christ is One Person, Christ is also fully Divine.
Jesus Christ is Divine. Jesus Christ is God. God is Eternity. Therefore, Jesus Christ on the Cross is able to
pour out Grace upon the whole of Creation, throughout all Time and all Place, and beyond Time and Place.
Even the first persons to die and go to Heaven received the Grace of eternal salvation from the one true
Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The Salvation of Christ on the Cross is Eternal, unbounded by Time, present
everywhere and everywhen, because Christ is Eternity. Thus does Sacred Scripture tell us: “And every priest
stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when
Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God….” (Hebrews
10:12). Christ, Who is Eternity, makes His One True Sacrifice present and effective throughout all Creation,
for all Time.
What is the Future to God?
To God, the future is not something which has not yet happened. God does not view the future as
something to know beforehand. God does not figure out what will happen next. God’s knowledge of the future
is not foreknowledge, because God is not trapped within Today, remembering Yesterday, and figuring out
Tomorrow. God is beyond Time.
In a manner of speaking, the past, the present, and the future are all present tense to God, for God knows all
things throughout all Time and all Creation in One Divine Eternal Act. It is as if God is even now present in
the future. In a manner of speaking, the past, the present, and the future are all past tense to God, for God
knows all things, throughout all Time, from beyond Time. Since God is beyond Time, God sees what we call
the future as if it were the present or the past. To God, the future is like the present or the past. Past, present,
and future are all the same to God.
Yet, it is not entirely accurate for us to refer to God’s knowledge of events within Time using the
terminology of Time (past, present, future), for God is beyond Time. God knows all events throughout Time
in a way which is Timeless and Eternal and One, that is, in a way which is neither past tense, nor present
tense, nor future tense. The concepts of Time are insufficient to explain the Eternal Triune God.
God knows the whole future perfectly and infallibly. God knows every future person, place, thing, and event
without error, omission, or imperfection. God’s knowledge of all Time, all Place, and all Creation is complete
68
Time and Eternity
and flawless, because God is present throughout all Time, all Place, and all Creation, and beyond, all in One
Divine Eternal Act. The future cannot be other than as God knows, because God’s knowledge of the future is
from Eternity. God is Eternal. All is Now to God. All Time is Now to God. All Place is Here to God. All
Place and all Time is Here and Now to God. Yet even these concepts of Time and Place are insufficient to
explain the One Divine Eternal Act.
Time and Prayer
People often pray to God to obtain something in the present or in the future. But one can also pray to God
to obtain something in the past. God is beyond Time. God is present throughout all Time and all Place, and
beyond Time and Place, all in One Divine Eternal Act. The past, present, and future are all the same to God.
Therefore, one can pray just as well for the past, as for the present or the future.
Suppose that on Wednesday you pray to God to obtain some favor, and on Thursday you receive that favor
from God. But, on reflection, you realize that God had to begin to answer your prayer on Tuesday. God had
to influence persons and events in advance in order to bring about the answer to your prayer. You prayed for
something on Wednesday, but God began answering that prayer on Tuesday. Therefore, prayer can effect the
past just as well as the present or the future.
A common objection to this idea is that the past has already happened and cannot be changed. But God is
beyond Time. God understands all persons, things, and events, throughout all Time and all Creation, all in the
One Divine Eternal Act that is God. Therefore, past, present, and future are the same to God. We can pray
about the present or the future, so we can also pray about the past.
People say that the past cannot be changed. But to God, the future is already as God sees it and cannot be
changed either. God is present throughout Time and beyond Time, and so the past, present, and future are one
and the same. The future is the same as the past to God. Both are set in stone and cannot be changed. The
past, present, and future are as God sees them. The past, present, and future cannot be changed. How then
does God answer prayers? God effects the events of the past, present, and future as they are happening. Once
these events occur they cannot be changed. When one prays about a past event, God can effect that event as it
is happening, because God is beyond Time.
Therefore, one can pray to God concerning an event in the past just the same as one can pray to God
concerning an event in the present or the future. As an example, suppose that your relative died yesterday and
you did not find out until today. You can pray for that relative to receive the grace of God at the hour of their
death, even though that hour is long past. God knows and answers that sincere prayer.
God is present throughout all Time and all Place, and beyond Time and Place, as One Divine Eternal Act.
God knows and understands all prayer throughout all Creation, all at once. All prayers throughout Time are
taken into account by the One Divine Eternal Act. Thus, God can answer a prayer about past events.
Free Will and the Knowledge of God
Some people say that there is an apparent contradiction between our free will and God’s knowledge of our
future. If God knows infallibly that you will sin tomorrow, are you unable to avoid that sin? If God knows that
you will turn left tomorrow, can you not use your free will to turn right instead? The solution to this apparent
contradiction is simple.
God does not predict what you will do. God does not foresee what you will do. God is One Divine Eternal
Act, Who understands everything, all at once. God knows what you freely decided to do in the future. What
seems to you to be a future decision of yours is the same as your past decisions to God. What we call the
future seems so uncertain to us, but, to God, it is just as certain as the past. Your free will is not compromised
because God sees what you freely decided to do in the future just the same as God sees what you freely
decided to do in the past. And God is present throughout all Time, past, present, and future, all at once.
Suppose that God knows that you will go for a walk tomorrow and take the left fork in the road. When you
go for that walk tomorrow, can you, with your free will, decide to take the right fork in the road instead? You
can, but you did not. God knows what you decided to do tomorrow. The future is the same as the present and
the past to God. And everything that we call the future is said and done to God, because God is beyond Time.
69
Yesterday, you decided, with your free will, to have one thing for lunch and not another. You cannot
change that free will decision, now that it is in the past. Nevertheless, the decision was made with free will. In
the same way, all future decisions and events are known with complete certainty by God and cannot be
changed. Yet, in no way does this diminish free will. God simply knows the decisions that were made in the
future with free will.
The above explanation describes the future as if it were the past. Another way of explaining the same truth
is to say that God is present throughout all of Time all at once, so that the future is the same as the present to
God. Thus, God sees what you are doing in the future. He sees your future decisions and actions as you are
making them. God also sees your past and present decisions and actions as you are making them. Every event
throughout Time is as if present tense to God.
The above explanations, using the ideas of past tense and present tense, are not the whole truth. God is
Eternal, beyond Time and unbounded by Time. Therefore, God is present throughout all Time and Place and
all Creation and beyond in a way which cannot be completely expressed with the words and ideas of Time.
God is present throughout all Time and beyond as One Divine Eternal Act.
The Cross and the Immaculate Conception
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary,
in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in
view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of
original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the
faithful.”92
The singular grace of the Immaculate Conception was brought about by the One True Sacrifice of Jesus
Christ on the Cross. Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. Jesus Christ has both a finite Human Nature and an
Eternal Divine Nature, united as One Person. God is One Divine Eternal Act. Because Christ is Divine, His
One True Sacrifice on the Cross, which occurred at one particular time and place, can transcend Time and
Place and be present and effective throughout all Time and Place, and beyond. The Immaculate Conception
occurred by means of the power and mercy and holiness and grace of the One True Sacrifice of Christ.
Because Christ is Divine, His Sacrifice is Eternal. All persons saved throughout all Time and Place are saved
by the One True Sacrifice of Christ. Even those persons who lived and died before Christ became Incarnate
and before He died on the Cross, are saved by the One True Eternal Sacrifice of Christ.
Some theologians say that the Immaculate Conception occurred by the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ. The
use of the word “foreseen” in this idea is incorrect, or, at least, inaccurate. (Notice that the infallible definition
does not use the term “foreseen.”) God is Eternal, timeless, beyond Time, unbounded by Time. God does not
“foresee” the future. God is present throughout all Time and Place, and beyond, all in One Divine Eternal
Act.
One Timeless Sacrifice
There is only One True Sacrifice to God: the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. All other holy
sacrifices for God are merely mystical participations in that One True Sacrifice. Thus, the suffering of Mary at
the foot of the Cross was merely a participation in Christ’s One True Sacrifice. Mary does not offer to God her
own sufferings for our salvation. Mary offers to God, through Christ, her humble participation in Christ’s One
True Sacrifice. Christ is God Incarnate. Only through Christ and in Christ can our sufferings have meaning
and value before God. Your sufferings and sacrifices for God are not yours, they are Christ’s. Your sufferings
and sacrifices, if they are holy, devout, and humble, are merely a participation in the sufferings of Christ. But,
in so far as we participate in Christ’s One True Sacrifice on the Cross, we also participate in the graces and
benefits which come from the Cross.
70
Time and Eternity
One Consecration of the Eucharist
Whenever a priest or Bishop consecrates the Eucharist, it is really Jesus Christ who consecrates the
Eucharist. But Jesus does not consecrate the Eucharist again and again. Jesus Christ consecrated the Eucharist
only once, at the Last Supper. Jesus Christ is God and God is beyond Time. At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ
consecrated the Eucharist in a way which is both beyond Time and Place, and effective throughout Time and
Place—wherever and whenever a Mass is celebrated. At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ consecrated the
Eucharist once for all. That One Act of consecration had the effect of consecrating all Eucharist’s throughout
Time and Place. All other consecrations of the Eucharist, any where and any when, are simply that One
Consecration effective throughout Time and Place.
“All the communions of a life-time are one communion. All the communions of all men now living are one
communion. All the communions of all men, past and future, are one communion.” 93 All the consecrations of
the Eucharist, throughout Time and Place, are One Consecration. All the Masses, throughout Time and Place,
are One Mass.
The One Mass is the Mass at the Last Supper, celebrated by Jesus Christ. Every Mass is the Mass of the Last
Supper, not by imitation or repetition, but by the timeless grace and power of God. At the Last Supper, Jesus
Christ celebrated the Mass once for all Time and consecrated the Eucharist once for all Time. Every other
Mass and consecration of the Eucharist is that same Mass and consecration of the Eucharist at the Last
Supper. Just as Jesus Christ suffered and died once for all Time and Place, so also did He celebrate the Mass
and consecrate the Eucharist once for all Time and Place.
Whenever we attend Mass today, that Mass is truly the Mass of the Last Supper, celebrated by Jesus Christ.
Any consecration of the Eucharist, by any priest or bishop who celebrates a Mass today, is truly that one same
consecration of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. Time is no obstacle to God. Would you like
to attend the Mass of the Last Supper and receive the Eucharist consecrated by Jesus Christ? When you attend
the Sacred Mass on any day of your life, you are truly attending the Mass of the Last Supper, not symbolically,
but just as if you were at the Last Supper itself on the night before Christ died for our salvation.
Revelations of the Future
Sacred Scripture is entirely infallible: without flaw, omission, or imperfection. Therefore, the events
predicted by Sacred Scripture cannot fail to occur. The Bible predicts certain future events with absolute
certainty. Moreover, God knows our entire future with absolute certainty and unlimited clarity. God is entirely
infallible: without flaw, omission, or imperfection.
The sufferings described in the book of Revelation are a punishment from God for sin. Could humanity
make the right choices in the future, and avoid enough sin, so that the sufferings of Revelation would never
occur? We could. But we did not. In the future, we did not avoid enough sin to prevent the sufferings of the
Apocalypse from crucifying the world. God sees that we did not choose, as we were free to choose, in the
future.
Some persons claim that revelations from God about the future are conditional and could be delayed or
changed depending on our response to God’s grace. This claim is completely false. God understands all events
throughout all Time and Place, all within the One Divine Eternal Act that is God. Revelations about the future
found within Sacred Scripture are absolutely certain to occur, for Sacred Scripture is absolutely infallible. God
is able to know the future infallibly because God is present throughout all Time, and beyond Time, all in the
One Divine Eternal Act that is God. Our response to God’s grace, and our free will decisions and actions, are
known by God with the same certainty and infallibility. Predictions of the future found in Sacred Scripture can
be misunderstood and misinterpreted. But Sacred Scripture, and all that Sacred Scripture truly predicts for the
future, is entirely certain and without error of any kind.
Private revelations from God about the future are infallible, because all that God is/does is infallible.
However, private revelation is still subject to error through misunderstanding on the part of the recipient of the
revelation and mistakes in the writing down or transmission of the revelation. If a private revelation about the
future was correctly understood and written down, and if it truly came from God, then it cannot fail to occur.
71
My own predictions of the future based on my interpretation of Sacred Scripture could contain errors due to
my own misunderstanding. My predictions of the future are based on my interpretation of Sacred Scripture
and, to a certain limited extent, on my interpretation of well-known private revelation, such as Fatima and La
Salette. I myself have not received private revelation of any kind.
Some persons have falsely claimed to have received private revelations about the future from God. In the
present time, Christians must be careful about which private revelations they accept. False messages and false
apparitions can lead Christians astray from God. The messages of false private revelation generally contain
some truths mixed with the falsehoods, the better to deceive the faithful. Every prediction of a future event
which comes from true private revelation will come true. If a predicted event does not occur, the explanation
that the future is conditional is not valid. God knows the entire future with complete certitude.
Predestination and Free Will
Predestination is a simple and necessary result of the Eternal Nature of God. Heaven is with God, Who is
Eternity. Those who enter Heaven dwell beyond Time and Place, with the One Eternal God. Therefore,
everyone who ever will be saved and go to Heaven is there already. That is what is meant by predestination.
The Elect are already in Heaven with God, and they always have been, since the beginning of the creation of
Heaven (but not before Heaven was created). If you ever will get to Heaven, you are already there with God.
Some people say that there is an apparent contradiction between predestination and free will. If those who
are predestined for Heaven must necessarily end up in Heaven, can they not use their free will to sin seriously
and refuse to repent, and so end up in Hell? If free will can result in a person making choices, which cause
them to end up in Hell, how is it that those who are predestined for Heaven have free will and yet cannot
possibly end up in Hell? The solution to this apparent contradiction is simple.
Heaven is with the Eternal God, beyond Time and Place. Once someone enters Heaven, they have always
been there, for Heaven is Timeless. Therefore, everyone who will ever enter this Heaven is already there,
beyond Time. Everything is as if present tense to Heaven. Everyone who will ever die and leave Time to enter
the first Heaven is already there, for Heaven is beyond Time.
Predestination is not a decision by God, made in advance, that certain ones will be saved and certain others
will not be saved. Predestination is not the result of God foreseeing who will eventually be saved and enter
Heaven. Predestination is not a gift given to some, and not to others, to necessarily end up in Heaven, no
matter what they choose to do. Predestination is simply a necessary result of the existence of Heaven beyond
Time. Because Heaven is not within Time, but is with the Eternal God, everyone who ever will go to the first
Heaven is already there.94
Predestination is the fact that all those who ever will go to Heaven are already there, beyond Time. Those
who are saved reach Heaven because, with their free will, they cooperated with God’s saving grace. They were
predestined by God, in the sense that they have always been in Heaven, beyond Time. The Elect have always
been in Heaven, since Heaven was created by God, until God takes away Heaven and earth, and makes a new
Heaven and a new earth, (at the time of the general Resurrection; see Rev 21:1).
Predestination is the fact that God, as One Divine Eternal Act, is already with the Elect. Even though, from
our point-of-view within Time, some of the Elect have not yet died and left Time to go to Heaven, all is
complete for the One Divine Eternal Act. Predestination is the necessary result of the fact that the One Divine
Eternal Act, by which we are all saved, is One and Eternal. Your salvation and your presence in Heaven with
God could not possibly ever be future tense to God, because God is the One Divine Eternal Act.
When God created Time and Place, that is, when God created the Universe, Heaven already exists beyond
Time and Place. And within Heaven exists the souls who have left Time and entered into Timelessness. When
God created the Universe, the Elect watch from the timelessness of Heaven. When God created Adam and
Eve, all those among their descendents who ever would leave Time to enter the first Heaven, yet who, within
Time, had not yet even been conceived, watch from Heaven, beyond Time. When God said, “Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness….” (Gen 1:26), He says those words to the Elect in Heaven. When Moses
saw the burning bush, all those who ever would be saved and enter the first Heaven watch with God, Who is
72
Time and Eternity
Eternity. When Jesus suffered and died on the Cross, the Elect in Heaven watch His Salvific Act continually,
without ceasing, in awe.
The Crucifixion is ever present tense to the Elect in Heaven. Jesus Christ continually pours out grace from
the Cross, throughout all Time and all Place, and beyond Time and Place. The graces of Christ’s passion and
death on the Cross pour forth to all Creation. Even those souls, who died before Christ’s Incarnation, are
saved by the One Salvific Act of Christ on the Cross. Christ is God and God is Eternity; therefore, Christ on
the Cross can pour forth Grace to all Creation, throughout all Time and Place, and beyond.
The Second Heaven
Does Heaven ever end? At the time of the general Resurrection, God takes away Heaven and earth and
makes a new Heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1). The first Heaven is for the souls of the blessed. At the
general Resurrection, all the Elect in Heaven are resurrected and given bodies like the glorified body of Jesus
Christ, just as the Virgin Mary received at her Resurrection. Then all the blessed are assumed, body and soul,
into the second Heaven, just as the Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven. The first Heaven is for the souls of
the just; the second Heaven is for the bodies and souls of the just. (The first Heaven does contain the body and
soul of Jesus Christ and the body and soul of Mary, but no other human person is present in the first Heaven
in both body and soul.)95 The first Heaven ends, but, after the general Resurrection, all the blessed are then
assumed alive into the second Heaven, which never ends (as far as I know).
The first Heaven does not contain the souls of every human person who ever will be saved. At the time of
the general Resurrection, there will be some persons still left alive on earth. These persons do not die, but still
receive the benefits of the Resurrection, that is, their bodies and souls are glorified. These persons are assumed
into the second Heaven, but they have never been in the first Heaven. Therefore, the first Heaven does not
contain the souls of everyone who ever will be saved.
The second Heaven exists beyond Time and Place, as does the first Heaven. However, the second Heaven
replaces the first Heaven, so the souls of the blessed cannot be said to be in both Heavens at once. Even so,
God is One Divine Eternal Act, therefore, God is present in both Heavens, and throughout all Creation, all at
once.
Purgatory
The holy souls in Purgatory experience a type of passage of time. The souls in Purgatory are changing,
becoming more like Christ, and this takes time. Time in Purgatory is not like Time in the material Universe.
Time in Purgatory cannot be measured in hours or days or years. There are no bodies in Purgatory, (except if
Christ and Mary visit,) nor any material objects, to mark the passage of time in the usual sense of the word.
Thus, time in Purgatory is measured by the change for the better of the souls in Purgatory. Sinners do not
spend a certain amount of time in Purgatory, more days for greater sins and less days for lesser sins. Sinners
spend as much time in Purgatory as they need to complete the change in their souls: to completely abandon sin
and the attachments which formerly led to sin, to understand the great benefits of doing good and the great
harm of doing evil, and to become as much like Christ and Mary as each one is able.
Heaven has a certain timelessness not found in Purgatory, nor on earth, nor in Hell. Strictly speaking, only
God is Eternal, because only God has always existed. God is Eternity. But Heaven is with God, Who is
Eternity, and so the souls in Heaven experience a timelessness, an eternity-ness, not found even in Purgatory.
Purgatory is close to God’s heart, because all the holy souls in Purgatory are being perfected through Christ.
Hell and Time
The souls in Hell are not with God, Who is Eternity, so they do not have the timelessness which comes
from God. The souls in Hell do not dwell in Eternity. They go from one suffering to another to another, to
another, unceasingly. Thus, they experience a type of passage of time. However, it is not like the passage of
time on earth. The souls in Hell experience constant change, in that they go from one suffering to another,
unceasingly. But the souls in the first Hell do not have bodies, (except for the Antichrist and the false prophet;
73
Rev 19:20). The first Hell is for the souls of the damned, just as the first Heaven is for the souls of the Just. The
passage of time in Hell is measured by the constant passage each soul experiences of going from one suffering
to another.
Does Hell ever end? When God takes away Heaven and earth, and makes a new Heaven and a new earth,
He also takes away Hell and makes a new Hell. The first Hell is for the souls of the damned. At the general
Resurrection, all the damned in Hell are resurrected and given bodies befitting of their wickedness. Then all
the damned are thrown, body and soul, into the second Hell. The first Hell is for the soul only; the second Hell
is for body and soul. So, the first Hell ends, but all the damned are then thrown alive into the second Hell,
which never ends.
“And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye
than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mk
9:47).
The first Hell does contain the body and soul of the Antichrist and of the false prophet, for these two human
beings were thrown alive into Hell, before the general Resurrection (Rev 19:20). Notice the parallel between
the first Heaven and the first Hell. The first Heaven contains no human persons in both body and soul except
Christ and Mary. The first Hell contains no human persons in both body and soul except the Antichrist and
the false prophet. This parallel suggests that the false prophet will be a woman. The Antichrist is to the Christ
as the false prophet is to the Virgin Mary. The false prophet will be an Antimary.
Does Time ever end?
“Martha said to him, ‘I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’ ” (Jn 11:24). The
general Resurrection of the just and unjust is said to occur on the last day, because, after the general
Resurrection, God takes away Heaven and earth, and makes a new Heaven and a new earth. The general
Resurrection is said to occur on the last day, at the end of Time, but after that day God makes all things new
again and Time continues anew.
After the general Resurrection, God also makes a new Hell. Revelation calls Hell “the lake of fire that burns
with brimstone.” (Rev 19:20). The new Hell is also referred to as a lake of fire, and it is called the second
death. “Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and
if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:14-
15). This new Hell is for body and soul.
Hell is not Timeless and Placeless, as is Heaven: “…and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into
the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and
night for ever and ever.” (Rev 20:10). The phrase “day and night” indicates a continual passage of time. The
phrase “for ever and ever” indicates that this passage of time never ends.
Notice that God makes, not only a new Heaven, but also a new earth. The new Heaven is Timeless like the
first Heaven, but the new earth is found within Time and Place, like the first earth. Therefore, Time and Place
continue, even after the general Resurrection. Time never ends.
The Book of Life
“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another
book was opened, which is the book of life….and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life,
he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:12,15).
Sacred Scripture refers to “the book of life,” which is a symbolic representation of Heaven. Those whose
names are written in the book of life are saved, meaning that those whose souls are in Heaven with God are
saved. And these names have always been in the book of life. The book of Revelation describes those who will
worship the Antichrist as those “whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the
book of life of the Lamb that was slain.” (Rev 13:8). Notice that the names which are in the book of life have
been there “before the foundation of the world.” This is true because the Blessed dwell in Heaven, which is
beyond Time, with God, Who is Eternity. The Blessed have been in the Timelessness of Heaven since Heaven
74
Time and Eternity
was created, before the foundation of the world, before Time began. God, Who is Eternity, is before, during,
and after Time, all at once.
But notice that those who will be condemned to Hell have no separate ‘book of death’ in which their names
are found. Hell is not found with God, Who is Eternity. Hell does not have the same character of Timelessness
and Placelessness as Heaven. Hell is beyond the material Universe of Place and Time. You cannot travel to
Hell by means of a set of directions and a map. Yet Hell has more in common with Time than with Heaven.
The Blessed are ever present in Heaven, since Heaven began. But the damned are not ever present in Hell,
since Hell began. Heaven is timeless, but Hell is governed by some kind of Time. Those who will arrive in Hell
are not there already. But their souls are not in the Eternal Heaven with God already, so their names are said
not to be in the book of life.
Hell is not with God, Who is Eternity, and so the condemned in Hell are for ever trapped in some form of
Time. They go from one suffering to another, to yet another, without ceasing, for ever and ever, without any
end.
75
Chapter 5
The Three Charisms of the Sacred Magisterium
Trinity
God is infallible. All other infallibility proceeds from God. There is no infallibility apart from God. The
Most Holy Trinity is entirely infallible without exception. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each and all
entirely perfect and entirely infallible. The Father-Son-Spirit is one infallible being.
The Trinity is without flaw, omission, or imperfection. To have a flaw is to have something that one ought
not to have. An omission is something lacking that ought to be present. An imperfection is when something
that ought to be present is present, but in a lesser form and not entirely as it ought to be. The Most Holy
Trinity is three times perfect and entirely perfect, without flaw, omission, or imperfection. 96
Jesus Christ
Jesus is infallible because Jesus is the Son of God. Everything that Jesus ever said and did is infallible
because Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Jesus became Incarnate, taking upon Himself a human nature to bind irrevocably to His Divine Nature,
within Time and for all Eternity. Even though most human persons are sinners and are very fallible, Jesus is,
always has been, and always will be, infallible, even in His human nature.
Jesus, even in His human nature, was entirely perfect: he never sinned; he never said anything false, even
by mistake; he never did anything morally wrong, even by mistake; he never did or said anything unwise or
harmful to others, even by mistake; he never mistakenly thought or said anything false. Jesus could not be
mistaken in what He knew, thought, said, and did. Jesus never made any mistakes at all, because Jesus is God.
Jesus was entirely infallible, even in His human nature, because His human nature is forever intimately united
to His Divine Nature.
Even in His human nature, Jesus is God. At the Incarnation, the Holy Trinity created a human nature
united with the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity as one Divine Person. Thus the human
nature of Jesus Christ is a part of God. Jesus is infallible in both His human and Divine natures because both
natures are united in one Divine Infallible Person.
Sacred Tradition
Sacred Tradition is part of infallible Divine Revelation. Sacred Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in
the history of salvation.”97 Since these deeds were wrought by God, the deeds and their meaning are infallible.
The “history of salvation” obviously includes the deeds wrought by God during Old Testament times as well
as New Testament times. Therefore, Sacred Tradition is divided into two parts, just as Sacred Scripture is
divided into two parts, Old Testament and New Testament.
Christ is God, therefore Sacred Tradition is also the deeds wrought by Christ in the history of salvation.
Sacred Tradition is Christ's Way of faith, love, hope, mercy, prayer, self-sacrifice, and more, as He put it into
practice in the events of His life, His death on the Cross, His Resurrection, and the “final sending of the Spirit
of truth” 98 at Pentecost. Sacred Tradition is not these ideas themselves (of faith, love, hope, mercy, prayer, self-
sacrifice, and more), but rather their embodiment in the deeds of God in salvation history, in the life and
works of Christ, and in the Church Christ established.
Sacred Tradition is found in Christ's Life. Sacred Tradition is found in the sacramental and liturgical life of
the Church, as established by Christ. Sacred Tradition is transmitted by the lives of ordinary Christians, in so
far as they imitate the Life of Christ and follow the Way of Christ. Sacred Tradition is transmitted from one
generation to the next by the words and deeds of all faithful Christians, in so far as they imitate Christ, and by
the communal spiritual life of the Body of Christ, enlivened and guided by the Holy Spirit.
76
Sacred Tradition is infallible because it proceeds from Christ, and Christ is infallible. Sacred Scripture and
Sacred Tradition are together called the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is infallible
because it proceeds from God.
Sacred Scripture
The Bible is God’s Sacred Infallible Scripture. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it was written by God.
Even though Sacred Scripture was written by means of many sinful and fallible human persons, God is the
One True Author of Sacred Scripture and so Sacred Scripture is infallible.
Sacred Scripture is entirely without flaw, omission, or imperfection, because Sacred Scripture was entirely
written by the Most Holy Trinity. Sacred Scripture contains all those things and only those things that God
wills.99 The infallibility of Sacred Scripture proceeds from God.
Sacred Magisterium
The Sacred Magisterium is the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The Sacred Magisterium can only
teach from the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The Sacred Magisterium cannot add to, take away from, nor change,
the teaching found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The Sacred Magisterium can teach anything found,
implicitly or explicitly, within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Even if a doctrine has never before been taught
explicitly by the Church, the Sacred Magisterium can teach that doctrine infallibly and require its belief by all
the faithful, as long as it is found, at least implicitly, within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Truths outside of the
Sacred Deposit of Faith cannot be taught by the infallible teaching authority of the Church.
The teaching of the Church consists of nothing other than the Sacred Deposit of Faith. All the infallible
teachings of the Sacred Magisterium merely reaffirm, clarify, or expound upon the teachings already present
within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. All the Bishops in the world, together with the Pope, cannot teach
something infallibly unless it is found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, nor can they contradict or change a
teaching found therein.
The Pope and the Bishops are fallible human persons. They are able to interpret the Sacred Deposit of Faith
infallibly for two reasons. First, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, which they are interpreting and which is the
source of all their teaching, is itself infallible. Second, when the Pope and the Bishops exercise their gift of
infallible teaching authority, it is the Holy Spirit who teaches through them. The Sacred Magisterium is a gift
of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the whole Church, but it resides solely in the Bishops of the Church,
including, in a special way, the Pope. When the Pope and the Bishops teach infallibly, it is the Holy Spirit who
teaches infallibly. The Holy Spirit of Truth is infallible, therefore the Sacred Magisterium is infallible.
The sinful and fallible writers of Sacred Scripture were able to write the infallible books of the Holy Bible
because the Holy Spirit was working in and through them. Similarly, the Pope and the Bishops can interpret
and teach infallibly from the Sacred Deposit of Faith because their teaching is the infallible work of the Holy
Spirit. The infallibility of the Sacred Magisterium is a gift and a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells and acts
continually in the living Body of Christ, the Church.
The gift of Papal Infallibility proceeds from the Holy Spirit. When the Pope teaches under Papal
Infallibility, it is the Holy Spirit who is teaching. The Holy Spirit is infallible, even when the Holy Spirit
expresses Himself through a sinful and fallible Pope. When the Pope consecrates the Eucharist, it is Christ
who consecrates the Eucharist. When the Pope teaches infallibly, it is Christ who teaches infallibly. Christ
continues to teach infallibly, just as He did during His Ministry, through the Holy Spirit of Truth whom Christ
sent upon the Church at Pentecost.
Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium
Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium is a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity. Tradition is greater than
Scripture, just as the Father is greater than the Son. Scripture proceeds from Tradition, just as the Son proceeds
from the Father. Scripture is a written work, which arises out of Tradition. The Son is the Word of God, Who
arises out of the Father. If there were no Father, there would be no Son. If there were no Tradition, there
77
would be no Scripture. The Magisterium proceeds from Tradition and Scripture, just as the Spirit proceeds
from Father and Son. The Magisterium is enlivened by the Spirit. The Magisterium proceeds primarily from
Tradition and secondarily from Scripture, just as the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily
from the Son. The Magisterium teaches primarily from Tradition and secondarily from Scripture, just as the
Spirit teaches primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son. The Spirit teaches secondarily from the
Son, because the Son only knows what the Father teaches Him and only has what the Father gives Him. The
Son is secondary to the Father, therefore, the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from
the Son. Scripture is secondary to Tradition, therefore, the Magisterium teaches primarily from Tradition and
secondarily from Scripture. Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium is one holy gift with three aspects, just as the
Father-Son-Spirit is one holy God of Three Persons. It cannot be otherwise. “He who has an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Rev 2:7).
The Three Charisms and the Trinity
The Sacred Magisterium consists solely in three charisms and is a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity. The
first charism is a reflection of the Father, the second charism is a reflection of the Son, the third charism is a
reflection of the Spirit. The three charisms constitute one Sacred Magisterium, just as the Three Persons are
One Sacred God.
100
The Third Charism of the Sacred Magisterium
Each and every Bishop within the Church possesses one and the same charism (divinely-inspired ability)
under the Sacred Magisterium of the Church, given to him as a gift of the Holy Spirit at his Episcopal
Ordination. Each Bishop has the charism to be able to participate in the infallible teaching authority of the
Church, by means of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
This third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, given to each and every Bishop, including the Pope, has two
forms by which it is expressed. The first form of the third charism is exercised when the Bishops, in union with
the Pope, give daily witness to the teaching of Christ through their words and actions. An individual Bishop,
other than the Pope, cannot teach infallibly by his sole authority, but the Bishops “nevertheless proclaim
Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond
of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith
and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”101 This first form of the third
charism of the Sacred Magisterium occurs daily among the Bishops who are dispersed through the world, yet
who remain in communion with one another and with the Roman Pontiff.
The first form of the third charism requires both that the Pope not have contradicted the “one position as
definitively to be held” and that the Pope have given some type of definitive witness to the truth of such a
position or teaching. However, this witness could be in the form of past Papal documents or statements. Thus,
the first form of the third charism can continue, even when one Pope has died and the next has not yet been
chosen. However, no new infallible definitions can proceed from the Sacred Magisterium during that difficult
time when the Church is without a Pope. (See “When the Church is Without a Pope” below).
If any teaching of a Bishop or a group of Bishops contracts the teaching of the Pope, then that particular
teaching of those Bishops is not in communion with the Pope and cannot possibly fall under the first form of
the third charism. Furthermore, if a group of Bishops, no matter how numerous, is in agreement on a
particular teaching, they still require some witness or statement by the Pope supporting that teaching as
definitively to be held. If the Pope is undecided, or is silent, or simply has not yet indicated that the teaching is
definitive truth, then their teaching cannot be said to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff and so does
not fall under the first form of the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium.
The second form of the third charism occurs when the Bishops meet in an Ecumenical Council, or in
another gathering of Bishops representative of the universal Church, under the authoritative guidance and
governance of the Pope, to decide on questions of faith and morals. This second form of the third charism
differs from the first form in that the Bishops express the “one position as definitively to be held” in a single
78
document, promulgated with the explicit approval of the Pope. (Of course, more than one theological position
can be expressed by the same Council or by the same document.) By contrast, the first form of the third
charism does not involve the promulgation of a specific document, but rather varying statements and actions
of the Bishops and the Pope, which all nonetheless witness to one and the same definitive position on faith and
morals.
The second form of the third charism does not require the Bishops to meet in one geographic location for an
Ecumenical Council or other gathering of Bishops. It is possible for the second form of the third charism to
occur without an Ecumenical Council and/or without a geographic gathering of the Bishops. The Bishops
could “meet” or “gather” by having a worldwide communication with one another and with the Pope, over a
period of time, on questions of faith or morals whose answers are found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Such a communication-gathering of the Bishops and the Pope could arrive at “one position as definitively to
be held” on questions of faith and morals, and could promulgate such a definitive position, with the approval
of the Pope, in an official document. A definitive position on faith or morals arrived at in this way would still
be the infallible teaching of the Sacred Magisterium and would have the same force as if issued by a
geographic gathering of Bishops in an Ecumenical Council. (For an example, see “Infallibility in Evangelium
Vitae” below.)
The explicit approval of the Pope is required for a definitive position, arrived at by any use of the second
form of the third charism, to become the infallible teaching of the Sacred Magisterium. Thus, the second form
of the third charism cannot be exercised in the absence of a ruling Pope. The Bishops can still meet and
communicate in order to seek and to express the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, but they
cannot issue a new statement of definitive judgment on matters of faith or morals, at least not one with the
force of the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
From time to time, some few Bishops, who have gone astray from the true teaching of Christ, have
abandoned this third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, that is, they have refused to exercise it and have
rejected the teaching authority of the Church and the Pope. Yet even these few heretical and schismatic
Bishops still possess that third charism, though they refuse to make use of it within themselves and do not
acknowledge its action within the other Bishops and the Pope. Similarly, every human person has a
conscience, but some refuse to make use of their conscience. They act as if they did not have something which
is constantly with them.
The Cardinals of the Church, who are Bishops, each possess and can exercise the charism of participation in
the infallible teaching authority of the Church, the same as any other Bishop. Cardinals do not have any
additional teaching authority or charisms within the Sacred Magisterium, other than that given to each and
every Bishop as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Ordination as Bishop confers this charism upon the Bishop;
installation as Cardinal adds nothing to that Bishop’s participation in the infallible teaching authority of the
Church. However, installation as Pope does convey upon a Bishop additional charisms under the Sacred
Magisterium.
The Three Charisms and the Pope
The Sacred Magisterium consists of three charisms given to the Church as a gift of the Holy Spirit of Truth.
The Sacred Magisterium consists of nothing other than these three charisms. Only the Pope possesses all three
charisms within the gift of the Sacred Magisterium given to the Church through the Holy Spirit. The other
Bishops of the Church possess only the third charism.
Third Charism: The Pope is both a Bishop and the leader of the Bishops. As one of many Bishops, the Pope
can exercise the same ability as any other Bishop, to participate in the infallible teaching authority of the
Church. The Pope possesses the charism of participation in the infallible teaching authority of the Church, by
means of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as does each and every Bishop. The Pope can participate in the
infallible teaching authority of the Church, just as any Bishop can, in either of the two forms of the third
charism of the Sacred Magisterium.
79
However, as the one leader of all the Bishops of the Church, the Pope possesses two specific additional
charisms under the gift of the infallible teaching authority given to the Church. Only the Pope possesses these
two additional charisms of the Sacred Magisterium.
Second Charism: The Pope also has the infallible charism to authoritatively guide and govern the Bishops in
their participation in the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This special charism is a part of the gift of
the Sacred Magisterium given to the Church, but it resides solely in the Pope, not in any other individual
Bishop, and not in any group of other Bishops, no matter how numerous. Thus, the Pope can summon a
gathering of Bishops, such as an Ecumenical Council, and require them to decide upon questions of faith and
morals. Only the Pope has the authority to summon a gathering of Bishops to decide upon teachings found
within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The Pope has the authority and power of the Holy Spirit working within
him, to guide and govern the other Bishops in their search for Truth within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, with
infallible results. Only the Pope can give final approval to the teachings decided upon by any group of Bishops
whatsoever. The Pope possesses the sole ability and the sole authority, under the second charism within the
gift of the Sacred Magisterium, to approve of, to decline to approve of, or even to decidedly reject, some or all
of the teachings as are decided upon by any group of Bishops.
The second charism is exercised when the Pope authoritatively guides and governs the other Bishops as they
daily teach the teaching of Christ in union with one another (under the first form of the third charism). The
Bishops can only exercise their participation in the infallible teaching authority of the Church, which is the
third charism, under the authoritative guidance and governance of the Pope, which is the second charism. And
the Pope only exercises the second charism in order to authoritatively guide and govern the other Bishops in
their use of the third charism. Therefore, the second and third charisms function together and are inextricably
joined, just as the Bishops and the Pope function together and are inextricably joined.
This second charism also applies to discrete gatherings of Bishops convened by the Pope and to on-going
discussions among the Bishops, including the Pope, on questions of faith and morals (the second form of the
third charism). If there is a question of faith or morals, the Bishops, led and governed authoritatively by the
Pope, may discuss the matter, either at a geographical meeting of Bishops (such as an Ecumenical Council), or
over a period of time and through various means of communication (a communication-gathering), until they
arrive at a decision approved of by the Pope. 102 Such a decision of the Bishops and the Pope is an example of
the second and third charisms of the Sacred Magisterium working together. Under the third charism, the
Bishops, including the Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome, seek the truth about faith and morals. Under the
second charism, the Pope authoritatively guides and governs the other Bishops as they seek to understand and
express the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and the Pope approves of some or all of their
decisions on those truths. Once approved of by the Pope, such decisions are infallible, irreformable, and
irrevocable.
Under the third charism, the Bishops have the ability and authority to participate in the infallible Sacred
Magisterium. The Pope has the ability and authority to guide and govern the other Bishops in all things,
including in their participation in the infallible Sacred Magisterium. What is fallible cannot have authority
over what is infallible. Therefore, the Pope possesses and exercises a distinct infallible charism, the second
charism of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, when he authoritatively guides and governs the other Bishops in
their use of the third charism of the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
First Charism: The Pope possesses the divinely-given ability to exercise the gift of the Sacred Magisterium
by his sole authority, even without the consent and participation of the other Bishops. No other Bishop can do
so alone. The Pope has the charism from the Holy Spirit to be able to teach infallibly from the Sacred Deposit
of Faith by his sole authority. This special charism is also a part of the gift of the Sacred Magisterium given to
the Church, and it too resides solely in the Pope, not in any other individual Bishop, and not in any group of
other Bishops, no matter how numerous.
Each and every Pope has the ability to define any teaching found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, by his
sole authority, even if that teaching is found only implicitly in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and has never
before been taught or understood by the other Bishops of the Church or by the faithful. The Pope has the
80
ability and the authority, within this infallible charism under the gift of the Sacred Magisterium, to define such
a teaching infallibly.
Stated simply, this first charism is the Pope’s ability and authority, as chief teacher and chief priest in the
Church, to point to something, which is already in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and say, “This too is the
teaching of Christ.” The Pope can define, clarify, and expound upon that teaching, but it must be something
already present in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, at least implicitly.
Papal Infallibility and the Sacred Magisterium
Papal Infallibility is the three charisms possessed by the Pope within the gift of the Sacred Magisterium
given to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Papal infallibility is an integral part of the infallible teaching
authority of the Church, the Sacred Magisterium. Papal Infallibility is not separate from, nor different than,
the Sacred Magisterium. Papal infallibility is nothing other than the Sacred Magisterium, as it resides in, and is
exercised by, the Pope. The Sacred Magisterium resides solely in the Bishops of the Church, but the Sacred
Magisterium resides in unique way and to a greater degree in the Pope. The Holy Spirit gives the gift of the
Sacred Magisterium to the Bishops and to the Pope, not merely once, at the time of a Bishop’s ordination or at
the time that a man becomes Pope, but continually, as a living gift of the Spirit of Truth dwelling in intimate
union with the Bishops and the Pope for the benefit of all the faithful, (and for the benefit of those who do not
yet believe).
The Sacred Magisterium consists entirely in the three charisms of the infallible teaching authority of the
Church. The first and second charisms reside solely in the Pope. The third charism resides in all the Bishops of
the Church, including the Pope. These three charisms are the one gift of the infallible teaching authority of the
Church, the Sacred Magisterium. The three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium are distinct from one another,
but not separate from one another, much like the three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity. They are one
indivisible whole, yet each retains its distinctions within the overall unity. Therefore, no one charism can ever
be truly separated from the other charisms.
The three charisms of the infallible Sacred Magisterium are a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity. The first
charism is a reflection of the Father, Whose authority is such that even the Son and Spirit are obedient to Him.
The second charism is a reflection of the Son, Who governs all that the Father gives to Him with the authority
of the Father. The third charism is a reflection of the Spirit, Who binds the many members of the Church
together within the one Body of Christ.
The second charism proceeds solely from the first charism, just as the Second Person of the Trinity proceeds
solely from the First Person of the Trinity. The third charism proceeds primarily from the first charism and
secondarily from the second charism, just as the Third Person of the Trinity proceeds primarily from the First
Person of the Trinity and secondarily from the Second Person of the Trinity.
It is true that the first charism consists in the Pope’s ability to teach from the Sacred Deposit of Faith by his
sole authority—but, by this singular ability and authority, he teaches the other Bishops, as well as the rest of
the Church. The Bishops then accept this teaching and in turn teach it anew to the faithful. Thus, when the
Pope exercises the first charism, defining a teaching by his sole ability and authority, he also exercises the
second charism by authoritatively guiding and governing the other Bishops as they accept and themselves
teach what the Pope has defined. Then the Bishops as a body, including the Pope, exercise the third charism
by teaching this newly defined doctrine to the whole world, as brethren who together believe and teach what
Christ taught, and who worship God side by side.
The three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium are a unified whole. Papal Infallibility is the name given to
the three charisms as they reside in, and are exercised by, the Pope. The same third charism, found within
Papal Infallibility, also resides in, and is exercised by, all the Bishops. Yet the Bishops can only exercise this
third charism in union with the Pope, who alone possesses all three charisms together. In other words, the
third charism can never truly be separated from, nor function apart from, the other two charisms, which are
found only in the Pope. Similarly, the Spirit can never truly be separated from, nor function apart from, the
Father and the Son.
81
There is no infallible Sacred Magisterium apart from the Roman Pontiff. If every Bishop in the world is in
agreement on one position to be definitively held, but without the agreement of the Pope, then the teaching
does not fall under the infallible Sacred Magisterium. If the Roman Pontiff has never taught it, it is not the
teaching of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. The individual Bishops of the universal Church can only
exercise the infallible Sacred Magisterium with the participation of the Roman Pontiff. Without the Pope,
there is no Sacred Magisterium.
Each and every Bishop possesses the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, but that infallible charism is
communal in nature. An individual Bishop exercises the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium only by
participating with the other Bishops and the Pope in teaching from the Sacred Deposit of Faith. When the
Bishops, together with the Pope, seek the truths hidden in the mysteries of Christ and interpret these truths for
the faithful throughout the world, they together exercise the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium.103 The
Bishops must always exercise their charism of the Sacred Magisterium under the guidance, governance, and
final authority of the Pope. In no other way can any Bishop, except the Pope, exercise the charism given to
him as a gift of the Holy Spirit within the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. Any Bishop who departs from
communion with his brother Bishops, or who leaves behind the guidance, governance, and authority of the
Pope, is not exercising any charism under the Sacred Magisterium.
Ecumenical Councils cannot teach infallibly, under the second form of the third charism, without the Pope’s
authoritative leadership and approval, under the second charism. Even the use of the first form of the third
charism, through the daily witness and teaching of the Bishops dispersed through the world, requires that such
witness and teaching be in harmony with the witness and teaching of the Pope. Since any exercise of the first
charism, by the Bishops as a body, of necessity requires the use of the second charism by the Pope, there can
be no infallibility under any of the three charisms which is entirely separate from the Pope. All use of the
infallible Sacred Magisterium requires communion with, and the participation of, the Roman Pontiff. There is
no infallible Sacred Magisterium in isolation from the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, no statement or teaching
truly proceeds from the infallible Sacred Magisterium, if it is in contradiction to, or in absence from, the
teaching of the Pope. (See “When the Church is Without a Pope” below).
Terminology
In the past, when the faithful, the clergy, and the theologians of the Church discussed Papal Infallibility,
they generally were referring to the first charism of Papal Infallibility. This was termed “papal infallibility,”
even though it represents only one of the three charisms under the gift of the Sacred Magisterium as it resides
in the Pope. Nevertheless, what the Church has taught in the past on papal infallibility is entirely true.
The first two charisms of Papal Infallibility have also been taught by the Church in the past, but they were
not numbered and were not generally referred to as charisms of Papal Infallibility. Even so, the Church has
already clearly taught these three uses of infallibility by the Pope and the use of the third infallible charism by
the Bishops (as a body in union with the Pope). The Church’s explicit teaching on Papal Infallibility was first
formally defined by the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) further
expounded upon this teaching, referring in one way or another to all three charisms of the Sacred
Magisterium.
In my terminology, the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium can also be called the first charism of Papal
Infallibility, because the Pope possesses all three charisms of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. The second
charism of the Sacred Magisterium can likewise be called the second charism of Papal Infallibility, for the
same reason. However, the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium can only be referred to as the third
charism of Papal Infallibility when it is exercised by the Pope. When the third charism of the Sacred
Magisterium is exercised by the other Bishops, it cannot be referred to as the third charism of Papal
Infallibility, but only as the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium.
82
Second Vatican Council
The Second Vatican Council’s teaching on Papal Infallibility is both true and insightful, providing the
Church with a depth of understanding on this teaching of faith not previously found in the explicit teaching of
the Church. The Sacred Deposit of Faith does not change, but the Church’s understanding of that one Ocean
of Truth continually increases in depth and breadth. The Second Vatican Council clearly taught all three
charisms of the Sacred Magisterium.
The Second Vatican Council clearly reaffirmed the First Vatican Council’s teaching on Papal Infallibility.
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, teaches that the Pope can teach infallibly, even
without the participation of the other Bishops: “And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the
consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, promised to him in Blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an
appeal to any other judgment.” 104 This teaching refers to the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium.
The Pope possesses and can exercise the charism of the infallible teaching authority of the Church by his
sole authority. “For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but, as the
supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is
individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.” 105
The second charism of Papal Infallibility is also taught by Lumen Gentium. The Pope can teach infallibly by
his sole authority (under the first charism), but he can also (under the second charism) authoritatively lead and
govern the other Bishops when they participate in the Sacred Magisterium (under the third charism): “But
when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it
in accordance with revelation itself….”106 Here the Second Vatican Council teaches that the Pope does not
have to teach alone in order to teach infallibly. He can also join with the Bishops as a body, for the Pope is the
head of the body of Christ on earth. Thus, the Pope can exercise the gift of the infallible teaching authority of
the Church, not only alone, but also as authoritative leader of the other Bishops, as they seek to understand
and express the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith with ever increasing clarity and depth.
The third charism of the Sacred Magisterium was also taught by the Second Vatican Council. The Pope’s
use of the second charism occurs in conjunction with the Bishops’ use of the third charism. Thus, the Pope
authoritatively leads and guides the other Bishops in their search for, belief in, and expression of, the truths
found in Divine Revelation. Since the Bishops can participate in the infallible Sacred Magisterium in such a
manner, they certainly each possess a charism of the Holy Spirit under the Sacred Magisterium.
Both forms of the third charism are referred to by the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Lumen
Gentium explicitly refers to the first form of the third charism, possessed by each and every Bishop, but
exercised only communally, not individually.
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless
proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still
maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, and
authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as
definitively to be held.”107
Here the Second Vatican Council clearly distinguishes between the Bishops’ participation in the infallible
Sacred Magisterium, as a body with the Pope as their head, and the individual charisms of infallibility, which
belong solely to the Pope. Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, cannot exercise infallibility alone, but, as a
body led by the Pope, they can exercise the infallible Sacred Magisterium by teaching from the Sacred Deposit
of Faith. Certainly, this ability to “proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly,” even though it is communal in nature
and is limited to the Bishops as a body led by the Pope, is nevertheless a charism under the gift of the Sacred
Magisterium given to the Church by the Holy Spirit. Just as certain is the truth that the Pope, as one of many
Bishops, can also exercise this same charism within the infallible Sacred Magisterium. The Pope often
83
exercises this third charism of infallibility by teaching, alongside his brother Bishops, what the Church has
always taught and continues to teach—the mysteries of Christ found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
The above quote refers to the first form of the third charism, when the Bishops and the Pope daily witness to
the universal teaching of the Church. But Lumen Gentium also refers to the second form of the third charism,
when the Bishops gather together, led by the Pope, to decide on questions of faith and morals. “But when
either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in
accordance with revelation itself….”108 Thus, the second form of the third charism occurs when the Bishops
gather together with the Roman Pontiff to define judgments on the truths of Divine Revelation.
Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the infallibility of the Sacred Magisterium is itself
infallible under this second form of the third charism, (exercised by means of an Ecumenical Council). At the
Second Vatican Council, the Bishops of the Church, led by the Pope, decided upon this expression of the
infallible teaching found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Further Insights
The teaching of the Sacred Magisterium is authentically and infallibly the teaching of the Sacred Deposit of
Faith. Therefore, all the faithful must believe such teaching in its entirety and without exception, because the
Sacred Deposit of Faith is the infallible teaching of God. Clearly and repeatedly, Lumen Gentium teaches that
the Pope, in exercising the Sacred Magisterium with or without the other Bishops, can only teach from the
Sacred Deposit of Faith: “And this infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be
endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends, which
must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” 109
The Sacred Magisterium is a gift given to the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit. This gift resides
in the Bishops of the Church and most especially in the Pope. “The infallibility promised to the Church resides
also in the body of bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the Successor of Peter.”110
Individual Bishops cannot, by their own ability or authority, exercise the infallible teaching authority of the
Church. Individual Bishops can only participate in the Sacred Magisterium, in communion with the other
Bishops, authoritatively led and governed by the Pope. The Pope and the Bishops exercise this gift of the
infallible Sacred Magisterium to teach, correct and guide the faithful as they follow the Way of Christ, and to
increase the Church’s understanding of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
The teaching that the Pope has three charisms under the Sacred Magisterium is obviously true. The Pope is
a Bishop, and therefore he has all of the powers and abilities of a Bishop, and more besides. The Pope must
therefore possess the same charism of participation in the infallible teaching authority of the Church as any
other Bishop. The third charism, which is given to each and every Bishop, is described with the phrase,
‘participation in,’ because no individual Bishop, other than the Pope, can exercise the gift of the Sacred
Magisterium by his sole authority.
The Pope is the authoritative leader of the Bishops, and therefore he is also the authoritative leader of the
Bishops when they participate in the gift of the Sacred Magisterium. Without doubt, this ability and authority
constitutes a unique additional charism given only to the Pope, as part of the gift of the Sacred Magisterium.
This ability and authority of the Pope must be a charism under the Sacred Magisterium, because it includes
authority over the other Bishops specifically within their participation in the infallible teaching authority of the
Church.
The first charism given to the Pope within the gift of the Sacred Magisterium is that which has been so often
discussed in the Church, and which was explicitly taught by the First and Second Vatican Councils. This first
charism has been called, “papal infallibility,” even though it constitutes only one of the three charisms of
infallibility given to the Roman Pontiff.
Papal Infallibility in Sacred Scripture
A precursor to Papal Infallibility is found in Sacred Scripture. This example is not Papal Infallibility itself,
but a foreshadowing of Papal Infallibility, found within the Jewish faith of ancient times. The Jewish faith was
84
intended by God to prepare for the arrival of the Messiah. Numerous elements within the Jewish faith
prepared for, or were symbolic of, elements of the Christian faith.
“But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all; you do
not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation
should not perish.’ He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that
Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are
scattered abroad.” (Jn 11:49-52).
In the above passage, the Gospel of John tells us that Caiaphas’ words were a true prophecy from God. But
how could a man who was trying to kill the Messiah make such a true prophecy from God? He was able to
teach the truth about Christ, despite his own sins and failings, by virtue of his position as high priest of the
Jewish faith. Notice the distinction made in this passage—the man spoke as high priest and not of his own
accord.
The same distinction is made in the Catholic faith concerning the Sacred Magisterium. The Pope must be
speaking as chief priest and chief teacher of the Church, not merely expressing his own opinion, for his
teaching to fall under the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium. When the Pope teaches in his role as leader
of the Bishops and of the Church, his teaching is called ex cathedra (“from the chair” of Saint Peter). In the
above example from Sacred Scripture, the Jewish high priest teaches the truth about Christ in a way which is
analogous to ex cathedra. He teaches by virtue of his role as high priest.
The Gospel of John states that the Jewish high priest “prophesied,” meaning that it was God who was
teaching the truth through him. In the Catholic faith, when the Pope teaches, with or without the participation
of the other Bishops, under the gift of the Sacred Magisterium, it is the truth from God. The Pope and the
Bishops are able to teach the truth about Christ by virtue of the gift of the Sacred Magisterium, which resides
in them through the work of the Holy Spirit. They are not teaching of their own accord, and their sins and
failings do not prevent the Truth from being taught through them.
Notice also that the Jewish high priest taught the truth about Christ without being aware of the full depth
and breadth of his teaching. He taught that it was better for Jesus to die for the nation, but the Gospel adds,
“and not for the nation only….” (Jn 11:52). The high priest did not understand the full truth implicit within his
own words, that Jesus would die for the salvation of all. There was more to the truth of his teaching than he
himself understood; yet as much as he did understand was true also.
When the Pope and the Bishops teach under the Sacred Magisterium, they teach and understand the truth.
But sometimes the truth they teach is not fully understood, even by the Pope and the Bishops. One reason is
that the teaching of the Catholic faith includes many mysteries of God which no mere human person can fully
comprehend. An example of this is the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The Church teaches the truth about the
Holy Trinity, but the fullness of that truth is beyond what even the teachers and leaders of the Church can
understand or express.
Another reason is that sometimes the truth which the Pope and Bishops themselves are teaching will be
more fully understood as time passes and as the faithful meditate devoutly on the mysteries of God. Certainly,
the teaching of the Church is not anything other than, nor anything in contradiction to, what the Pope and the
Bishops understand and intend within their teaching. However, their teaching sometimes has a greater depth
and breadth than even they themselves fully comprehend. An example of this is the Church’s teaching on the
role of the Virgin Mary in our salvation. The Church has always taught of the importance of Mary within
Christ’s work of salvation. But the Church’s understanding of the Virgin Mary and her role in our salvation
has continually increased as the centuries have passed, and there is much more to understand, yet the Sacred
Deposit of Faith is unchanging and without error.
Examples of the Three Charisms
All the Popes throughout history have exercised Papal Infallibility through one or more of the three
charisms which comprise the gift of the Sacred Magisterium. Whenever the Pope exercises any of the three
charisms of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, this is correctly referred to as Papal Infallibility.
Under the third charism, each Pope teaches the teaching of Christ, in union with the other Bishops. Also
under the third charism, the Pope participates with the Bishops in discussions seeking a deeper understanding
85
of the mysteries of Christ. The Pope, under the second charism, authoritatively guides and governs the Bishops
during such discussions, and can rule definitively on the results of such discussions. However, the Pope can,
under the third charism, also participate in such discussions with the other Bishops merely as a fellow Bishop
seeking a deeper understanding of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. In so far as the Pope chooses to participate in
such inquiries alongside his brother Bishops, he is exercising the third charism under the Sacred Magisterium,
as are the other Bishops. Nevertheless, when the Pope participates in the exercise of the third charism with the
other Bishops, the Pope must also exercise the second charism, by presiding over the use of the third charism
by the other Bishops, in order for a new definition, or a deeper understanding of a previous teaching, to fall
under the infallible Sacred Magisterium. Without a contemporary use of the second charism, the third charism
can only continue to teach and reaffirm prior teachings of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, teachings which
were previously confirmed by the Roman Pontiff.
When the Bishops of the world, at the Second Vatican Council, discussed and decided upon questions of
faith and morals, under the guidance, governance, and final authority of the Pope, they were exercising the
third charism under the Sacred Magisterium, but the Pope was exercising both the second and third charisms.
The Pope was exercising the third charism by participating in the Second Vatican Council as a fellow Bishop,
and he exercised the second charism by authoritatively guiding and governing the Council and by giving his
official approval to its decisions.
When Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, he was exercising the second charism of the
Sacred Magisterium by summoning the Bishops and requiring them to decide on questions of faith and morals.
Thus, it was truly the Holy Spirit who, through the charism given to the Pope under the gift of the Sacred
Magisterium, summoned the Bishops to the Second Vatican Council. Pope John XXIII even stated plainly
that he called the Second Vatican Council in response to the prompting and guidance of the Holy Spirit.111
When Pope Paul VI gave his official approval to the documents and teachings of the Second Vatican
Council, he was exercising the second charism of the Sacred Magisterium. He used his ability and authority,
under the second charism of the Sacred Magisterium, which is given solely to the Pope by the Holy Spirit, to
authoritatively guide and govern the Bishops at the Second Vatican Council, and to choose whether or not to
approve of some or all of the decisions on faith and morals found in the documents of that Council.
Of course, not every paragraph of the documents of the Council teaches from the Sacred Deposit of Faith on
faith and morals, so not every paragraph contains infallible doctrine taught by the Sacred Magisterium. Some
portions of the documents of Vatican II contain decisions on practical matters of organization and procedure.
Some commentators say that there are no infallible teachings in the documents of Vatican II. Previous
Councils often specified infallible teachings by calling them “Canons,” and by attaching an excommunication,
(“anathema sit”) to those who believe to the contrary. But this method of specifying an infallible teaching is
not essential to the criteria for the infallible teaching of an Ecumenical Council. For example, Second Vatican
Council taught infallibly on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.112
The Pope also exercises the second charism of the Sacred Magisterium, whenever he authoritatively guides
and governs the other Bishops, dispersed through the world, as they together teach the universal Church the
teachings of faith and morals found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Thus, whenever the Bishops exercise
the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, the Pope can exercise the second charism by authoritatively
guiding and governing the other Bishops in their exercise of the third charism.
When Pope Pius IX defined Church doctrine on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, in the
Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, he was exercising the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium.113 When
Pope Pius XII defined Church doctrine on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, in the Apostolic Constitution
Munificentissimus Deus, he was exercising the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium. 114 There are other
examples of the Pope’s use of the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium (see below).
Infallible Versus Fallible
When the Pope and the Bishops seek a new, deeper understanding of the truths found within the Sacred
Deposit of Faith, the result is infallible, but the process is fallible. As the Pope and the Bishops discuss what
86
the correct understanding of doctrine should be, they individually (including the Pope) might express opinions
which are in error, but their final decision on doctrine found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith is infallible.
Even if it were ever to occur that most of the Bishops, or even the Pope himself, personally held an incorrect
theological opinion, yet when they reach their final decision on Church doctrine, they will certainly decide
correctly. The Pope and the Bishops have the gift of the Holy Spirit to decide upon the truths found within the
Sacred Deposit of Faith with infallible results. But the process leading up to an infallible decision on Church
doctrine can involve some missteps and some incorrect opinions.
Similarly, when Sacred Scripture was being written, the process was fallible, but the result was infallible.
The fallible and sinful writers of the Gospels may have gone through a number of fallible rough drafts, and
may have drawn upon fallible source material (written and oral). Yet, by the infallible action of the Holy
Spirit, the result of such a process was the infallible Gospels of Sacred Scripture. The same is true for all the
books of both the Old and New Testaments.
A word of caution is called for on this point of theology. When the Pope and the Bishops together, or the
Pope by his sole authority, issues a final decision on Church doctrine, such decision is not part of the fallible
process, but rather a part of the infallible teaching of the Sacred Magisterium. No one can correctly claim that
a decision of the Sacred Magisterium on Church doctrine is part of a fallible process that will one day result in
the opposite teaching, or in a substantially different teaching, being decided upon and taught by the Church.
A final decision of the Sacred Magisterium, on doctrine found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, is itself
infallible (see criteria below). However, not every word or sentence within a document, which expresses an
infallible teaching, is infallible. Documents of the Church which teach infallibly from the Sacred Deposit of
Faith differ significantly from the infallible Deposit of Faith itself. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is completely
infallible, without exception, and is the perfect expression of the Will of God, containing all those things and
only those things that God wills.115 However, those documents of the Church, which contain the infallible
decisions of the Sacred Magisterium on the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, are only infallible
in their decisions on doctrine; these documents are not entirely infallible in every word and sentence, nor are
they infallible in every remark or example used to support, or to lead up to, the infallible decision of the Sacred
Magisterium on Church doctrine.
The decision of the Sacred Magisterium, on the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, is infallible.
However, the process leading up to that decision is fallible, and any statements which support or accompany
such a decision, but which are not a part of the decision on doctrine itself, are also fallible. On the other hand,
the portions of such documents which are fallible are not necessarily in error. The vast majority of the fallible
portions of such documents are entirely correct, but, since they do not contain final decisions of the Sacred
Magisterium on doctrine found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, they are not, strictly speaking, infallible.
An example of such a fallible and incorrect statement is found in the Papal Encyclical Redemptoris Mater,
(Mother of the Redeemer): “In fact, even though it is not possible to establish an exact chronological point for
identifying the date of Mary’s birth….” 116 That statement from Redemptoris Mater is false. The date of Mary’s
birth is known and several chronological points have been clearly established which allow us to identify the
date of Mary’s birth. Mary was born August 5 in 30 B.C. The chronological points which allow us to
determine that date include the date of the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem, the date of the Immaculate
Virgin Conception, the date of the Birth of Christ, and the dates for the Ministry of Christ. See my book,
Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary, for details on this chronology. 117
Interestingly, the second half of that same sentence is a completely true statement: “…the Church has
constantly been aware that Mary appeared on the horizon of salvation history before Christ.”118 Thus, that one
sentence from a Papal Encyclical contains first a false statement followed by a true statement. But the initial
false statement is not on the subject of faith or morals, rather it is a false statement about chronology, and does
not refer to any teaching found implicitly or explicitly in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. On the other hand, the
subsequent true statement is on the subject of Faith, specifically, on Church teaching about the Virgin Mary’s
role in our salvation by Christ, which clearly is found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
87
Criteria for the First Charism of Papal Infallibility
The First Vatican Council explicitly taught and clearly defined the charism of infallibility given to the Pope.
“This charism of truth and of a faith that never fails was, therefore, conferred by God on Peter and his
successors in this chair; so that they may administer their high office for the salvation of all….”119 The term
ex cathedra, (literally, “from the chair”) refers to the Pope’s official role as the successor to Saint Peter, the
leader of the Apostles and the Rock on which Christ founded His Church (Mt 16:18-19).
“And so, adhering faithfully to the tradition known since the beginning of the Christian faith, for the
glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and for the salvation of Christian
peoples, with the approval of the sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma
that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of his office as
shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines
that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole Church, he possesses through
the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter that infallibility with which the divine
Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and
that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, not from the consent of
the Church.” 120
The teaching of the First Vatican Council on Papal Infallibility can be conveniently summed up with a list of
criteria that a teaching must meet in order to obtain “that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed
His Church to be endowed….” 121
1. “the Roman Pontiff”

2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church” 122
Note that the First Vatican Council uses the phrase ex cathedra in such a way as to include criteria 2 – 5
under that one phrase. After the term ex cathedra, an explanation of the term, beginning with “that is…,” lists
the four criteria (2 – 5 above) which constitute the term. More recent use of the term ex cathedra has narrowed
its meaning to criterion 2 only, that is, when the Pope speaks in his official role as successor to the Apostle
Peter. The other criteria, formerly included under the meaning of ex cathedra, are then listed separately. This
narrowing of the term ex cathedra does not detract from the infallible definition of Papal Infallibility given by
the First Vatican Council, since all of the criteria are still included in the definition. The Second Vatican
Council’s description of Papal Infallibility omits the phrase ex cathedra, (although that phrase is used earlier in
the same document). The Second Vatican Council’s description of Papal Infallibility instead lists each of the
criteria, which formerly were included under the one term ex cathedra, separately.123
The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, reaffirmed and
clarified the teaching of the First Vatican Council. The wording used is slightly different, but the meaning is
the same:
“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining
doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends, which must be
religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff,
the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and
teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a
doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of
the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they
allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as
88
a private person, but, as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of
infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of
Catholic faith.” 124
This wording of the same doctrine can also be written out as a list of criteria:

2. “in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms
his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
3. “by a definitive act, he proclaims”
4. “a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals,
extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity
with” 125
Most commentators have numbered four criteria, but, for their first criterion, they have that the Roman
Pontiff must be speaking ex cathedra (in the narrower sense). This criterion is really two separate criteria. The
first criterion tells us who (the Roman Pontiff), and the second criterion tells us what he is doing, (speaking
ex cathedra). This distinction becomes necessary when examining the criteria for the third charism. The third
charism involves the Bishops as well as the Pope, not the Pope alone, as in the first charism. Thus, it is
necessary to list who as a separate criterion.
The meaning of the five criteria of the first charism is clear. First, only the Pope can, by his sole ability and
authority, issue an infallible statement under the Sacred Magisterium. No other Bishop, nor any Cardinal or
Prelate or Prefect or Patriarch or other Church leader of any rank whatsoever, can teach infallibly under the
Sacred Magisterium by his sole authority. No group of Bishops, no matter how numerous, can teach infallibly
under the Sacred Magisterium by their sole authority without the Roman Pontiff. Even the teachings of
Ecumenical Councils, under the second form of the third charism, must necessarily be approved by the Roman
Pontiff. And teachings of the Bishops under the first form of the third charism must be taught, not only in
union with the other Bishops, but also in agreement with the teaching of the Pope. The Congregations,
Commissions, and various other departments within the Holy See cannot teach infallibly under the Sacred
Magisterium, even though they function in service to, and under the authority of, the Pope.
Second, the Pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is, he must be acting in his official role as chief priest
and chief teacher of the universal Church. Therefore, we need not look for infallible statements in the Pope’s
personal correspondence, even if he is writing to an individual spiritual or temporal leader. We will not find
such infallible statements in the Pope’s memoirs, or his autobiography, or even his personal writings on topics
of faith and morals; the Pope does not act by virtue of his responsibility and authority as Pope when he writes
such things. Ordinarily, a statement under Papal Infallibility would be found in an official document issued by
the Pope, such as a Papal Bull, or Apostolic Letter, or Encyclical Letter, or Apostolic Constitution, or other
official Papal document. As a sheer possibility, a Pope could define a doctrine under Papal Infallibility without
issuing a written document; he could do so in an official speech addressed to the universal Church. Recall that
Christ Himself did not write down His own teachings; Christ taught verbally and infallibly. Usually, though,
the Pope’s speeches and sermons are for select groups of persons, are not addressed to the universal Church,
and so would not meet the criteria for Papal Infallibility.
Third, the Pope must be issuing a final decision, that is, a definitive statement (often termed a “definition”),
meant to clarify, define, or announce a truth without doubt. The language used must in some way indicate this
definitiveness. For example, Ineffabilis Deus, which defined Church teaching on the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate
Conception, uses the phrase: “We declare, pronounce, and define…” This particular phrase is not necessary;
any phrasing indicating a definitive or final decision on doctrine would suffice.
89
Many official statements made by the Pope are not meant to be definitive proclamations of truth. Such
statements, even though they might be given in his official role, are not infallible. The Popes, in official papal
documents, such as encyclicals, often discuss or comment on theological ideas, comment on the state of
society and of the Church, or mention a theological concept in passing or as an introduction to a particular
point of teaching. For example, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, as he leads up to the
infallible definition of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption to Heaven, Pope Pius XII repeatedly mentions the Virgin
Mary’s death (Dormition) and Resurrection. Yet only the definition of her Assumption falls under Papal
Infallibility. These other statements, about the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Resurrection, fall either under the
Ordinary Magisterium or under the second and third charisms of the Sacred Magisterium.
Fourth, the statement must be “a doctrine of faith or morals.” This same phrase was used by both the First
and Second Vatican Councils. Vatican II expounded on this point by saying that such doctrine “extends as far
as the deposit of revelation extends.” In other words, any teaching of faith or morals, found either explicitly or
implicitly in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, can be taught by the Sacred Magisterium. Of course, the whole moral
law is found either implicitly or explicitly in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. For in the Sacred Deposit of Faith,
we find the words and example of Christ, who was perfect and unerring in following the moral law in all
things. Therefore, concerning morality, the Sacred Deposit of Faith extends as far as the whole moral law.
Consequently, the Pope has the ability and authority to teach infallibly on any and all points of morality
without exception.
Concerning matters of faith, rather than morals, the Sacred Deposit of Faith does not contain every possible
truth about God. For example, the mystery of the Holy Trinity far exceeds the ability of the Sacred Deposit of
Faith to completely express or contain this infinite truth. Neither can such answers be found completely by
means of human reason, for the mysteries of God exceed the capabilities of all human minds put together.
Certainly, the Sacred Deposit of Faith contains clear and true teachings of faith on many mysteries of God and
faith. However, the whole truth is beyond what can be offered by the Sacred Deposit of Faith or understood by
the Body of Christ on earth. Therefore, the Pope can only teach on a matter of faith, if the teaching is found,
explicitly or implicitly, within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. But there may be questions of faith which can only
be answered in Heaven, or only upon the Return of Christ, or whose answers are beyond our understanding.
The fourth criterion means that any teaching of the Sacred Magisterium must be a teaching which is already
present, implicitly or explicitly, within the infallible Sacred Deposit of Faith. The Pope can define, clarify, and
expound upon that teaching, but it must be something already present in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition,
at least implicitly.
Fifth, a doctrine taught under the first charism of Papal Infallibility is one which “must be held by the whole
Church.” 126 This criterion is an integral part of the other criteria. When a teaching is taught by the Pope, in his
official role as teacher of the Church, and is a final decision on truths of faith or morals found within the
Sacred Deposit of Faith, the faithful must necessarily believe the teaching. The faithful must believe all that is
found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Thus, the fifth criterion can be met, even if it is only implied by the
Pope’s statement. The fifth criterion need not be explicitly stated by the Pope. So, for example, the Pope may
explicitly say that all the faithful are required to believe the teaching, but all that is required to meet the fifth
criterion is the clear and necessary implication that all must believe.
An expression of this principle is seen in the wording of the infallible definition of the Virgin Mary’s
Immaculate Conception, found in Ineffabilis Deus: “…is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be
believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”127 Here Pope Pius IX makes an explicit statement under the
fifth criterion, that all the faithful must believe the doctrine. But he also makes it clear that this requirement to
believe proceeds naturally from any definition of a doctrine revealed by God. He states that this doctrine was
revealed by God and, for that reason, all must believe. The wording of the Second Vatican Council teaching
makes the same point: “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in
conformity with.”128 For an example of a statement under the first charism of Papal Infallibility, which meets
the fifth criterion implicitly, see “Papal Infallibility in Unam Sanctum” below. Even so, the fifth criterion is
indispensable, and must be met either implicitly or explicitly, so that the faithful know what they must believe.
90
Things Which Are Not Criteria
The only criteria for a statement to fall under Papal Infallibility are the criteria taught by the First Vatican
Council and reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. These criteria are both necessary and sufficient. No
other criteria whatsoever are in any way necessary or sufficient for such an infallible definition.
“And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly
styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to
him in Blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to
any other judgment.” 129
Vatican II clearly taught that a teaching under Papal Infallibility cannot be reformed or revoked by any
authority whatsoever, not even by an Ecumenical Council or a Pope. Also, an infallible papal teaching
remains the infallible teaching of the Holy Spirit, regardless of how much or how little acceptance it finds
among the faithful and the other Bishops. Even a subsequent Pope cannot reform or revoke a teaching under
Papal Infallibility given by one of his predecessors. Even the particular Pope who issues a particular infallible
papal teaching cannot later reform or revoke that teaching.
An infallible papal teaching does not even need to be confirmed as infallible by subsequent words or actions
of the Pope himself, for such a requirement would add to the criteria established by Vatican I and reaffirmed
by Vatican II. For the same reason, an infallible papal teaching does not need to use a particular phrasing, nor
be worded all in one sentence, nor refer explicitly to Papal Infallibility in its wording. No other criteria that
anyone might invent can be added to the criteria established by the First Vatican Council, no matter how
reasonable or practical it may seem.
The Pope may choose to consult with other Bishops before defining a teaching under Papal Infallibility. The
Pope may choose to wait until there is some degree of understanding among the faithful (“sensus fidelium”)
about a teaching. The Pope may choose to wait until a teaching has been developed further by the prayerful
meditation of Bishops, priests, deacons, religious, theologians, and the faithful in general. But the Pope is not
required, and does not need, to do any of these things, for these things are not part of the criteria.
Who Decides If Criteria Are Met?
If the criteria for infallibility are met, then the statement is infallible. If the criteria for infallibility are met,
then the statement is the infallible teaching of the Most Holy Trinity. If the criteria for infallibility are met, no
other consideration matters at all.
If the criteria for infallibility, under any of the three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium, are not met, the
statement may still be entirely true and correct. Fallible statements are not necessarily false, they merely do not
have the absolute guarantee of inerrancy that infallible statements possess.
In cases where some people say that the criteria are met and some say it was not met, who decides? The
statement is infallible if it meets the criteria, regardless of all other factors. If a statement or teaching meets the
criteria for infallibility, then no one has the ability or authority to declare that the statement is not infallible,
not an Ecumenical Council, nor even the Pope who issued the statement.
Any of the three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium can be used at a later date to reaffirm a previous
infallible pronouncement. For example, Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the infallible teaching of First
Vatican Council on Papal Infallibility. If a teaching under the first charism of Papal Infallibility is not widely
accepted at first, it may reach wider acceptance over time, as the Pope and the Bishops continue to teach and
witness to the truth. A later Ecumenical Council, in union with the Pope, could reaffirm the prior infallible
teaching. A later Pope could repeat the infallible definition under the first charism. Note well, however, that
each and every infallible definition under the first charism, which meets the criteria established by the First
Vatican Council, is infallible in and of itself, and does not require in the least any further affirmations or
actions by any authority whatsoever. Furthermore, no authority whatsoever, in heaven, on earth, or under the
earth, can reform or revoke an infallible papal pronouncement.
In the case where some persons understand that a papal statement falls under the first charism, and some do
not understand, the truth will eventually become clear to all. A statement either meets, or does not meet, the
91
five criteria; it either falls under, or does not fall under, the first charism of Papal Infallibility. The three
charisms of the Sacred Magisterium can be used to reaffirm a previous infallible papal pronouncement, but this
is not required. A subsequent Pope, or the same Pope at a later time, or an Ecumenical Council, can reaffirm a
previous infallible papal pronouncement, but such a subsequent reaffirmation is not necessary. Any statement
which meets the criteria is infallible, irreformable, and irrevocable. Any statement, which meets the criteria for
infallibility, needs no further affirmation or approval from anyone, not even from the same Pope who issued
the statement. Neither the Pope who issued the infallible statement, nor a subsequent Ecumenical Council, has
the authority to change or withdraw an infallible papal pronouncement.
If every Bishop on earth, except the Pope, held one and the same position on a question of faith or morals,
and if the Pope taught a different position using the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium, then the Pope’s
teaching would prevail. Such a situation is unlikely to ever occur, because the Holy Spirit is present
throughout the Church. But, let the Church understand, the Pope’s exercise of the teaching authority of the
Church can prevail over the opinions of every other Bishop on earth. The gift of Sacred Magisterium as it is
given to the Pope is distinct from the participation in the gift of the Sacred Magisterium given to the other
Bishops. The Pope has the fullness of the gift of the Sacred Magisterium, in that he alone possesses all three
charisms. The other Bishops possess only the third charism, which can only be exercised communally, not
individually, and which cannot be exercised, even communally, in isolation from the Roman Pontiff.
Criteria for the Third Charism
The criteria for the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium are basically the same as for the first charism.
The main difference is in the first criterion. The third charism involves the Bishops as a body, as well as the
Pope, not the Pope alone as in the first charism. The criteria for the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium
were described by the Second Vatican Council:
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless
proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still
maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, and
authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as
definitively to be held.”130
This first form of the third charism applies to the Bishops as a body as they daily teach the teaching of Christ in
union with one another, and in union with, and under the authority of, the Pope. But the third charism also
applies to the Bishops as they participate in an Ecumenical Council, with and under the authority of the Pope.
This second form of the third charism was also taught by the Second Vatican Council:
“This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are
teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered
to with the submission of faith.”131
Taking into account both of the above forms of the third charism, the criteria for the third charism of the
Sacred Magisterium can be listed as follows:
1. the bishops and the Pope, either “dispersed though the world” or “gathered together,” in
communion with one another and under the authority of the Pope
2. exercise their ministry to “authentically” teach and “proclaim Christ’s doctrine” (i.e. their office
as “teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church”), including the Pope’s ministry
as leader of the universal Church
3. “are in agreement on one position” (a definitive position or “definition,” in agreement also with
the Pope)
4. “matters of faith and morals” (“extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “definitively to be held” by the universal Church “with the submission of faith”
92
These five criteria are basically the same criteria as for the first charism. One difference, though, is that the first
criterion of the third charism refers, not to the Pope alone, but to the Bishops as a body, with and under the
authority of the Pope. Notice that the third charism must be exercised while “maintaining the bond of
communion…with the Successor of Peter.”132 The Bishops authentically exercise the third charism only under
the authoritative guidance and governance of the Pope, which is the second charism. This is true for
Ecumenical Councils as well as the daily witness and teaching of the Bishops dispersed through the world.
The judgment of an Ecumenical Council only falls under the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, if
and when the Pope gives his official approval. The worldwide witness of the Bishops, when they teach on faith
and morals, only falls under the third charism when their “agreement on one position as definitively to be
held” is also in agreement with the official position of the Roman Pontiff.
Another difference between the first and third charisms is that the third criterion of the third charism can
refer either to one specific statement or document by an Ecumenical Council, or to the continual daily witness
and teaching of the Bishops dispersed though the world. An Ecumenical Council, under the authoritative
guidance and governance of the Pope, can issue a statement or document defining a judgment on faith or
morals, using the third charism. The Pope can issue a statement or document defining a judgment on faith or
morals, using the first charism. In both cases, the use of infallibility results in a statement or document
describing a definitive position on a matter of faith or morals. But the third charism can also be expressed by
the daily witness of the Bishops dispersed though the world, as long as they are in agreement with the Pope on
the same matter. When the third charism is expressed in this way, there might not be one specific statement or
document to which one can refer.
Criteria for the Second Charism
The second charism of the Sacred Magisterium was described by the Second Vatican Council.
“The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of bishops, when that body
exercises the supreme magisterium with the Successor of Peter.” 133
“But when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment,
they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in
conformity with…” 134
The first statement teaches that the body of Bishops can never exercise the third charism of the infallible
Sacred Magisterium without the Pope. The second statement refers to both the use of the infallible Sacred
Magisterium by the Pope alone and its use by the body of Bishops with the Pope. In no case whatsoever, can
the body of Bishops exercise the gift of the Sacred Magisterium apart from the authoritative guidance and
governance of the Pope. Since the Bishops cannot define a teaching infallibly apart from the Pope, the Pope
must have a special charism, different from the first and third charisms, to authoritatively guide and govern the
body of Bishops in their exercise of the third charism of the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
The criteria for the Pope’s use of the second charism can be listed as follows:

2. exercising his office as “Successor of Peter” (i.e. “the head of the college of bishops” 135)
3. “the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment” (i.e. the Pope authoritatively guides
and governs the body of bishops as they seek, discover, and together with him define a judgment.
This role is clearly authoritative, and is neither merely advisory nor merely participatory, since it
proceeds from the Roman Pontiff’s role as the “Successor of Peter” and “the head of the college of
bishops”)
4. “in accordance with revelation itself”
5. “which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with”
The criteria for the second charism of the Sacred Magisterium are basically the same as for the first charism.
The main difference is in the third criterion. The second charism belongs solely to, and is exercised solely by,
93
the Roman Pontiff. Thus, the first criterion is the same in the first and second charisms. However, under the
third criterion of the second charism, the Pope authoritatively guides and governs the body of Bishops when
they search for and proclaim the truths of faith and morals found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Thus, the
second charism involves the relationship between the body of Bishops and the Pope, within their use of the
Sacred Magisterium. Nevertheless, when the Pope exercises this second charism, the body of Bishops are
merely exercising the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium. The Pope can exercise this second charism
whenever the body of Bishops are exercising the third charism, either in a gathering of Bishops, (such as an
Ecumenical Council), or in the daily witness and teaching of the Bishops dispersed through the world. In fact,
the use of the third charism by the body of Bishops is only valid is so far as they exercise the third charism
under the authoritative guidance and governance of the Pope, that is, under the Pope’s use of the second
charism.
Papal Infallibility in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, “On Reserving Priestly Ordination To Men
Alone,” affirms the teaching of Christ that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood.
Does this affirmation fall under Papal Infallibility? One of the last statements in the Letter reads as follows:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a
matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of
confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to
confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the
Church’s faithful.”136
Does this statement meet all five criteria of the first charism, as defined by the First and Second Vatican
Councils? The first criterion is that the statement come from the Roman Pontiff himself, not from any other
Bishop or group of Bishops, and not from any of the other offices or congregations within the Holy See. The
above statement was issued by Pope John Paul II in an Apostolic Letter, so the first criterion is met.
The second criterion is that the Pope be speaking ex cathedra, or, as the Second Vatican Council termed it:
“in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren
in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32)….”137 In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II specifically states that he is
speaking “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32).” The wording he chooses is
nearly a quote from the Second Vatican Council definition of Papal Infallibility and he cites the same Scripture
passage. The Pope is clearly saying that he is speaking by virtue of his role as Shepherd of the Church.
Therefore, the second criterion, that the Pope be speaking ex cathedra, is met.
The third criterion requires that the Pope be expressing a final decision or a definitive teaching: “he defines”
(Vatican I), or, “by a definitive act, he proclaims” (Vatican II). The wording used by Pope John Paul II clearly
indicates such an authoritative definition: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed….” Removing
all doubt is certainly definitive. In addition, the Pope uses the phrase, “I declare,” which gives the statement
the form of a proclamation or a definitive assertion, and he even uses the word, “definitively,” which together
nearly mirrors the Vatican II phrasing: “by a definitive act, he proclaims.” The third criterion is met by this
document.
The fourth criterion is that is that the teaching of the Pope must be on the subject of faith or morals found,
implicitly or explicitly, within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. In the statement quoted above, the Pope states that
the subject is “a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself.” The divine constitution of the
Church is certainly a matter of Faith. Furthermore, earlier in the same Letter, the Pope specifically states that
this teaching is based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. First, in quoting Pope Paul VI, he cites both
Sacred Scripture and “the constant practice of the Church,” and he uses the phrase “Apostolic Tradition.”138
He reviews examples from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles which contain this teaching. 139 And he
again refers to Tradition near the end of the Letter: “the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to
men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church….” 140 Clearly, the Pope is
teaching on a subject of Faith found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, so the fourth criterion is met.141
94
The fifth criterion is that the Pope must be defining a teaching, which “must be held by the universal
Church,” 142 in other words, that he is requiring all the faithful to believe a teaching because it is, “in
accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”143 The Pope’s
Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, explicitly requires belief by all the faithful: “…I declare that the Church
has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively
held by all the Church's faithful.” 144 Since this statement clearly does require belief by all the faithful, the fifth
and final criterion is met.
All five criteria for Papal Infallibility are met by the declaration on priestly ordination found in the Apostolic
Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Therefore, the declaration falls under Papal Infallibility and is, without doubt, the
Infallible Teaching of Christ. This teaching on priestly ordination is an example of the use of the first charism
of the Sacred Magisterium.
Priestly Ordination
The wording of the infallible papal statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is somewhat surprising: “the Church
has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women….”145 This statement does not say that
women can never be ordained, nor does it say that women can never be ordained to the priesthood. Rather,
the statement teaches that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. Women
cannot be validly or licitly ordained as priests, because Christ did not give the Church the authority to ordain
women to the priesthood. Therefore, between Christ’s Ascension and Christ’s Return, women cannot be
ordained as priests. However, it is an open question as to whether or not women could be ordained, in some
capacity, (perhaps as ordained deacons,) after the Return of Christ. 146
The Church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. Ordination to the Episcopate is
a higher level of ordination than ordination to the priesthood. Therefore, the Church does not have the
authority to ordain women to the Episcopate. The Church cannot ordain women as priests or Bishops.
Each and every Cardinal should be a Bishop of the Church. Cardinals are charged with the task of choosing
the next Pope, and this role benefits greatly from the gift of the Holy Spirit given at Episcopal ordination. Also,
the role of Cardinal generally includes some degree of authority over Bishops. A priest or layperson should not
be given authority over a Bishop. Therefore, Cardinals should always be ordained to the Episcopate. In the
past, some priests or laymen have occasionally been appointed as Cardinals, but these persons did not have the
role of overseeing Bishops. The role of Cardinal should not be an honorary title, but a functional role in the
Church. That role requires that Cardinals be given Episcopal ordination. Since the Church cannot ordain
women as Bishops, a woman should not have the role of Cardinal in the Church.
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. The Pope is both a Bishop and the leader of the Bishops. Ordination to the
Episcopate is a necessary condition for a valid election of a Pope. Since the Church cannot ordain women as
Bishops, a woman cannot be Pope. 147
If anyone would ever claim to have ordained a woman as priest or bishop, such an ‘ordination’ would be
both invalid and illicit. It is invalid, meaning that the woman is not ordained in any sense of the word, neither
in God’s eyes, nor in the eyes of the Church, nor would she in truth have any of the priestly faculties, such as
the ability to consecrate the Eucharist or to forgive sins. It is also illicit, meaning that it is a sin for anyone to
attempt to ordain a woman to the priesthood or to the Episcopate, and a sin for any woman to claim that she
has been ordained as priest or as Bishop.
The Anglican Church is, in many ways, close to the Catholic Church in belief and in practice. However, the
ordination of women as priests and bishops in the Anglican Church must be viewed by the Catholic Church as
completely invalid and illicit. Since the ordination of women as bishops is invalid, a woman cannot confer
ordination on anyone, man or woman. Any man claiming to have been ordained by a woman bishop is
neither validly nor licitly ordained. Women cannot confer ordination on anyone, nor can they consecrate the
Eucharist, nor can they forgive sins in Confession, nor can they take any other action or role which is reserved
solely to priests or to Bishops (cf. Rev 2:20-22).
95
Reply To Ratzinger
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated, in a public
letter dated October 28, 1995, that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is from the Sacred Deposit of Faith:
“founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church.” 148 He
also states that this teaching is “explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church,” and that “all members of
the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein.” 149 Thus, the Prefect agrees that
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis meets those two criteria (numbered 4 and 5 above) for a teaching under Papal Infallibility.
The first criterion, that the infallible statement be issued only by the Roman Pontiff, is also obviously met.
However, in the same letter, Cardinal Ratzinger states his opinion that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not fall
under Papal Infallibility: “In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible,
witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”150 The
“Responsum ad Dubium” to which the Prefect’s letter refers, was approved and authorized by the Pope. But
the Responsum only reaffirms that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis belongs to the Sacred Deposit of Faith;
it does not state explicitly whether or not the teaching falls under Papal Infallibility.
Interestingly, the Prefect, in his commentary after the “Responsum ad Dubium,” affirms the remaining two
criteria for a teaching to fall under Papal Infallibility. Ratzinger refers to the ex cathedra requirement: “the
Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)….”151 This wording
mirrors that found in the Vatican II teaching on the ex cathedra requirement for Papal Infallibility, including
citing the same Scripture passage.152 Ratzinger also calls the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, “a formal
declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all….”153 The Prefect’s statement
has the same basic meaning as the Vatican II wording: “by a definitive act, he proclaims….”154 Thus, the third
criterion for a statement under Papal Infallibility is also met.
Yet, in his letter following the “Responsum ad Dubium,” the Prefect maintains that the teaching does not
fall under Papal Infallibility. He is clearly mistaken, since, in the Responsum and in the letter that
accompanied it, his own words point out each of the criteria needed for a declaration under Papal Infallibility.
His misunderstanding seems to come from the fact that the Pope was reaffirming a prior teaching of the
Church. But all teachings of the Sacred Magisterium, including those given under the first charism of Papal
Infallibility, are simply restatements or clarifications of prior teaching always present within the Sacred
Deposit of Faith. The fact that a teaching has been previously taught by the Church does not prevent that
teaching from being taught and reaffirmed under Papal Infallibility.
All Three Charisms Used in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
In the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Pope exercises all three charisms of infallibility under the Sacred
Magisterium. When the Pope joins with the other Bishops to teach the teaching of Christ on faith and morals
found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, he exercises the same participation in the infallible Sacred
Magisterium as any Bishop, which is the third charism of the infallible teaching authority of the Church,
explicitly taught by Second Vatican Council.155 In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Pope “witnesses to the infallibility
of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”156 This quote from Cardinal Ratzinger is a
succinct description of the third charism.
Second, the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is addressed to, “The Bishops of the Catholic Church,” and opens with the
words, “Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate.” Therefore, in this Apostolic Letter, the Pope also exercises the
second charism of Papal Infallibility, namely, to authoritatively guide and govern the other Bishops in their
belief, understanding, and teaching of the truths found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith within their participation
in the Sacred Magisterium.
Third, one of the final statements in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clearly meets all the criteria for the first charism of
Papal Infallibility. Therefore, the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an act of the Ordinary
Magisterium, but rather an example of the Pope’s use of all three charisms of infallibility given to him by the
Holy Spirit within the gift to the Church of the Sacred Magisterium.
96
Knowledge and Intent in Papal Infallibility
In the “Address of the Holy Father to the German Bishops on the Occasion of Their Ad Limina Visit”
(November 20, 1999), Pope John Paul II stated that his declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis falls under that
character of infallibility whereby the Bishops dispersed through the world witness to the same truth on a
matter of faith or morals.
“Precisely for this reason, some time ago, by virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I
recalled ‘that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and
that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful’ (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 4).
As the authentic Pastors of your Dioceses, you have the duty to reject contrary opinions put
forward by individuals or organizations and to encourage that open and clear dialogue in truth and
love which Mother Church must foster regarding the future of her daughters. Do not hesitate, then,
to emphasize that the Magisterium of the Church has taken this decision not as an act of her own
power, but in the knowledge of her duty to obey the will of the Lord of the Church herself.
Therefore, the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men possesses, by virtue of the Church's
ordinary and universal Magisterium, that character of infallibility which Lumen Gentium speaks of
and to which I gave juridical form in the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem: When the individual
Bishops, ‘even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving among themselves and with
Peter's Successor the bond of communion, agree in their authoritative teaching on matters of faith
and morals that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely, they infallibly
proclaim the doctrine of Christ’ (Lumen Gentium, n. 25; cf. Ad tuendam fidem, n. 3).” 157
Of course, I agree that this doctrine has been taught by the Church under the third charism of the infallible
Sacred Magisterium (see above, “All Three Charisms Used in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”). And clearly, the Pope
has also used the second charism, by authoritatively guiding and governing the other Bishops in their use of
the third charism, as they continue their witness and teaching of the truth that the Church has no authority to
ordain women to the priesthood.
Pope John Paul II did not seem to know, however, that he was also using the first charism of the Sacred
Magisterium, commonly called “papal infallibility,” to define this doctrine. Nevertheless, since the statement
in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clearly meets all 5 criteria, that statement was infallibly defined. The 5 criteria for an
infallible papal teaching, established by the First Vatican Council and reaffirmed by the Second Vatican
Council, do not include that the Pope must know or intend to exercise the power of Papal Infallibility.
Therefore, the Pope can declare a teaching under the first charism of Papal Infallibility, even if he does not
know or intend that the teaching proceed from Papal Infallibility.
The First Vatican Council explicitly taught that this charism of Papal Infallibility began with Saint Peter the
Apostle. “This charism of truth and of a faith that never fails was, therefore, conferred by God on Peter and
his successors in this chair; so that they may administer their high office for the salvation of all….”158 Yet
Vatican I was the first time that this doctrine of Papal Infallibility was formally defined. In other words, it was
the first time that the requirements (the 5 criteria) were explicitly written out, and the first time (as far as I
know) that the faithful were explicitly ordered to believe the doctrine. 159 Nevertheless, all the Popes, from Saint
Peter on, have possessed and could exercise Papal Infallibility. Therefore, the Popes from Saint Peter to Pius
IX (i.e. those prior to Vatican I) each had the ability to use Papal Infallibility, even though they would not
have been able to explicitly know or intend the use of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Since they could
exercise this ability without explicit knowledge or intention, such knowledge and intention are not essential
criteria for a teaching to be defined under Papal Infallibility. Of course, the Popes since Vatican I also had the
power of Papal Infallibility, and they could each exercise that power with or without the explicit realization
that they were acting under the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
On the other hand, any Pope who exercises the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium, must know and
intend each of the criteria, even if he does not realize that each is a criterion of Papal Infallibility and that these
criteria together constitute a definition under Papal Infallibility. Again, knowledge and intent for each criterion
is necessary, all other considerations outside of the criteria established by Vatican I are irrelevant. Whether or
not Pope John Paul II knew or intended that his statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would fall under Papal
97
Infallibility is irrelevant because that particular knowledge and intention is not one of the criteria defined by
Vatican I.
Pope John Paul II certainly knew and intended to speak ex cathedra (in the narrower sense), since he issued
the statement within an Apostolic Letter and used nearly the same phrasing as used in Lumen Gentium to refer
to an ex cathedra teaching: “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32).”160 He certainly
knew and intended that his statement be a final decision (“by a definitive act, he proclaims”), 161 since he used
the words: “in order that all doubt may be removed…I declare….” 162 He certainly also knew and intended to
speak about a matter of faith which must be believed by the universal Church: “…regarding a matter of great
importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself…and that this judgment is to be
definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”163 Therefore, he did know and intend each of the individual
criteria and so this statement does constitute a use of the first charism of Papal Infallibility.
Pope John Paul II apparently did not realize that this statement constituted a use of the first charism of
Papal Infallibility, (i.e. the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium), because the same teaching was already
infallibly defined under the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium. However, there is nothing to prevent a
doctrine, infallibly defined under one charism, from being infallibly defined under another charism.
The Pope does not have to know and intend that his statement be infallible by reason of the first charism of
the infallible teaching authority given to the Pope. However, the Pope must know and intend that the teaching
in his statement be the infallible teaching of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and this requirement is, of course,
part of the criteria established by Vatican I and II. (The fourth criterion is that the teaching be on the subject of
faith or morals found within the infallible Deposit of Faith.) The wording of Lumen Gentium makes this clear:
“by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals….” 164 In order for the Pope to proclaim such a
doctrine definitively, he must certainly know and intend that his teaching be a part of the infallible teaching of
Christ found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. On the other hand, he does not need to know and intend that his
teaching specifically fall under the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, (i.e. the first charism), or under one charism
rather than another, or under any of the three charisms.
Thus, all that has ever been needed, for any Pope to exercise this first charism of Papal Infallibility, is for the
Pope to know and intend each of the five criteria. Before Vatican I, a Pope could exercise this first charism of
the Sacred Magisterium simply by knowing and intending each of the criteria, later defined explicitly by the
First Vatican Council. After Vatican I, if any Pope ever makes a statement which meets the five criteria for the
first charism, even if he himself does not realize that it meets all those criteria and does not intend to make a
statement under Papal Infallibility, the statement is nevertheless infallible, irreformable, and irrevocable. The
only criteria for a teaching to be the infallible teaching of Christ given to the Church through the Holy Spirit
under the gift of the first charism of the infallible Sacred Magisterium are those criteria declared by the First
Vatican Council and reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. Neither of those two great Councils has ever
said a word to indicate that the Pope must know he is teaching infallibly or that he must intend to teach
infallibly. The complete definition of the first charism of Papal Infallibility, given in its entirety by each of
those Councils, does not include a requirement for the Pope to know or intend that he be teaching under Papal
Infallibility. The Pope must know and intend that the teaching come from the infallible Sacred Deposit of
Faith, but he does not have to know or intend that he be exercising the gift of infallibility given to him under
the Sacred Magisterium.
The writers of Sacred Scripture did not know or intend that their writings be infallible, and yet they are.
However, they did know and intend to write the truth about Christ, and so they did. They were able to write
the truth infallibly because their work was truly a work of the Holy Spirit. In the same way, even if Pope John
Paul II did not know or intend to teach infallibly in his statement within Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the statement
meets the criteria for Papal Infallibility, and so, by the power and gift of the unsearchable Holy Spirit of God,
that statement is nevertheless infallible, irreformable, and irrevocable.
98
Papal Infallibility in Unam Sanctum
Pope Boniface VIII issued a Papal Bull, in A.D. 1302, called Unam Sanctum. This document defends the
spiritual authority of the Church. The last statement in the document is an example of the use of Papal
Infallibility prior to its formal definition at Vatican I:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that
every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” 165
This statement was issued by the Pope himself, so it meets the first criterion for a statement under the first
charism of Papal Infallibility. The statement is contained in a Papal Bull and uses the expression “we declare,
we proclaim, we define,” which is very similar to the “We declare, pronounce, and define…” of Ineffabilis
Deus. This type of expression indicates that the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, and so the second criterion is met.
The third criterion is met by the same expression. In particular, the “we define” part of the expression
indicates a final decision on doctrine. The fourth criterion is met because anything “absolutely necessary for
salvation” must necessarily be part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, whose aim is to effect our salvation. The
Sacred Deposit of Faith cannot lack anything which is “absolutely necessary for salvation.” Therefore, this
papal statement certainly presents a teaching on the subject of faith or morals.
The fifth criterion is met implicitly. The Pope does not explicitly state that all must believe. However, since
this teaching is a doctrine of faith concerning what is “absolutely necessary for salvation,” there is a clear and
necessary implication that all must believe.
Since all five criteria are met, this teaching is an infallible teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Therefore,
it is the infallible teaching of the Sacred Deposit of Faith that the role of the Roman Pontiff is an essential part
of God's plan for the salvation for all. In other words, the Church, and the human race as a whole, cannot do
just as well without a Pope. The Pope's role is necessary and essential to God's plan for our salvation.
This infallible teaching does not say that only those who believe in the authority of the Pope can be saved.
The statement does not use the phrase ‘belief in…is absolutely necessary for salvation.’ The teaching does not
say that only those individuals who are willingly subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff will be saved.
Therefore, non-Catholics can be saved, including persons who adhere to other religions or to no religion. The
Pope was not saying that non-Catholics cannot be saved.
Similarly, we could say that Baptism and the Eucharist and Confession are a necessary part of God's plan
for our salvation. Some persons get into Heaven without these things, but these things are essential
nonetheless. Again, some people are saved even though they do not believe in God. But belief in God is
certainly a necessary part of God's plan for salvation.
Infallibility in Evangelium Vitae
The Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, contains an example of the use of the second
and third charisms of the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in
communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing
of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten
law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by
Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and
universal Magisterium.”166
The above statement meets the criteria for the second form of the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, yet
without an Ecumenical Council. The second form of the third charism can be exercised by any gathering of
Bishops, which is both representative of the universal Church and under the authoritative guidance and
governance of the Pope. Earlier in Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II describes the participation of the
Bishops in arriving at this particular expression of doctrine.
99
“The Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals held in Rome on 4-7 April 1991 was devoted to the
problem of the threats to human life in our day. After a thorough and detailed discussion of the
problem and of the challenges it poses to the entire human family and in particular to the Christian
community, the Cardinals unanimously asked me to reaffirm with the authority of the Successor of
Peter the value of human life and its inviolability, in the light of present circumstances and attacks
threatening it today.” 167
The Cardinals affirmed this teaching and asked the Pope to affirm this teaching authoritatively. In response,
the Pope then consulted with the other Bishops.
“In response to this request, at Pentecost in 1991 I wrote a personal letter to each of my Brother
Bishops asking them, in the spirit of episcopal collegiality, to offer me their cooperation in drawing
up a specific document. I am deeply grateful to all the Bishops who replied and provided me with
valuable facts, suggestions and proposals. In so doing they bore witness to their unanimous desire to
share in the doctrinal and pastoral mission of the Church with regard to the Gospel of life.”168
In this way, by means of a geographic gathering of Bishops at the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals and
also by means of a worldwide communication-gathering of the Bishops dispersed through the world, the Pope
and the Bishops arrived at this infallible statement that “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human
being is always gravely immoral.”169
The Pope refers to this Encyclical as “the fruit of the cooperation of the Episcopate of every country of the
world….”170 He also states that this teaching is issued “by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and
his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church….”171 Thus, this teaching falls
under the second and third charisms of the Sacred Magisterium. The Pope authoritatively guided and
governed the Cardinals at the Extraordinary Consistory, when they discussed this teaching of the Sacred
Deposit of Faith, and the other Bishops, when they communicated though dispersed through the world. This
teaching is an infallible teaching under the second and third charisms of the Sacred Magisterium.
All five criteria for a teaching under the second form of the third charism are met by this Encyclical. First,
the statement quoted above was issued by the Pope “in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic
Church.” 172 Pope John Paul II not only met with a group of Bishops representative of the universal Church (at
the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals), but also communicated with the other Bishops around the world,
in order to arrive at this statement of doctrine.
Second, the Pope and the Bishops issued this teaching as part of their ministry of leading and teaching the
Church: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in
communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church….” 173 The Pope also plainly states that the Bishops were
exercising their official role as leaders and teachers of the Church: “In doing so they bore witness to their
unanimous desire to share in the doctrinal and pastoral mission of the Church with regard to the Gospel of
life.”174 Third, the statement indicates it is a definitive teaching by invoking the Pope’s authority as the
Successor of Peter and the authority of the moral law, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the universal
Magisterium.
Fourth, the statement clearly teaches on the subject of morals, since it teaches about the immorality of the
direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. The fifth criterion proceeds from a clear and
necessary implication that all must believe, since this doctrine is “based upon that unwritten law which man,
in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted
by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”175 This teaching comes
from divine revelation, “which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with….” 176 All five criteria are
met, therefore this teaching is the infallible teaching of the Most Holy Trinity.
This infallible teaching does not fall under the first charism. The teaching was issued by the Pope in an
Encyclical Letter, which would seem to place it under the first charism. However, the Pope specifically states
in the Encyclical that this teaching and its particular expression proceeded from “a thorough and detailed
discussion” with the Cardinals and from the cooperation of the Bishops “in drawing up a specific
document.”177 Since the teaching was arrived at by the Bishops and the Pope, as they together sought to
100
understand and express the truths of faith and morals found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, this infallible
teaching falls under the second and third charisms, not the first.
This process for arriving at a definitive expression of doctrine found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith is
essentially the same process as is used by an Ecumenical Council. Thus, an Ecumenical Council is not the
only way for the Bishops and the Pope to arrive at a definitive and infallible expression of doctrine. The second
form of the third charism can be exercised without an Ecumenical Council, either by means of another type of
gathering of Bishops representative of the universal Church, or by means of a communication-gathering of the
Bishops dispersed through the world, or both.
Infallibility in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council
Previous Ecumenical Councils often used certain wording to indicate an infallible decision on doctrine.
They labeled particular teachings with the word “Canon,” or issued an anathema against those who refuse to
believe particular teachings, or they stated that one teaching is false because it contradicts Scripture, whereas
another teaching is found in Scripture. The Council of Trent used the phrase “let him be anathema,” to
condemn certain false teachings on faith or morals. But this phrase is not essential to an infallible teaching of
an Ecumenical Council. The criteria for infallibility do not include using a particular wording. The Council of
Orange indicated infallible teachings using wording such as: “If anyone denies...he is deceived by the error of
Pelagius and contradicts the scripture....” and “If anyone asserts...he does injustice to God and contradicts the
Apostle....” and “If anyone says that...he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same
thing....” and “If anyone maintains that...he resists the Holy Spirit himself....” and also “If anyone says that...it
is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles....”
From these examples, we can see that a variety of different wordings have been used by past Ecumenical
Councils to indicate an infallible teaching. Sometimes those teachings are listed as numbered Canons.
Sometimes an anathema is attached to the teaching. But, in some of the infallible teachings, there is no
anathema and no particular formula for the wording. For example, the Council of Orange issued several
Canons on grace and freewill by directly stating true teachings, rather than by condemning the opposite false
teachings. For example, Canon 12: “Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be
by his gift, and not by our own deserving.”
Some persons have claimed that the Second Vatican Council did not make any infallible decisions on
doctrine. The Second Vatican Council did not attach anathemas to its teachings, did not give us a numbered
list of Canons, and did not use a particular formula or wording to indicate which teachings are infallible.
However, none of those things are part of the criteria for a teaching to be infallible.
There are some infallible teachings within the documents issued by the Second Vatican Council with the
approval of the Roman Pontiff. I will present some clear examples, but I will not attempt an exhaustive list.
The Second Vatican Council document, Lumen Gentium, taught infallibly that the body of Bishops led by the
Pope teach infallibly when certain criteria are met. In addition to reaffirming the infallible teaching of the First
Vatican Council on Papal Infallibility, the Second Vatican Council also taught about the infallibility of the
body of Bishops led by the Pope. This doctrine meets all of the criteria for an infallible teaching of the Sacred
Magisterium (under the second form of the third charism).
1. The teaching was issued by an Ecumenical Council with the approval of the Roman Pontiff.
2. The teaching is a major theological point within an official document of an Ecumenical Council;178
therefore, the Council and the Pope were exercising their official role as shepherds and teachers of the
faith.
3. The teaching is a definitive decision, as is clear, not so much from any particular phrase or sentence,
but from the whole of the teaching. It is presented without any equivocation or room for differing
views. It is not a theological comment made in passing, nor a remark made in order to lead up to some
other point of teaching. This teaching plainly states the criteria under which the Bishops led by the Pope
can teach infallibly. Since the subject matter is that of infallibility, such a clear and unequivocal teaching
must itself be considered definitive. Also, the Council could not be saying that they are less than certain
about something infallible, for any lack of definitive judgment on a teaching about infallibility would
101
nullify that teaching. This type of definitive decision on doctrine is like numerous Canons issued by the
Council of Orange: plain and definitive statements which proclaim the truth on a particular subject.
4. The subject of the teaching is the infallibility of the body of Bishops led by the Pope, when they
exercise the Sacred Magisterium. This subject is clearly a matter of faith and morals.
5. The criterion that whole Church must adhere to this teaching is referred to within the wording of the
teaching itself: “...they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose
definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.” The criterion that the Church must believe
is also met implicitly. There is a clear and necessary implication that all must believe, because this
teaching is on the subject of the infallibility of Church teaching.
All five criteria for an infallible teaching by an Ecumenical Council are met by this teaching. Therefore, this
teaching is an example of infallibility within the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
Another clear example of an infallible teaching by the Second Vatican Council is found in Dei Verbum, the
Constitution on Divine Revelation.
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been
committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the
belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of
both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical
because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been
handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while
employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and
through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He
wanted.
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted
by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly,
faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of
salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting
error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God
may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text). 179
The above teaching of Second Vatican Council meets all five criteria for an infallible teaching, (under the
second form of the third charism).
1. The teaching was issued by an Ecumenical Council with the approval of the Roman Pontiff.
2. The teaching is a major theological point within an official document of an Ecumenical Council;180
therefore, the Council and the Pope were exercising their official role as shepherds and teachers of the
faith.
3. This teaching uses a form similar to some of the Council of Orange Canons, where the authority of
Sacred Scripture is cited in order to present a teaching as a definitive judgment. Also, phrases such as:
“holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-
20, 3:15-16), holds that....” and “it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged....” show
a definitive judgment on the infallibility of Sacred Scripture. As is the case with the teaching on the
infallibility of the Sacred Magisterium, the Council could not be saying that they are less than certain
about something infallible (Sacred Scripture), for any lack of definitive judgment on a teaching about
infallibility would nullify that teaching. The teaching of Dei Verbum on the infallibility of Sacred
Scripture is presented with plain and definitive statements which proclaim the truth on that subject.
4. The subject of the teaching is the infallibility of the Sacred Scripture. This subject is clearly a matter
of faith and morals.
102
5. The criterion that the whole Church must adhere to this teaching is indicated by phrases such as:
“holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-
20, 3:15-16), holds....” and “since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be
held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged
as....”
The above two examples of infallible teachings found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council should
be sufficient to prove that Vatican II did issue infallible judgments on doctrine. The Second Vatican Council
not only taught under the fallible Ordinary Magisterium and exercised the temporal authority of the Church,
they also taught under the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
Future Ecumenical Councils
The number of Bishops in the universal Church has increased significantly since the Second Vatican
Council. This increase in numbers presents a logistical challenge for the next Ecumenical Council. The above
example from Evangelium Vitae is one possible solution to the difficulties in convening a geographic-gathering
of Bishops for an Ecumenical Council. A geographic-gathering of Cardinals, (those who are also Bishops,)
would constitute a gathering of Bishops representative of the universal Church. A subsequent communication-
gathering of any and all Bishops would allow the participation of “the Episcopate of every country of the
world.”181 A series of geographic-gathering of Cardinals, coupled with communication-gatherings of all
Bishops, would meet the requirements for an Ecumenical Council. The Pope would authoritatively guide and
govern both the geographic-gatherings of Cardinals and the communication-gatherings of all Bishops.
In this way, all the Bishops would be able to exercise their divine gift of participation in the Sacred
Magisterium, unimpeded by the logistical problems of their increased numbers. The Cardinals would have the
dual role of participating in the Council as Bishops, and assisting the Pope in leading the other Bishops. The
Cardinals would disperse after their geographic-gathering to help coordinate the subsequent communication-
gathering in their assigned countries. Any Bishop, of whatever rank or age, would be free to communicate
with the Pope directly, and with the Cardinals and other Bishops, concerning the Council and its proposed
documents. Care should be taken to prevent persons other than ordained Bishops from attempting to exercise
a participation in the infallible Sacred Magisterium. The Most Holy Trinity gives the gift of participation in the
infallible Sacred Magisterium only to the Bishops led by the Pope.
Papal Infallibility in Other Papal Documents
Some commentators have attempted a list of Papal documents containing uses of the first charism of the
Sacred Magisterium. There are probably other examples of the use of Papal Infallibility beyond those
examples cited in this chapter. However, I will not attempt to make a complete list, lest I err by leaving
something important out of the list.
Some commentators have claimed that Papal Infallibility has only ever been used twice, in the documents
Ineffabilis Deus (the Immaculate Conception) and Munificentissimus Deus (Mary’s Assumption). The examples
cited above prove that Papal Infallibility has been used in other documents as well as in those two documents.
Those who are weak in faith often attempt to decrease the number of things that they must believe. Those who
follow Christ in all things have faith in all things.
Ordinary Magisterium
In order to be able to teach the faith effectively, the individual Bishops of the Church must often answer
questions on faith and morals, without obtaining a definitive and infallible answer from the Bishops as a body
and the Pope. There are questions of faith and morals, which arise from time to time and on which the Church
has not yet ruled definitively using the infallible Sacred Magisterium. Such questions are answered by the
Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The Ordinary Magisterium can be exercised by any Bishop, including
the Pope. The Ordinary Magisterium teaches and guides the faithful on matters of faith and morals. This
103
teaching and guidance must be based on the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The Ordinary Magisterium is considered
fallible, but, for the most part, its teachings and judgments are correct, since these are based firmly on Sacred
Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
An example of the use of the Ordinary Magisterium, would be a judgment about a new technology in
science or medicine. The Church would not have ruled previously on such an issue, at least not specifically,
since the technology is new. The Church’s judgment would be based on principles of faith and morals found in
the Sacred Deposit of Faith, but the application of those principles by the Ordinary Magisterium would be
fallible, and subject to revision or even, rarely, reversal. On the other hand, the Sacred Magisterium can, at any
time, rule definitively and infallibly, on any truth of faith or morals found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith,
even on moral questions related to a new technology.
Some Church documents use the expression “the ordinary and universal Magisterium” of the Church.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger uses this expression in his commentary on the Responsum ad Dubium (Oct. 28,
1995; On Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).
“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the
beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth
infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).”182
Notice, however, that he specifically references the second paragraph of Lumen Gentium 25, not the first. The
first paragraph refers to the Ordinary Magisterium proper, which teaches from the Sacred Deposit of Faith, but
not infallibly. The second paragraph refers to the third charism of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. Thus, the
expression “ordinary and universal Magisterium” refers to the Sacred Magisterium, not to the Ordinary
Magisterium proper. The expression “universal Magisterium” is used to refer to the third charism of the
Sacred Magisterium, because that charism requires the participation of the Bishops dispersed throughout the
universal Church. This third charism is the most common use of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, thus it is
sometimes called the “ordinary and universal Magisterium.” Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly states that he is
referring to the infallible Sacred Magisterium: “it has been set forth infallibly.”
Criteria of the Ordinary Magisterium
Any truth taught by the Ordinary Magisterium can be judged, defined, and proclaimed infallibly by the
Sacred Magisterium. Therefore, the criteria for the Ordinary Magisterium must be similar to the criteria for the
Sacred Magisterium.
The first criterion of the Ordinary Magisterium is that the teaching come from a Bishop or a group of
Bishops. This is similar to the first criterion for the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, except that, in the
case of the Ordinary Magisterium, even an individual Bishop can teach under the Ordinary Magisterium.
Priests, deacons, religious, and theologians cannot teach under the Ordinary Magisterium; their teaching is
much the same as that of a layperson. Persons who have not received the full Sacrament of Ordination, that is,
Ordination to the Episcopate, do not have the ability and authority to teach under the Ordinary Magisterium,
because they do not have the gift of participation in the Sacred Magisterium. Only Bishops can teach under the
Ordinary Magisterium, because only Bishops have the gift of participation in the Sacred Magisterium. The gift
of the ability and authority to teach under the Ordinary Magisterium is given by the Holy Spirit to each and
every Bishop along with the gift of participation in the Sacred Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is the
handmaid of the Sacred Magisterium. Since only Bishops can participate in the Sacred Magisterium, only
Bishops can teach under the Ordinary Magisterium.
The ability to teach under the Ordinary Magisterium is necessary to the practical functioning of the Sacred
Magisterium. In teaching a doctrine which has been explicitly defined by the Sacred Magisterium, a Bishop
needs to refer to numerous related theological ideas, not all of which have been infallibly defined by the Sacred
Magisterium. If a Bishop could only teach those doctrines which have been explicitly and infallibly defined by
the Sacred Magisterium, a Bishop’s ability to teach the faithful the Way of Christ would be severely impeded.
104
The second criterion is similar to the ex cathedra criterion of the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium.
However, the term ex cathedra (“from the chair”) refers to the chair, or the role, of Saint Peter. In a similar
way, though, a Bishop must be speaking in his official role as a Bishop for his teaching to fall under even the
Ordinary Magisterium.
The third criterion is the main distinction between the Ordinary Magisterium and Sacred Magisterium.
Infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium are definitive pronouncements about what is, and what is not,
the teaching of Christ; such final decisions on doctrine are infallible, irreformable, and irrevocable. In contrast,
the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are fallible, reformable, and revocable. Thus, the third criterion for
the Ordinary Magisterium is that the teaching be a theological position or judgment on doctrine, and yet also
not a final decision on doctrine. If the statement of a Bishop is not a theological position, if it is not a judgment
on what is, and what is not, the teaching of Christ, then the third criterion is not met.
The fourth criterion for the Ordinary Magisterium is the same as for the Sacred Magisterium. Both the
Ordinary Magisterium and the Sacred Magisterium teach only from the Sacred Deposit of Faith on the truths
of faith and morals.
The fifth criterion for the Ordinary Magisterium is similar to that for the Sacred Magisterium. The faithful
are required to believe all of the truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, regardless of whether or not
these truths have been affirmed by the infallible Sacred Magisterium, because the Sacred Deposit of Faith is
Divine Revelation and is the teaching of the Most Holy Trinity. Therefore, if even the Ordinary Magisterium
proposes that a teaching is found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the faithful have an obligation to believe.
However, for a teaching under the Ordinary Magisterium, the requirement to believe is limited because the
teaching is fallible.
If a faithful Catholic, who adheres to all of the teachings of the Sacred Magisterium without exception and
without reservation, understands a truth of the Sacred Deposit of Faith in contradiction to a teaching by an
individual Bishop under the Ordinary Magisterium, then that Catholic is obliged to humbly adhere to the
truth, despite a teaching to the contrary by the Ordinary Magisterium. The requirement to believe the
teachings of the Church is based upon our faith in God, Who is Truth, and in God’s infallible Sacred Deposit
of Truth. No one should abandon a clearly understood truth of the Sacred Deposit of Faith in order to adhere
to a fallible teaching by an individual Bishop under the Ordinary Magisterium. On the other hand, most
teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are entirely true, for even the fallible Ordinary Magisterium has
assistance from the Providence and Grace of God.
The five criteria for a teaching to fall under the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church are as follows:
1. any Bishop or group of Bishops

2. speaking in his/their official role as a leader and teacher of the Church
3. offers a theological position or judgment (not a final decision on doctrine)
4. on the truths of faith and morals found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith
5. “which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with”
If it turns out that the theological position proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium is in error, then it was
never found within the Sacred Deposit of Truth. Thus, the obligation to believe, found in the fifth criterion, is
limited, because the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium is fallible. In the absence of certainty about a
teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, the faithful are obliged to humbly assent to the position of the Bishops.
For the Bishops, who each have the gift of participation in the Sacred Magisterium, also have the special
assistance of the Holy Spirit, even when they are only exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. This gift of the
Holy Spirit is related to the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium. When the Bishops teach the infallible
teaching of Christ, they must often address some questions which the Church has not definitively answered.
Thus, the Sacred Magisterium is assisted by the Ordinary Magisterium, and the gift of the third charism of the
Sacred Magisterium is assisted by the gift of the Ordinary Magisterium. This gift is given only to the Bishops of
the Church.
105
Authority Beyond the Magisterium
If an idea is proposed which does not meet the criteria for the infallible Sacred Magisterium, and also does
not meet the criteria for the Ordinary Magisterium, then the faithful are not obliged in the least to adhere to
that idea. Even so, if any person speaks the truth, and one recognizes it as truth, then one is morally obligated
to believe that truth and to act accordingly. But, as concerns the teaching authority of the Church, there is no
other spiritual teaching authority aside from the Ordinary Magisterium and the Sacred Magisterium of the
holy Roman Catholic Church.
The Church does possess a temporal authority, which includes the ability and authority to organize the
Church on earth (dioceses, different orders of religious, etc.) and to make practical rules and regulations
(Canon Law, rules for religious life, guidelines for liturgical celebrations, etc.). These temporal decisions are
based on faith and morals, because they are guided by the desire to serve God and to imitate Jesus Christ.
However, such temporal decisions never have the character of infallibility, because they are not decisions on
Christ’s teaching about faith and morals. Such decisions may be entirely correct and pleasing to God, but they
do not have the force of an infallible teaching of the Sacred Magisterium.
When the Church is Without a Pope
When the Church has a Pope, the third charism can be exercised in either of two forms, by the daily
teaching and witness of the Bishops in communion with the Pope, or by the decisions of an Ecumenical
Council, (or of another gathering of Bishops), presided over and approved by the Pope. The first and second
charisms reside solely in, and are exercised solely by, the Pope.
When one Pope dies, the Church on earth is without a Pope until the next Pope is elected. During the time
that the Church is without a Pope, the Bishops dispersed through the world can still participate in the infallible
Sacred Magisterium, under the first form of the third charism, by continuing to daily teach and witness to the
infallible teaching found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. But their teaching must be in absolute agreement with
the teaching and witness of past Roman Pontiffs. Thus, the teaching of the Sacred Deposit of Faith remains
ever infallible and ever able to be taught through the gift of the Sacred Magisterium.
Nevertheless, when the Church is without a Pope, there can be no new decisions on faith or morals even
from the first form of the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium. New expressions of a deeper understanding
of the teachings on faith and morals found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith can only proceed from the third
charism with the authoritative guidance and governance of the Pope (under the second charism).
When the Church is without a Pope, the second form of the third charism cannot be exercised. The use of
the second form of the third charism requires the Pope’s authoritative guidance and governance, which is the
second charism of the Sacred Magisterium, belonging solely to the Pope. The Bishops can only be summoned
to an Ecumenical Council by the Pope. The Pope must authoritatively guide and govern an Ecumenical
Council, under his gift of the second charism. And the Pope’s final approval is required for the decisions on
faith and morals of such a Council (or other gathering of Bishops) to have the character of infallibility.
When the Church is without a Pope, no one has the ability or authority to summon an Ecumenical Council.
No individual Bishop or Cardinal or Patriarch, nor any group of Bishops or Church leaders, no matter how
numerous, has that authority. If an Ecumenical Council has already been summoned by the Pope before his
death, that Council is still a valid Council, but it cannot undertake any further exercise of the second form of
the third charism, by making a definitive decision on faith or morals, until the next Pope is elected. Once a
new Pope is elected, if he approves of the continuation of the Council, the Council can again exercise the
second form of the third charism by making decisions on matters of faith and morals, under the authoritative
guidance and governance of the Pope, and subject to the Pope’s final judgment.
The Second Vatican Council was a valid Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. The Second
Vatican Council was summoned by Pope John XXIII. After Pope John XXIII died, Pope Paul VI was elected
and the Council continued under his authoritative guidance and governance. That holy Council’s definitive
decisions on faith and morals were approved by Pope Paul VI and so they fall under the infallible Sacred
Magisterium.
106
When the Church is, for a time, without a Pope, the first and second charisms of the Sacred Magisterium
cannot be exercised, because these belong solely to the Pope. Since the second charism cannot be exercised
during that time period, the second form of the third charism also cannot be exercised (e.g. decisions on
doctrine by an Ecumenical Council). The second form of the third charism can only be exercised in
conjunction with the second charism, which belongs exclusively to the Pope.
The exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium can continue, even when the Church is temporarily without a
Pope. Any individual Bishop or group of Bishops, however few, can exercise the Ordinary Magisterium, as
long as their teaching, under the Ordinary Magisterium, does not conflict with any teaching of the Sacred
Magisterium.
Heresy and the Magisterium
A heretic is someone who both claims to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and, inwardly or
outwardly, rejects or denies any of the truths taught by the infallible Sacred Magisterium. Such truths include
teachings affirmed by any of the three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium, including the daily universal
witness of the Bishops, dispersed through the world, in communion with the Pope.
Even though a heretic sins by rejecting some of the teachings of the Church, such a person does not cease to
be a member of the Body of Christ on earth. Even if a heretic were to commit an actual mortal sin by means of
heresy, such a person does not cease to be a member of the Body of Christ on earth. When any member of the
Church commits an actual mortal sin and loses the state of sanctifying grace in themselves, such a person
remains a member of the Church and of the Body of Christ on earth. Such a person can receive the Sacrament
of Reconciliation, and in some grave and exceptional circumstances, can even receive other Sacraments. Any
person who can validly receive the Sacraments is certainly a member of the Body of Christ. Protestants who
receive a valid Sacrament of Baptism become members of the Body of Christ, even though they do not believe
all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Therefore, a heretic does not cease to be a member of the Body of
Christ, and the grave moral offense of heresy does not remove someone from the Body of Christ. Once a
person has received the Sacrament of Baptism, they cannot be removed from the Body of Christ, except by
dying in a state of mortal sin.
However, someone who rejects or denies a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium is not a heretic or a
schismatic, for the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are fallible. An individual faithful Catholic might
arrive at an understanding of a truth found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith before particular faithful Bishops
arrive at that same understanding. Just so, when Peter and John ran to the tomb of Our Lord, John outran
Peter and reached the tomb first (Jn 20:4-5). Nevertheless, John did not enter the tomb first, he waited for
Peter to enter. When individual Catholics understand a truth of the faith, prior to a definitive judgment by the
infallible Sacred Magisterium, they are not obliged to deny or ignore that truth, even if the teaching of
particular individual Bishops, exercising the Ordinary Magisterium, contradicts their understanding. But
neither can they claim that their understanding is an authoritative and definitive judgment on that truth. They
must await the judgment of the Sacred Magisterium, and adhere fully and sincerely to that judgment.
There are three possible types of defect: flaw, omission, imperfection. (See chapter 2 for more on this point.)
Therefore, there are three possible types of sin: sins of commission, sins of omission, and sins of imperfection.
A sin of commission is an immoral act of the human person, done with some degree of willingness to commit
the act and some degree of knowledge that the act is wrong. A sin of commission can be internal, only in the
heart and mind, or external, that is, carried out in word or deed. A sin of omission is a refusal to act, willingly
and knowingly, in accordance with the requirements of morality and the will of God. As one example, the rich
man sinned by refusing to help Lazarus in his dire need (Luke 16:19-31). As another example, the refusal to
honor father and mother is a sin (and a violation of one of the Ten Commandments). A sin of imperfection
occurs when a human person does something good or refuses to do something evil, but fails to some degree to
fulfill all that is required by the moral law. As one example, attending Mass on Sunday is a good act, which
fulfills the Commandment to worship God, but if one participates poorly in the worship of God during the
Mass, one sins by imperfection. As another example, refusing to join others in committing a sin is moral
requirement, but refusing with mixed motivation, partly for reasons of self-interest, is a sin of imperfection.
107
The three types of heresy correspond to the three types of defect. The first type of heresy is belief in a false
teaching. Of course, when referring to the sin of heresy, the teaching must be on the subject of faith or morals
and the heresy must be contrary to the teaching of the Sacred Magisterium. This type of heresy corresponds to
a sin of commission. An example of this type of heresy is related in Acts of the Apostles, when the Apostles
rejected the heretical teaching that a Christian man must be circumcised in order to be saved by Christ (Acts
15:1-21). The second type of heresy is refusal to believe an essential doctrine of the Faith. This type of heresy
corresponds to a sin of omission. For example, when Christ taught his disciples about His Real Presence in the
Eucharist, some refused to believe (John 6:53-66).
The third type of heresy is belief in a distorted version of an essential doctrine. For example, the teaching
that there is “no salvation outside the Church” is a true doctrine if it is properly understood. Everyone who is
saved, from every religion and even from those who profess no religion nor any belief in God, is saved by the
Church. The true universal Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as its head, enlivened by the
Holy Spirit. Certainly there is no salvation apart from Christ, and His Body the Church, and the Holy Spirit.
However, those persons who are outside of the visible structure of the Church on earth can still be saved, even
if they are never baptized and never join the Christian faith. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also is the Church.
Where Christ is, there also is the Church. The ancient Israelites were saved by Christ, though they did not
know him: “…and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural
food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed
them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:2-4). But some heretics have distorted this true teaching. They have
narrowed the meaning of the Church and the Body of Christ so as to include only those baptized into Christ.
Some have narrowed the meaning of the Church to include only Catholics. (This is ironic, since many of these
persons have separated themselves from the Catholic Church.) They have taken a true teaching (no salvation
outside the Church) and have distorted it into a heresy.
Most named heresies are actually a set of related heretical beliefs, often involving more than one of the three
types of heresy. For example, sede vacantism includes the false belief that the Pope can fall into heresy and can
thereby lose his authority, the refusal to believe in the teachings of Second Vatican Council, and distortions in
belief on the infallibility of the Sacred Magisterium. For example, they believe that the Pope can teach
infallibly, under the criteria established by First Vatican Council, but if the Pope teaches something they judge
to be false, they say he is not the Pope and therefore his teaching is not infallible.
Heresy and the Roman Pontiff
The Pope alone possesses all three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium. Therefore, the Pope alone possesses
the fullness of the gift of the Sacred Magisterium. The Pope can never become a heretic, no matter how sinful
he may be, because the fullness of the gift of the Sacred Magisterium, which resides fully only in the Pope,
completely protects him from heresy. There is no possibility whatsoever that any Pope could ever fall into
heresy, even for a short time, even on a lesser point of faith or morals, no matter what the circumstances,
because the gift of the Sacred Magisterium completely protects him from even the sheer possibility of heresy.
The Sacred Magisterium can never cease to be an infallible source of truth on faith and morals. The Pope is
the seat of the Sacred Magisterium, therefore, the Pope can never fall into any kind or degree of heresy. The
Pope can never depart from the true Catholic faith and the true Catholic Church. Nor can a series of Popes
ever be said to have departed from the one true faith of the Roman Catholic Church. No Pope can ever fall
into any kind or degree of heresy, manifest or hidden, expressed or unexpressed, because the Pope possesses
all three charisms of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. The gift of the fullness of the Sacred Magisterium
entirely precludes any possibility that any Pope could ever fall away from the one true holy Catholic Church.
The gift of the fullness of the Sacred Magisterium entirely prevents even the sheer possibility that any Pope
would ever fall into any kind or degree of heresy whatsoever.
Heresy is fundamentally an opposition to teachings of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. Thus, heresy is
directly opposed to the Sacred Magisterium. Since the Pope possesses the fullness of the Sacred Magisterium,
the Pope can never fall into any kind or degree of heresy. Heresy is the opposite of the Sacred Magisterium.
Whoever is entirely filled with the Sacred Magisterium cannot possibly be a heretic.
108
In order for a man to be a valid Pope, three things are necessary: he must be validly elected or chosen, he
must freely accept the office of Pope, and he must be ordained as a Bishop. 183 No man is Roman Pontiff of the
one holy catholic apostolic Church, unless all three of these criteria are met. What would happen if a man,
who was a heretic, either manifestly or secretly, was elected Pope? Heresy cannot be removed from a man
without an act of his freewill, yet the Pope can never be a heretic. In such a case, when the man who is elected
makes his decision, of his own freewill, to accept his election and become the Roman Pontiff, he immediately
loses his heresy. In accepting the office of Roman Pontiff, he has accepted the seat of the Sacred Magisterium
and has become the seat of the Sacred Magisterium. Even if, prior to his election, a man dissented from a
teaching of the Sacred Magisterium and harbored an intention to revoke such a teaching if elected Pope, as
soon as he freely accepts his election and becomes Pope, he loses his dissent and his heretical intention. He is
completely unable to dissent from, or to intend to reverse, any teaching of the Sacred Magisterium, because he
has freely accepted from God the gift of all three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium. He can no longer be a
heretic, even secretly in his heart and mind, because he has become the seat of the Sacred Magisterium.
Sacred Scripture teaches that the Pope cannot fall into heresy. Jesus said that Peter would be the Rock on
which the Church was founded. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and
the powers of death 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.” (Mt 16:18-19).
The figure of a Rock as the foundation of the Church would not be a fitting metaphor for Peter and his
Successors, if a Pope could fall into heresy and cease to be Pope. The figure of a Rock clearly indicates that the
faith of the Pope cannot fail. Jesus even said to Peter that Peter's faith could not fail: “ ‘…but I have prayed for
you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’ ” (Lk 22:32). The
sin of heresy is certainly a failure of faith. And how could a Pope lead and strengthen his fellow Bishops, if he
were constantly subject to the possibility of falling into heresy? Furthermore, Jesus gave to Peter and his
Successors the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. If a Pope could fall into heresy, it would then make no sense
for Jesus to give the Pope the ability and authority to bind Heaven and earth. The Pope can bind Heaven and
earth because that the Pope can teach infallibly and cannot fail in faith. Since the faith of the Pope cannot fail,
the Pope can never fall into any kind or degree of heresy.
Although the Roman Pontiff can never fall into any kind or degree of heresy, he is not immune to all types
of errors. The Pope is able to commit other sins, (but not the sin of heresy). The Pope is able to misunderstand
and to make mistakes. It is even possible for a Pope to have a personal opinion on a matter of faith or morals
which is in error, so long as his opinion is not contradictory to a prior teaching of the Sacred Magisterium. If a
question of faith or morals has not yet been decided by the Sacred Magisterium, the Pope is free to consider
various possibilities and could possibly hold an erroneous opinion on the subject. However, he is unable to
teach any error on faith or morals using any of the three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium.
Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, possess only the first charism of the Sacred Magisterium.
Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, could possibly fall into heresy, for they have only the first charism of
the Sacred Magisterium. Even so, this first charism provides them with grace to strengthen them against falling
into heresy or schism. This grace is part of the gift of the Sacred Magisterium.
What is Sede Vacantism?
One heresy found in the Church today is called sede vacantism, which means “the seat is vacant.” These
persons believe that the seat of Saint Peter, i.e. the role of the Pope as Teacher and Shepherd in the Church, is
vacant. They reject the authority and the validity of the Popes from Pope John XXIII to Pope John Paul II
(John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II). They reject the authority and validity of the Second Vatican
Council. They will likely reject subsequent Popes and Ecumenical Councils as well.
There are various versions of the sede vacantism heresy. One version is called the “Society of Saint Pius X”
(SSPX). This group was not founded by Pope Saint Pius X, nor was he ever a member. The group was
109
founded long after his death. Neither is this group based on the teaching or example of Pope Saint Pius X. The
very idea of naming a group, which rejects the spiritual authority of the Popes, after a man who was himself a
holy Pope, is self-contradictory. Pope Saint Pius X would never have approved of such a group of heretics.
“Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” (Rev 2:6). The Nicolaitans
were a group of heretics in the early Church. They believed in sexual promiscuity. They attributed their
doctrines to Nicolaus of Antioch, one of the first seven Deacons in the Church (Acts 6:5). But this group was
not founded by Nicolaus, nor was he ever a member. Neither was this group based on the teaching or example
of Deacon Nicolaus of Antioch. The passage from the book of Revelation, which refers to the Nicolaitans, not
only serves to condemn those Christians who practice sexual promiscuity, but also condemns the heresy of
groups such as the Society of Saint Pius X. In this passage, God is not merely referring to a past heresy, He is
also referring to heresies of our time, which are similar to that past heresy of the Nicolaitans.
The sede vacantists think that they are the true Catholic Church. They use the term “Novus Ordo” (New
Order) to refer to mainstream Roman Catholics and their Faith. Some splinter groups within this heresy have
tried to elect their own Pope. There are several of these false claimants to the Papal seat. Those who adhere to
his heresy cannot even agree among themselves as to exactly why the Popes since John XXIII are supposedly
not valid Popes. They reject the Second Vatican Council, partly because they judge the teachings of Vatican II
to be false, and partly because they judge the Popes of Vatican II (John XXIII and Paul VI) to be invalid.
Despite the disagreements among the sede vacantists, their basic argument is as follows. They believe that
anyone who falls into heresy becomes separated from the Church, the Body of Christ. They believe that any
Pope can possibly fall into heresy. They believe that any Pope who falls into heresy separates himself from the
Church, and therefore cannot possibly be the head of the Church. They believe that individual Catholics can
and should judge whether or not each Pope has fallen into heresy. They believe that the Popes since Pope John
XXIII have each fallen into heresy and thereby lost their validity as Popes. Some believe that each of these
men who became Pope fell into heresy before their election, so that their election itself was invalid. Others
believe that these Popes lost their validity after their election. And which heresies are all these Popes accused
of committing? Basically, they are accused of believing the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. At its
core, sede vacantism is the heresy of rejecting the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
Strangely enough, sede vacantists generally accept the teachings of the First Vatican Council, including the
teaching on Papal Infallibility. They say that a Pope can teach infallibly, but they add that if a Pope does teach
a false doctrine under the criteria of Papal Infallibility, then he is no longer a valid Pope and his “false”
teaching will therefore not fall under Papal Infallibility. It is, of course, self-contradictory to say that a Pope
can teach infallibly, except when his teaching is false, in which case he cease to be Pope. One cannot call
something infallible, if it can possibly fail and be false. Yet that is the position of some of the sede vacantists.
The heresy of sede vacantism claims that the sede vacantists are the true Church, yet they cannot even agree
among themselves as to what their theological position is on various points. One can probably find some sede
vacantists who will counter the above description of sede vacantism by offering other theories on why the
recent Popes lost their validity or authority. In any case, their rejection of the authority of the recent Popes and
the Second Vatican Council places them in a state of heresy. The sede vacantist theological position is contrary
to the truth.
A similar heresy is found among a group who call themselves “traditional Catholics.” They claim they are
Roman Catholics, but they are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff and they reject the teachings of the
Second Vatican Council and the recent Popes. They disguise themselves as Roman Catholics, by talking about
the Rosary and various Saints. They even have some Bishops, seminaries, religious communities, and parishes
in their following. But they are not in communion with the Holy See, nor do they adhere to all of the teachings
of the Roman Catholic Church.
Some persons have tried to remain in the Roman Catholic Church, yet also reject the teachings of the
Second Vatican Council and the recent Popes. Some of these persons call themselves “traditionalists.” Some
refuse to attend Holy Mass, unless it is in Latin. Some continue to attend the Mass at their local parish, all the
while rejecting the teachings and decisions of the body of Bishops led by the Pope. Regardless of whether or
not such persons attach themselves to a particular heretical group, they are committing the sin of heresy by
rejecting the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the recent Popes.
110
This heresy of rejecting the recent teachings of the Church has many forms and degrees. Some heretics
attach themselves to one heretical group or another; some heretics remain largely unassociated with any
particular group. Even so, anyone who rejects the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the teaching of
the recent Popes commits an objective mortal sin against God, the sin of heresy.
Contra Sede Vacantism
First, contrary to the sede vacantist position, a person who is a baptized member of the Body of Christ does
not cease to be a member of the Body of Christ, even if that person falls into heresy or commits an actual
mortal sin. The Sacrament of Baptism brings persons into the Body of Christ. Only members of the Body of
Christ are permitted to receive the other Sacraments. A heretic can validly receive the Sacrament of
Reconciliation, as long as they are repentant from whatever sins they confess, even if they have not yet
repented from the sin of heresy. And heretics who repent from their sin of heresy can receive the Sacrament of
Reconciliation. Many Catholics in the world refuse to believe some of the teachings of the Church. They are in
a state of heresy. Yet they validly receive the Sacraments, such as Confession, Communion, Marriage, Holy
Orders, and Anointing of the Sick.
Bishops and priests, who are in a state of heresy, do not cease to be members of the Body of Christ. If they
did, then the Sacraments they dispense would not be valid. If a Bishop or priest were completely separated
from the Body of Christ, then they could not dispense the Sacraments of Christ. Heresy can be completely
internal; it does not have to be expressed in word or deed to be heresy. So then, one has no way of knowing if
a Bishop or priest is in a state of heresy. If heresy completely separates one from the Church, the we would
have no way of knowing which Bishops and priests could validly dispense the Sacraments. Therefore, heresy
does not separate one from the Church.
Because the sede vacantists believe that heresy separates one from the Body of Christ, they have no way of
knowing if their own Bishops or priests are in a state of heresy and if the Sacraments they dispense are invalid.
Heresy can be completely internal, hidden in the heart and mind. Therefore, their idea that heresy completely
separates one from the Body of Christ means that no one would know which Popes, Bishops, and priests are
heretics. The validity of all Popes, Bishops, and priests is called into question, if one adheres to the sede
vacantist position that heresy separates one completely from the Church. Yet the sede vacantists claim to
believe in the validity of all the Popes before Pope John XXIII, and of their own Bishops and priests.
Neither can one claim that only externally expressed heresy separates one from the Church. The degree of
sinfulness does not depend necessarily upon whether the sin is outwardly manifested or not. Some of the worst
sins found in mankind are primarily of the mind and heart. An outwardly manifested heresy is not necessarily
any worse than one that is hidden inwardly.
Neither can one claim that only severe cases of heresy separate one from the Church. If such were the case,
then we would be left with the same uncertainty about the validity of the clergy and the Sacraments they
dispense. If a certain degree of heresy caused someone to be separated from the Church, then we would have
to judge who is in a state of heresy, to what degree, and whether the degree of heresy were sufficient to
separate that person from the Church. And, without correct judgment on each of those points, we would not
know which clergy were valid. The Sacraments, in such a case, would be untrustworthy, because we could not
know which Bishops and priests were validly ordained.
Second, contrary to the sede vacantist position, the Pope can never fall into any kind or degree of heresy,
because the Pope is the seat of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. The Pope possesses all three charisms of
infallibility. Since the Pope possesses the fullness of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, this gift of
the three charisms of infallibility entirely prevents the Pope from falling into heresy. The Bishops cannot
exercise their gift of participation in the infallible Sacred Magisterium apart from the teaching authority of the
Pope. Therefore, the idea that the Pope could fall into heresy is directly contrary to all three charisms of the
Sacred Magisterium.
Third, contrary to the sede vacantist position, individual Catholics should not judge whether the teachings
of the Pope and the Ecumenical Councils are correct. For a Catholic, Faith includes accepting the teaching of
111
Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. The sede vacantists have judged and condemned the teachings of the recent
Popes and of the Second Vatican Council. The Church has never taught that individuals should make a
judgment about each Pope and each Council, to decide if their teaching is correct. The infallibility of the
Sacred Magisterium would be meaningless, if one could invalidate a Pope or a Council by claiming that they
taught heresy.
Furthermore, the sede vacantist claim of heresy, (and the claim of other heretics,) is based on the conflict
between their ideas and the teachings of Second Vatican Council and the Popes since that Council. They say
that the Second Vatican Council and the recent Popes have contradicted prior teachings of the Church, but
that is not the case. Rather, the emphasis and mode of expression of certain teachings has changed. Some
Popes, such as Pope Pius IX, emphasized the authority Roman Pontiff and the primacy of the Roman
Catholic Faith, (as is clear from the documents of First Vatican Council). On the other hand the Second
Vatican Council emphasized the role of the laity in the life of the Church, and affirmed that the whole human
race belongs to God, despite differences in beliefs. Note, however, that the Second Vatican Council also
reaffirmed Papal Infallibility and the role of the Bishops in teaching with the Pope. There is no real conflict
between recent teachings and past teachings, but rather a difference in emphasis and expression.
Ecumenical Councils and the Roman Pontiff
An Ecumenical Council is defined as a group of Bishops, representative of the universal Church and
gathered together under the authoritative guidance and governance of the Roman Pontiff, who, together with
the Roman Pontiff, exercise the spiritual and temporal authority of the holy Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Pontiff is an essential and indispensable part of any Ecumenical Council. When there is no
Roman Pontiff, there is no Ecumenical Council. Without the authoritative guidance and governance of the
Roman Pontiff, no group of Bishops, however numerous, constitutes an Ecumenical Council. Without the
authoritative guidance and governance of the Roman Pontiff, no group of Bishops, however numerous, can
exercise any role or authority similar to the role or authority of an Ecumenical Council.
After the Roman Pontiff dies, and before the next Roman Pontiff is elected, it is not possible for an
Ecumenical Council to exist. An Ecumenical Council, by definition, must include the Roman Pontiff. Apart
from the Roman Pontiff, there is no Ecumenical Council. For this reason, Pope John Paul II declared, in
Universi Domenici Gregis, that when a Pope dies during an Ecumenical Council, that Council ceases to have any
authority and must therefore immediately cease its operations. 184
Moreover, in confirmation of the provisions of Canons 340 and 347 § 2 of the Code of Canon
Law and of Canon 53 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in this regard, a Council or
Synod of Bishops, at whatever point they have reached, must be considered immediately suspended
ipso iure, once notification is received of the vacancy of the Apostolic See. Therefore without any
delay all meetings, congregations or sessions must be interrupted, and the preparation of any decrees
or canons, together with the promulgation of those already confirmed, must be suspended, under
pain of nullity of the same. Neither the Council nor the Synod can continue for any reason, even
though it be most serious or worthy of special mention, until the new Pope, canonically elected,
orders their resumption or continuation. 185
Pope John Paul II also declared that an Ecumenical Council has no authority whatsoever to elect the next
Roman Pontiff.186 An Ecumenical Council cannot possibly elect a Pope because, without a reigning Pontiff,
there is no Ecumenical Council. No group of Bishops, not even every Bishop on earth put together, constitutes
an Ecumenical Council, without the authoritative guidance and governance of the Pope.
Furthermore, no decision, declaration, decree, canon, nor any document of any kind, issued by the Bishops
of an Ecumenical Council, has any authority whatsoever without the official approval of the Roman Pontiff.
In truth, apart from the authority of the Roman Pontiff, an Ecumenical Council has no authority at all. Each
Bishop has authority within his own diocese, but no group of Bishops whatsoever has any additional authority
apart from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
An Ecumenical Council can never depose or remove a Roman Pontiff, because Ecumenical Councils have
no authority apart from the Roman Pontiff. An Ecumenical Council cannot elect a Roman Pontiff, because
112
Ecumenical Councils do not exist without a Roman Pontiff.187 An Ecumenical Council can never overrule the
decisions of a reigning Roman Pontiff, because the authority of the Ecumenical Council depends upon the
authority of that same Roman Pontiff. Nevertheless, an Ecumenical Council can, under the authoritative
guidance and governance of the Roman Pontiff, and with his official approval, correct a previous fallible
teaching or decision of a previous Pope, a previous Ecumenical Council, or even of the current Pope (if he has
changed his mind). This change or correction in teachings and/or decisions is possible only in so far as such
teachings or decisions fall under the fallible Ordinary Magisterium or under the fallible temporal authority of
the Church. All teachings of the Sacred Magisterium are entirely infallible, irreformable, and irrevocable.
The First Vatican Council taught that an Ecumenical Council does not have authority superior to the Pope
and that decisions of the Pope cannot be appealed to an Ecumenical Council. “They wander from the straight
path of truth, therefore, who affirm that it is permissible to appeal from decisions of Roman Pontiffs to an
ecumenical council as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”188 Therefore, an Ecumenical Council
can never overrule the decisions of a reigning Roman Pontiff, nor remove him from his role as the one true
leader of the Church on earth.
Truths Beyond the Magisterium
Both the Ordinary Magisterium and the Sacred Magisterium teach only from the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
When a Bishop or the Pope speaks about sub jects outside of faith and morals, that is, about questions not
answered by the Sacred Deposit of Faith, his thoughts and ideas are neither a part of the Sacred Magisterium,
nor of the Ordinary Magisterium. Any teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium can eventually be decided upon
by the Sacred Magisterium and become the explicit and infallible teaching of the Church. But comments and
thoughts on subjects outside of faith and morals, that is, outside of the things taught by the Sacred Deposit of
Faith, are in no way a part of the teaching of the Church.
Scientific truths found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith are a part of the teaching of the Church. The
Magisterium of the Church can rule on any truths of faith or morals found in the Sacred Deposit of Truth,
even if these truths fall within the area of concern of one or another of the sciences. The Church can teach,
using either the Ordinary Magisterium or Sacred Magisterium, that certain scientific theories are in error in so
far as they conflict with teachings found within the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The Church can also teach that
scientific answers to certain questions cannot include particular ideas which conflict with the Sacred Deposit
of Faith, or must include particular ideas which are required by the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
For example, the origin of the universe is of interest to astrophysics, a scientific discipline. But Sacred
Scripture clearly teaches that God brought about the origin of all creation. Any scientific theory which claims
that the universe has always existed, or that the universe brought itself into existence without the necessity of
an act of God, is contrary to the teaching of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
As another example, there are various scientific theories on the origins of man. But Sacred Scripture clearly
teaches that God brought about the start of the human race, distinguishing man from the lower animals by
means of reason and an immortal soul. Any scientific theory which posits that mankind originated from the
lower animals, without any special intervention from God, is contrary to the teaching of the Sacred Deposit of
Faith. The idea that the human body evolved from lower animals is not, in and of itself, contrary to the Faith.
However, any version of the theory of evolution, which attempts to completely explain the origins of life and
the various forms of life and especially of mankind, without the necessity of the intervention of God, must be
considered contrary to the Faith. For this reason, in the Christian view, the theory of evolution could only ever
be thought of, at most, as a partially correct, partial explanation of the origins of life and of various forms of
life, especially mankind.
One of the main conflicts between scientific theories and the Christian faith is that science often tries to
explain various parts of Creation, without any reference to God, the Creator. God created the entire universe.
God influences the entire universe. Therefore, science cannot succeed in completely explaining things as long
as science keeps God out of the explanation. Science can only offer partial explanations within each area of
scientific knowledge. A complete understanding of any field of knowledge requires the inclusion of faith in
God within the ideas of that field of knowledge. Some areas of knowledge are outside of the area of concern of
113
science. All scientific knowledge put together is less than all knowledge put together, because science does not
concern itself with knowledge arrived at through faith. And some truths are beyond human comprehension.
Explicit Versus Implicit
Every possible teaching of the Church is found, either explicitly or implicitly, within the Sacred Deposit of
Faith. No new teachings can be added to the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Sometimes it seems as if the Church has
arrived at a new teaching, but this is merely a new deeper understanding of the same Sacred Deposit of Faith
ever-present within, and ever-cherished by, the Church. A deeper understanding of some aspect of the Faith
often leads to a new explicit teaching, which was always implicit in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
For example, each Pope, including Peter and every one of his Successors, has had the ability to teach
infallibly by his sole authority. The Church has always taught, in one way or another, the special role and
ability of the Successor to Saint Peter in teaching and guiding the Church. But at the First Vatican Council,
our understanding of this teaching, which began with the special ministry Christ gave to Peter, reached a new
level. The teaching on Papal Infallibility was always implicit in the Sacred Deposit of Faith (cf. Mt 16:17-19;
Jn 11:49-52). But at the First Vatican Council, the Church was able to explicitly state that teaching with a new
level of clarity and precision. The Council was able to clearly state the criteria for any Successor of Peter to
teach infallibly by his sole ability and authority.
The Vastness of the Sacred Deposit of Faith
The Sacred Deposit of Faith is like an Ocean of Truth, whose depth and size can be measured only by God.
Every day we faithful swim in that Ocean, yet we never touch the bottom, nor reach the other side. The Sacred
Deposit of Faith is like a vast Forest, filled with the Mysteries of Christ. Every day, we faithful walk in that
same Forest, and every day we see things we never saw before. Has every possible teaching of Christ now been
explicitly taught and widely understood by the Church? No, far from it. There are ten thousand truths as yet
undiscovered within the ancient Deposit of Faith. These beautiful everlasting truths lie still and hidden within
Divine Revelation, awaiting discovery by the Church on earth.
114
Chapter 6
co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix
Second Vatican Council: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate,
Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from, nor
adds anything to, the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.”189
Pope John Paul II: “Beside the merciful Heart of Christ, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, Mediatrix of grace and of salvation.” 190
Pope John Paul II: “mediatrix of mercy”191 and “…she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her
position as mother.”192
Pope John Paul II: “In contemplating the Theotokos, almost at this journey’s end, we look upon the true face of
the Church, radiant in all her beauty, shining with ‘the glory of God which is on the face of Christ’ (2 Cor 4:6).
O Advocate, help the Church to be ever more like you, her exalted model. Help her to grow in faith, hope and
love, as she searches out and does the will of God in all things (cf. Lumen Gentium, 65). O clement, O loving, O
sweet Virgin Mary!” 193
Pope John Paul II: “Dear brothers and sisters! Let us turn our eyes to the Immaculate, all Holy and all Fair.
May Mary, our Advocate, Mother of the ‘King of Peace’, who crushes the serpent's head, help us, the men and
women of the third millennium, to resist the seductions of evil; may she rekindle faith, hope and charity in our
hearts, so that, faithful to our call and ready to make any sacrifice, we may be fearless witnesses to Jesus
Christ, the Holy Door of eternal salvation.” 194
Pope Paul VI: “It is also important to note how the Church expresses in various effective attitudes of devotion
the many relationships that bind her to Mary: in profound veneration, when she reflects on the singular dignity
of the Virgin who, through the action of the Holy Spirit, has become Mother of the Incarnate Word, in
burning love, when she considers the spiritual motherhood of Mary towards all members of the Mystical
Body; in trusting invocation, when she experiences the intercession of her advocate and helper; 195 in loving
service, when she sees in the humble handmaid of the Lord the queen of mercy and the mother of grace; in
zealous imitation, when she contemplates the holiness and virtues of her who is ‘full of grace’ (Lk. 1:28); in
profound wonder, when she sees in her, ‘as in a faultless model, that which she herself wholly desires and
hopes to be’;196 in attentive study, when she recognizes in the associate of the Redeemer, who already shares
fully in the fruits of the Paschal Mystery, the prophetic fulfillment of her own future, until the day on which,
when she has been purified of every spot and wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), she will become like a bride arrayed for
the bridegroom, Jesus Christ (cf. Rev. 21:2).”197
Pope Pius XII: “Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth—and let no one consider
himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul—let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the
Mediatrix of peace….” 198
Pope Pius XI: “Let them pray to Him, interposing likewise the powerful patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
Mediatrix of all graces, for themselves and for their families, for their country, for the Church….”199
Pope Pius XI: “And now lastly may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these
desires of ours; for since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as
a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is
115
piously called a reparatress. Trusting in her intercession with Christ, who whereas He is the ‘one mediator of
God and men’ (1 Timothy ii, 5), chose to make His Mother the advocate of sinners, and the minister and
mediatress of grace, as an earnest of heavenly gifts and as a token of Our paternal affection we most lovingly
impart the Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, and to all the flock committed to your care.”200
Pope Pius XI: “Receive, we beseech Thee, O most benign Jesus, by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, the Reparatress, the voluntary homage of this expiation….” 201
Pope Pius X: “Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the
Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate
of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX. Ineffabilis).”202
Pope Leo XIII: “Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’(St. Bernard,
Serm. II in Adv.) ‘the Reparatrix of the whole world,’(St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of
all heavenly gifts.’(On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.)” 203
Pope Leo XIII: “The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the
side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to
Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers,
perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the
part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the
facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the
succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips.”204
Pope Leo XIII: “She it is from whom is born Jesus; she is therefore truly His mother, and for this reason a
worthy and acceptable ‘Mediatrix to the Mediator.’ ” 205
Pope Leo XIII: “Let us take as our mediatrix with God the most glorious VIRGIN MARY, the invincible
Queen of the Rosary, Who has such great power over the forces of hell, and has so many times made Italy feel
the effects of Her maternal love.”206
Man and Woman
It is not possible to understand the Virgin Mary’s role in God’s plan, without first understanding that God
wills men and women to have different roles within His plan. It is not possible to understand the Virgin Mary
in relation to Christ, without first understanding the proper relation between men and women in God’s plan. It
is not possible to understand the Virgin Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix, et cetera,
without first understanding that God gives different roles to men and women. Many people, who promote the
idea of Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, do not correctly understand that men and women
have different roles in God’s plan. As a result, they misunderstand the true meaning of Mary as co-
Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix.
Eve was created to be a helper to Adam. “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ ” (Gen 2:18). Similarly, the Virgin Mary was created to be a helper
to Jesus Christ. “ ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord....’ ” (Lk 1:38).
Women are created to be helpers to men. “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no
woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve....”
(1 Tim 2:11-13). The Virgin Mary fulfilled this Scripture in her whole life, especially in her relationship with
her Divine Son Jesus Christ. Jesus taught in the Synagogues on the Sabbath; Mary was silent. Jesus taught the
Apostles and the other disciples and the crowds; Mary did not teach, but only listened. Jesus led and Mary
followed.
116
If you cannot accept this teaching, then you cannot understand Christ’s place in Creation, nor Mary’s place
in Creation, nor your own place in Creation. Whoever rejects this teaching about men and women, rejects
God’s plan for Creation. Any woman who refuses to accept the role given to her by God, in relation to men,
within the Church, the family, and society, cannot possibly understand the true meaning of Mary’s role as co-
Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. The same is true for any man who refuses to accept the proper role of a
man in the Church, the family, and society.
Mediator and Mediatrix
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus….” (1 Tim
2:5). There is only one Mediator between God and Creation: Jesus Christ. Therefore, Mary’s role as Mediatrix
cannot be that of a female mediator. The role of Mediatrix is fundamentally different from the role of
Mediator, because the role of women in God's plan is fundamentally different from the role of men. The
feminine form of the word implies both that the person is female and that the role is a feminine role. The
feminine role called “Mediatrix” is to be a helper to the Mediator. Christ mediates between God and
humanity; Mary merely assists Christ. Mary participates in Christ’s mediation, but she herself does not
mediate. And Mary would not have the role of Mediatrix at all, except that Christ exercised His role as
Mediator perfectly in her case.
Mary’s assistance to Christ does not consist in doing what Christ does in a lesser way. Mary does not
mediate, not even in a subordinate or auxiliary way. When Christ taught the crowds, Mary did not stand at
His side and add her own words to His Word. When Christ led the Apostles, Mary was not second in
command. Mary’s role is not a reduced version of Christ’s role. Mary’s role is not a secondary or lesser type of
Christ’s role. Mary’s role in God’s plan is fundamentally and radically different than Christ’s role.
As Mediatrix, Mary’s role is not to mediate, not even in a secondary or auxiliary way. Mary’s role as
Mediatrix is to help and assist Christ. Mary does not mediate, she merely assists the One who does mediate. In
no way and in no sense of the word is Mary a mediator. The role of Mediatrix is merely to assist the one
Mediator, Jesus Christ. Mary assists Christ in His work as Mediator, not by doing any mediating herself, not
even with and under Christ. Rather, she assists Christ by helping Him when He mediates. The Virgin Mary
participates in Christ’s work of mediation, but she does not, in any way whatsoever, act as a mediator herself.
Mary does not stand before God to Mediate for the People of God. Instead, she kneels before Christ, in
worship of Him, and assists Christ as He stands before the Father as the one Mediator.
How does Mary assist Christ in mediation? First and foremost, through the prayers and sufferings of her
whole life. Mary offers her whole life and her whole self to God, as both a prayer and a sacrifice of the highest
order, united to the supreme prayer and sacrifice of the life and death of Jesus Christ, for the sake of all those
for whom Christ mediates.
Advocate and Advocatrix
Mary’s role as Advocatrix should use the feminine form of the word, so as to indicate that her role is the
feminine role of assistant to Christ our Advocate. The use of a Latin word as a theological term also has the
advantage of allowing the word to be given a specific definition apart from what would be the common
meaning of the word in each language. Also, Mary’s role as Advocatrix is substantially different than Christ’s
role as Advocate; use of a separate word, “Advocatrix,” clarifies this difference.
As with the term Mediatrix, the feminine word Advocatrix implies both that the person is female and that
the role is a feminine role. Mary’s role as Advocatrix is not to advocate for us before God, but to assist Christ
in His role as our Advocate before God. The Virgin Mary participates in Christ’s work of advocacy, but she
does not, in any way whatsoever, act as an advocate herself.
Mary is subordinate to Christ, but her role is also radically different from Christ’s role. Christ is our
Advocate (1 Jn 2:1). Mary is not our Advocate. Her role as Advocatrix is to assist Christ in His role as
Advocate for us before God. Mary does not stand before God to Advocate for the People of God. Instead, she
kneels before Christ, in worship of Him, and assists Christ as He stands before the Father as our Advocate.
117
The Virgin Mary is our Advocatrix. This term is feminine, which correctly implies that the role is a feminine
role of subordinate assistance to the one true Advocate, Jesus Christ. However, some persons promote the use
of the expression: “Advocate for the People of God.” This particular expression is seriously flawed because it
lacks any reference to Christ. Mary does not stand alone before God as our Advocate. Jesus Christ stands
alone before God as our Advocate, while Mary kneels before Christ, in worship of Him, and participates in
His advocacy. The Virgin Mary is not herself the Advocate for the People of God. Jesus Christ is the Advocate
for the People of God; Mary is His subordinate assistant in His work of advocacy.
Redemptor and Redemptrix
There is one Redeemer of all Creation, Jesus Christ. A Redemptrix is not a female Redeemer nor is she a
female co-Redeemer. The role of Redemptrix is fundamentally different from the role of Redeemer, because
the role of women in God's plan is fundamentally different from the role of men. The feminine form of the
word, Redemptrix, implies both that the person is female and that the role is a feminine role.
As with the terms Mediatrix and Advocatrix, the Redemptrix has a role which is both radically different
from, and wholly subordinate to, the Redemptor. Mary is not our Redeemer; Mary is not a co-Redeemer with
and under Christ. Mary is not a female Redeemer. There is one Redeemer, Jesus Christ. The Virgin Mary's
role as Redemptrix is fundamentally different from Christ's role as Redeemer, because the role of women in
God's plan is fundamentally different from the role of men.
Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix is intrinsically different from Christ’s role as Redeemer. Mary does not
redeem, she merely assists the One who does redeem. Mary participates fully in Christ’s work of Redemption,
but she herself redeems no one. In no way whatsoever is Mary a co-Redeemer. The role of the co-Redemptrix
is merely to assist the one Redeemer, Jesus Christ. In the Redeemer/redeemed relationship, the Virgin Mary is
wholly on the redeemed side of the relationship. Mary was redeemed by Christ. She participates in Christ’s
redemption of us by assisting us as we respond to God’s grace and accept Christ and follow Christ to our
salvation. The Virgin Mary does assist Christ in His work of redemption, but not by redeeming, not by co-
redeeming, and not by doing any work of redemption per se, not even in a subordinate way. Christ is the one
Redeemer; Mary is merely assists Christ as He redeems.
Christ is Divine and is the source of our salvation, whereas Mary can do nothing to save us without Christ.
Mary’s role is to assist Christ in obtaining our redemption. Christ suffered for us on the Cross, whereas Mary
suffered at the foot of the Cross. Christ died on the Cross for our salvation, whereas Mary did not die for our
salvation. Her later death was not an act whereby she saved us, but rather an act in which she herself was
saved by Christ. Christ is able to save us, because Christ is God. Mary is not able to save us, because she is not
God. Mary can only assist Christ in His work of salvation. This radically different and wholly subordinate role
is indicated by the feminine form of the words: Mediatrix, Redemptrix, Advocatrix.
Mary’s participation in Christ’s work of redemption can be divided into two parts: her life on earth and her
eternal life in Heaven. In this life, Mary accepted God’s whole will. She lived her whole life, even from her
earliest days, in complete obedience and love of God. She accepted God’s plan to make her the Mother of the
Messiah. She accepted all that God asked of her throughout her life, even when her Divine Son Jesus Christ
had to suffer and die on the Cross. Mary lived a life of prayer, self-denial, and works of mercy, even to her last
days on earth. Yet throughout her holy and prayerful life, Mary never redeemed anyone, not even herself. She
accepted God’s plan to bring salvation to the world and she accepted and followed her part in that plan. Christ
died alone on the Cross. Mary did not die on another cross next to Christ. Mary did not redeem anyone. Mary
did everything she could to assist Christ in offering redemption to all.
In Heaven, the Virgin Mary continues to do everything she can to assist Christ in His work of redemption.
Yet, even from Heaven, Mary does not redeem anyone, neither directly nor indirectly. The Virgin Mary prays
to her Divine Son Jesus Christ for the salvation of each and every person throughout Time and Place. Mary
offers her entire self to God for the sake of our salvation by Christ. Yet even this act of total self-giving does
not bring about our salvation, not even in an auxiliary or supplementary way. Even in Heaven, Mary is
powerless to save or redeem anyone. Only Christ can save our souls. Only Christ can redeem the world. Mary
can do a great deal to assist Christ, but she cannot redeem even a single soul herself. Everyone who is saved
118
has benefited from Mary’s work as assistant to Christ the Redeemer. Yet none have been saved by Mary, not
even partially. You cannot understand Mary's role in salvation until you understand this truth.
The Meaning of “co-” in co-Redemptrix
Christ’s role of Redeemer is significantly different than His role as Mediator and Advocate. When Christ
acts as Mediator between God and mankind, we do not have any role as mediators. We are the subject of the
mediation. Christ mediates for us; we do not mediate for ourselves. When Christ acts as our Advocate before
God, we do not have any role as advocates. We are the subject of advocacy. Christ advocates for us; we do not
advocate for ourselves. But, when Christ acts as our Redeemer, we must necessarily participate in our own
redemption. We must co-operate with God’s grace, or we will not be redeemed. We must accept the gift of
Love-Faith-Hope. We must exercise the gift of our Redemption through prayer, self-denial, and works of
mercy. Christ’s role as Redeemer requires our co-operation in order to result in our eternal salvation.
Therefore, the Virgin Mary is not merely the Redemptrix, she is the co-Redemptrix, because she assists us
when we co-operate in our own redemption. Mary is our co-worker in the work that we all must do in order to
be saved, the work of co-operating with Christ, the Redeemer, in our own redemption.
The prefix “co-” in co-Redemptrix does not refer to Mary’s role in relation to Christ as Redeemer. Some say
that the “co-” in co-Redemptrix means that Mary works with Christ in Redeeming us. But, if that were the
meaning, then we would have to add “co-” before many other titles of Mary. Mary is called co-Redemptrix,
but she is not called co-Mediatrix or co-Advocate, and with good reason. The prefix “co-” in co-Redemptrix
refers to Mary’s role in relation to us, not to Christ; we have a special role to play in our redemption by Christ,
a role which we do not have in Christ’s mediation and advocacy for us.
When Christ acts as Mediator, He is assisted by Mary the Mediatrix. Christ acts; Mary assists. When Christ
acts as Mediator, our role is not that of mediator at all. When Christ acts as Advocate, He is assisted by Mary
the Advocatrix. Again, Christ acts and Mary merely assists. When Christ acts as Advocate, our role is not that
of advocate at all. We do not actively participate in Christ’s role as Mediator and Advocate; we are subject to
Christ’s mediation and advocacy. But, when Christ acts as our Redeemer, we not only accept the Redemption
offered to us by Christ, we also actively participate in our own redemption. We participate in our own
redemption by co-operating with God’s grace: we accept Christ’s teaching, we change our lives to conform to
Christ’s Way, we take up our crosses and follow Christ, etc.
The “co-” in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary’s role in relation to our work of participating in our own
redemption. Mary co-operates with us in our work of accepting Christ and following Christ and changing to
become like Christ. Mary is a co-worker with us in our task of participating in the Redemption offered to us by
Christ. The “co-” in co-Redemptrix implies a rough equality between Mary and ourselves in the work of our
redemption. Mary participates in our redemption much as we participate in our redemption. Mary’s role in
our redemption is fundamentally different from, and wholly subordinate to, Christ’s role in our redemption.
But her role is very similar to our role in that she joins with us when we participate in our redemption by
Christ.
The prefix “co-” implies a similar role between two or more persons. This meaning is seen in words such as:
co-worker, co-author, co-pilot, co-anchor. In some cases, one of the individuals is subordinate to the other, as
with the pilot and co-pilot. In other cases, the individuals have roughly the same level of leadership or
authority, as may be the case with co-authors or co-anchors. But neither meaning can be applied to Mary’s
role in assisting Christ towards our redemption. Mary’s role in our redemption is not only subordinate to
Christ’s role, but also radically different from Christ’s role. The “co-” prefix is not used to describe an
individual who has a role which is both different from, and subordinate to, the role of another individual.
Mary is not a co-worker with Christ in obtaining our redemption, not even in a subordinate way. However,
Mary is a co-worker with us as we participate in our Redemption. Mary has a role in assisting Christ with our
redemption; in that role she is the Redemptrix, the subordinate assistant to the Redemptor. The “co-” in co-
Redemptrix does not refer to Mary’s role as Christ’s assistant, but to her role as a co-worker with us as we
participate in our redemption.
Some Christians interpret the “co-” prefix to mean that Mary works “with” Christ, in a subordinate role, in
our Redemption. On the contrary, it is not enough to say that Mary is subordinate to Christ. We must also
119
understand that her role is entirely different that Christ’s role in our redemption. The prefix “co-” in co-
Redemptrix cannot refer to Mary’s role in relation to Christ, even if it is interpreted to mean “with and under”
Christ, because Mary’s role is substantially and fundamentally different from Christ’s role. The prefix “co-” in
co-Redemptrix can only refer to Mary’s role in relation to us. We do not participate in Christ’s mediation or
advocacy. But we do participate in Christ’s work of bringing us redemption. That is why Mary is called co-
Redemptrix, but she is not called co-Mediatrix or co-Advocatrix.
The term “Redemptrix” refers to Mary’s role as Christ’s subordinate assistant in Christ’s work of
Redemption; the “co-” prefix is not needed to describe that aspect of Mary’s role. Instead, the “co-” prefix
describes another aspect of Mary’s role, whereby she co-operates with us as we participate in our redemption.
The word Redemptrix is sufficient to describe Mary's role in relation to Christ as our Redeemer. The prefix
“co-” means something in addition. The “co-” prefix does not refer to Mary's cooperation with Christ, nor to
Mary as a co-Redeemer with Christ, nor to Mary as a co-worker with Christ in His work of Redemption. We
each participate in our own redemption by Christ. Mary’s is a co-worker with us, a co-helper with us,
cooperating with us, as we participate in our redemption by Christ.
Christ as God is infinite; Mary is finite. The Son of God redeems; the mere human woman Mary does not
redeem. Christ is God; Mary is not God; therefore, Christ and Mary cannot have similar roles. Christ is
Messiah; Mary is not Messiah; therefore, Christ and Mary cannot have similar roles. Mary is not co-Redeemer
with Christ. The prefix “co-” in co-Redemptrix must be understood to refer only to Mary’s role as co-worker in
our work of participating in our redemption. The “co-” prefix in co-Redemptrix does not refer to Mary’s role
in relation to Christ, but to her role in relation to us. Mary’s role in our redemption is comprehensive and
indispensable, but she is not the Messiah and she does not have a similar role to the Messiah.
The Virgin Mary does not have a co-redemptive role with Christ, not even if this role is understood to be
secondary and subordinate to Christ. Mary has a unique role, substantially and fundamentally different from
Christ’s role and wholly subordinate to Christ’s role. Christ alone redeems; Mary assists Christ in His work of
redemption.
The Correct Term is “co-Redemptrix”
The word co-Redemptrix should be written with a capital “R” and a lowercase “c,” because “Redemptrix”
refers to Mary’s participation in Christ’s Divine work of Redemption, whereas the prefix “co-” refers to Mary’s
participation in our own weak and imperfect efforts to accept Christ’s Redemption. Many people write this
word with a capital “C” and a lowercase “r,” because they do not understand this truth.
An Reflection of the Trinity
The three aspects of Mary’s triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix are interrelated, much as
the three persons of the Trinity. These are not three separate roles, but three different aspects of one role.
Mary’s triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix is a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity. Her role
as co-Redemptrix is a reflection of the Father; her role as Mediatrix is a reflection of the Son; her role as
Advocatrix is a reflection of the Spirit.
Her role as co-Redemptrix is a reflection of the Father. How did Christ redeem us? By doing the Father’s
will, even unto death. “Father…not what I will, but what thou wilt.” (Mk 14:36). The Father draws us to the
Son so that we can be saved. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will
raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:44). Mary does not offer us redemption, but her role as co-Redemptrix is a
reflection of the First Person of the Trinity, from Whom comes all redemption.
Her role as Mediatrix is a reflection of the Son. Her Divine Son Jesus Christ is the one Mediator between
God and Creation. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus….” (1 Tim 2:5). Mary is not the mediator, but her role as Mediatrix is a reflection of the Second Person
of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the one Mediator.
Her role as Advocatrix is a reflection of the Spirit. “But the Counselor [Paraclete, Advocate], the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
120
that I have said to you.” (Jn 14:26). Mary is not our Advocate, but her role as Advocatrix is a reflection of the
Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Paraclete.
Analogies
No analogy is a perfect and complete description of something. An analogy can only go so far towards
describing something. An analogy can help explain, but cannot prove, a particular idea. The following
analogies are meant to help explain Mary’s role, as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix, in relation to
Christ.
Christ and Mary are not like a pilot and co-pilot. The pilot flies the plane, but the co-pilot also flies the
plane. The pilot and co-pilot have the same role, even though the co-pilot is subordinate to the pilot. Christ
and Mary do not have the same role, not even with the provision that Mary’s role is subordinate to Christ’s
role. It is true that Mary is radically subordinate to Christ.207 But Mary’s role is also radically different from
Christ’s role. It is a serious theological error to claim that Mary has much the same role as Christ, even if that
role is said to be with and under Christ. In truth, the Virgin Mary’s role is both radically subordinate and
radically different from Christ’s role.
To continue the same analogy, Christ and Mary are more like pilot and crew member. The pilot flies the
plane, the crew member assists the pilot in flying the plane. The crew member never flies the plane, but only
assists. Christ mediates between God and Creation. Mary never steps into that role, not even for a single
instant, not even in a way which is subordinate to Christ. Instead, she assists Christ the one Mediator. On the
other hand, Christ and Mary are not like pilot and stewardess, because the stewardess does not assist the pilot
in flying the plane. Christ and Mary do not have the same roles, but neither are their roles unrelated.
Another analogy is found in the medical profession. Christ and Mary are like surgeon and nurse. The
surgeon operates on the patient; the nurse assists the surgeon, but she does not operate on the patient. Christ
redeems humanity; Mary assists Christ in redeeming humanity, but she herself does not redeem anyone. In her
role as co-Redemptrix, Mary does not redeem, nor does she do any work of redemption per se. She merely
assists Christ in His work of redemption.
Within the same analogy, Christ and Mary are not like the chief surgeon and the surgical intern. The
surgical intern is subordinate to the chief surgeon, (some would say radically subordinate), but they both have
basically the same role. The chief surgeon performs operations; the surgical intern also performs operations.
Christ and Mary do not have the same role in obtaining our redemption, nor do they have roles which are
similar with the exception that Mary is subordinate to Christ. Instead, Christ and Mary have radically
different, but closely-related, roles.
Christ and Mary are not like a teacher and an assistant teacher. When Christ taught, Mary did not stand by
His side and also teach. Mary assisted Christ during His teaching Ministry, by praying and suffering and being
merciful to others. When Christ healed, Mary did not stand by His side and also heal. Instead, she assisted
Christ by imitating His holiness and by offering her whole self to God. When Christ chose the Twelve
Apostles, He first spent all night in prayer to God. Mary assisted Christ in this decision, not by verbally
advising Him and not by choosing some of the Twelve, but by her prayer and self-sacrifice. Men and women
today should imitate these examples from Christ’s life in their relationships with one another.
Christ and Mary are not like two attorneys: lead counsel and co-counsel. The attorney with the role of co-
counsel is subordinate to the attorney with the role of lead counsel, but they both have basically the same role.
They each might question a witness or make a motion before the court. Mary is subordinate to Christ, but her
role is also radically different from Christ’s role. Christ is our Advocate (1 Jn 2:1). Mary is not our Advocate.
Her role as Advocatrix is to assist Christ in His role as Advocate for us before God. Mary does not stand
before God as Advocate for the People of God. Instead, Mary kneels before Christ, in worship of Him, and
she assists Christ as He stands alone before the Father as our Advocate.
Exceptions to Mary’s role as Mediatrix of Grace
The Virgin Mary is Mediatrix of Grace. Pope Pius XI even calls her “Mediatrix of all graces.”208 However, a
correct understanding of this title requires two exceptions to the phrase “Mediatrix of all graces.”
121
1. The Virgin Mary is not the Mediatrix of the grace given by the Divine Nature of Christ to the Human
Nature of Christ. There is no mediator between Christ’s Divine and Human Natures, therefore, there can be
no mediatrix between Christ’s Divine and Human Natures. The Virgin Mary does not intercede with the
Divine Nature of Christ to obtain grace for the Human Nature of Christ. The Virgin Mary does not intercede
with the Most Holy Trinity to obtain grace for the Human Nature of Christ. Mary does not pray for Christ to
be saved or to be blessed by God. Christ is Mary’s Savior and God, so He never requires her intercession in the
least. Mary never interceded for Christ; from the time of the Annunciation, Mary always understood that
Christ is God.
During her lifetime on earth, the Virgin Mary understood that her child was the Christ-child and the Son of
God. Thus, she did not pray for his salvation or for his holiness. If anyone ever did say any prayers for the
Christ, such prayers had no effect on the soul of Christ, which has no need of prayer or intercession. Christ’s
body and soul are united with His Divinity, and so His body and soul have no need of anything more. Christ
could fast in the wilderness for 40 days, because His body and soul were always united to His Divinity. Christ
could die on the Cross, only because His Divinity allowed his suffering and death. Nothing can happen to the
Humanity of Christ, except that Divinity of Christ permits it.
The Virgin Mary is not able to intercede between Christ and God. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the
Trinity. Mary cannot intercede with God on behalf of God. Mary cannot intercede with the Father on behalf
of the Son or the Spirit. God is so thoroughly One that any mediation between the Persons of the Trinity is
completely impossible. There is no mediator within the Trinity, for God is One. “Now an intermediary implies
more than one; but God is one.” (Gal 3:20).
The Virgin Mary is not able to intercede between the Divine Nature and the Human Nature of Christ, nor
between the Human Nature of Christ and the Trinity. The Human Nature of Christ is fully human, and so has
need of God’s grace. However, grace flows in abundance upon the Human Nature of Christ from the Divine
Nature of Christ. The Divine and Human Natures of Christ are so thoroughly, intimately, and irrevocably
united, in One Person, that any mediation between the Divine and Human Natures of Christ is completely
impossible. The Human Nature of Christ has no need of the intercession or mediation of the Virgin Mary, nor
of any other person.
Suppose that some holy person prayed for Christ, when He was a child. God would look favorably on such
a prayer, and perhaps provide grace to some poor sinner in need, because of this virtuous act. But the Son of
God has no need of the intercession of any created person. The Virgin Mary is called “full of grace” (Lk 1:28).
The saying “full of grace” can also be correctly applied to the Human Nature of Jesus Christ. Mary is full of
grace because she receives an abundance of grace from Jesus Christ, her God and Savior. Christ is full of grace
because His Divine Nature is united to His Human Nature. The Human Nature of Christ receives a super-
abundance of grace from the Divine Nature of Christ, so much so that no intercession, mediation, prayers,
sacrifices, or any other act by any part of Creation (other than the Human Nature of Christ) is needed to
obtain, for Christ’s Human Nature, from Christ’s Divine Nature, any kind or degree of grace or favor from
God.
Jesus Christ, in His Human Nature, is not the Mediator of grace given to His Humanity from His Divinity.
Christ cannot stand between His Divine Nature and His Human Nature; the Divine Nature and Human
Nature of Jesus Christ is all that He Is. The Divine Nature of Jesus Christ is the source of grace proceeding to
the Human Nature of Jesus Christ; the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is the recipient of grace proceeding from
the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ. Since Christ Himself is not the mediator of the grace He Himself receives,
neither can the Virgin Mary be the Mediatrix of graces she herself receives. There is no mediator between God
and Christ and there is no mediator between Christ and Mary.
2. The Virgin Mary is not the Mediatrix of the grace given by the Trinity to the Virgin Mary. When Mary
receives grace, from Christ as Source of grace by virtue of His Divinity, and through Christ as Mediator by
virtue of His Humanity, she is the recipient, not the Mediatrix, of that grace. She cannot be both mediatrix and
recipient of the same grace. She cannot stand as Mediatrix between Christ and herself.
Suppose two persons have a disagreement. If they choose a mediator to attempt reconciliation between
them, the mediator cannot be one of those two. A person cannot be judge over his own case. Neither can
122
someone be a mediator of their own case. Thus, Mary cannot be Mediatrix in the case of the grace she herself
receives. She also cannot be the Mediatrix of the grace that Christ Himself receives in His Human Nature,
because Mary can only be Mediatrix where Christ is Mediator.
The grace given by the Divine Nature of Christ to the Human Nature of Christ have no mediator. Christ’s
Human Nature is the recipient of grace and Christ’s Divine Nature is the source of that grace. Grace given by
the Most Holy Trinity to the Human Nature of Christ have no mediator.
Christ is the Mediator of all grace with one exception. Christ is not the Mediator of grace given to Christ’s
Human Nature. Mary is the Mediatrix of all grace with two exceptions. Mary is not the Mediatrix of grace
given to the Human Nature of Christ. Since Christ is not the Mediator of grace received by His Human
Nature, neither can Mary be the Mediatrix of that grace. Mary is also not the Mediatrix of grace given to her
from the Trinity through Christ; then she is the recipient, not the mediatrix. Thus, in the singular case of the
grace received by Mary, Christ is the Mediator without a Mediatrix. But, in all other cases where Christ is
Mediator, Mary assists Christ as Mediatrix.
Furthermore, the Virgin Mary has no intercessor or mediator other than Jesus Christ. No one can intercede
for the Virgin Mary with God except Christ, the Son of God. If someone, other than Christ, could pray and
obtain God’s grace for the Virgin Mary, then there would be additional exceptions to the phrase “Mediatrix of
all graces.” If your prayers could obtain grace for Mary, then Mary would not be the mediatrix of that grace
obtained by your intercession. There are only two exceptions to Mary’s role as Mediatrix of all grace: grace
from God to Christ and grace from Christ to Mary. Therefore, no one can intercede with God for Mary except
Christ.
The Mediatrix has only one Mediator, Christ the Lord. The Mediatrix has only one intercessor, Christ the
Lord. The Mediatrix is so closely bound to the Mediator in the love of God that no one can intercede between
them. Mary is Christ’s closest disciple and most perfect imitator. No one can intercede with Christ for Mary,
because no one is closer to Christ than Mary. No one can intercede with Christ for Mary, because no one is
more like Christ than Mary.
Persons other than Christ and Mary can offer their prayers and sacrifices to the Trinity for one another. In
this way and to some extent, the faithful share in Christ’s work of Mediation and Redemption. What Mary
does in assisting Christ in His role as Redemptor, Mediator, Advocate, etc., can be done—to some extent—by
any of the faithful. For this reason, we pray for the intercession of the saints and angels in Heaven, and we ask
others, even in this life, to pray for us. Mary’s role as Assistant to Christ is something that we all can imitate
and share. Nevertheless, Mary’s role, as Assistant to Christ, is unique and preeminent among all created
persons.
Is the Virgin Mary Assistant to Christ in all that He does? No. Christ is God and God as the One Divine
Eternal Act exists before and beyond all Creation, before and beyond Heaven, before and beyond Mary, before
and beyond Time and Place. Therefore, Mary cannot share in all that Christ does. Christ is God, Mary is not.
She shares in His work of Redemption, but not in every work of the Trinity, nor in every work of any One
Person within the Trinity. God is infinite and Mary is finite, therefore Mary cannot share in every work of
God or of Christ.
Does the Human Nature of Christ share in every work of the Divine Nature of Christ? No. The Divine
Nature of Christ is infinite and the Human Nature of Christ is finite. Christ’s Divine Nature shares in every
work of His Human Nature, because the infinite can encompass the finite. But Christ’s Human Nature cannot
share in every work of His Divine Nature, because the finite cannot encompass the infinite. Therefore, within
the One Person of Jesus Christ, His Divine Nature is beyond the complete comprehension of even His own
Human Nature. Within the One Person of Jesus Christ, there is ever that aspect of His Divine Nature which is
apart from and beyond His Human Nature.
No Other Exceptions
There are no other exceptions to Mary’s role as Mediatrix of all grace. Mary is Mediatrix of all grace given
to all angels and to all created persons, other than Christ and Mary.
123
The Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of grace given by God throughout all Time and all Creation. How can
Mary be the Mediatrix of grace given by God before her own beginning at the Immaculate Virgin Conception?
If Heaven were stretched out in Time, with events occurring in an absolute order of before and after, she could
not. If Heaven was within Time, then she could not dispense grace to persons living before she arrived in
Heaven. But Heaven is beyond Time and the Virgin Mary left earth for Heaven at the time of her Dormition.
When the Virgin Mary left this humble earth, the birth place of her Savior and Son, to rejoin her Divine Son
where He dwells in Heaven, she entered into the Timelessness of Heaven. In Heaven there is no absolute
ordering of before and after. Heaven is present to all persons throughout Time, from Time’s very beginning to
its very end, all at once. From Heaven, which is outside of and beyond Time, the Blessed Virgin Mary can be
the Mediatrix of grace given at any point in Time. God’s merciful grace, which flows from Heaven to
Creation, is not limited or obstructed by Time, because Heaven is with God Who is Eternity. The Most
Blessed Trinity pours out immeasurable merciful grace through Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary upon all of
Creation, throughout all Time and Place, and beyond Time and Place.
In Heaven, beyond Time and Place, all the Elect can watch any event, throughout Time and Place, as it is
happening—present tense—not as mere images of past events. Furthermore, the Elect in Heaven participate in
the Providence and Grace of God throughout Time and Place. The Elect in Heaven participate with God in
the creation of the Universe. The Elect do not merely watch the events of Time and Place, but rather, because
they are united with God in love, they participate in the work of God.
Since the Elect in Heaven participate in the work of God, then the Virgin Mary must also participate in the
work of God. Since the Elect in Heaven participate in the Providence and Grace of God, then the Virgin Mary
must also participate in the Providence and Grace of God. The Virgin Mary is closer to Christ and more like
Christ than any other created person. Therefore, Mary’s role must be unique and preeminent, below Christ,
but above every other created person.
God created the Universe through Christ and for Christ. “For from him and through him and to him are all
things.” (Rom 11:36). All created things are patterned after Christ: “through whom are all things and through
whom we exist.” (1 Cor 8:6).
From her place in the Timelessness of Heaven with the Eternal Triune God, the Virgin Mary participates,
through her Divine Son Jesus Christ, in the creation of the Universe and assists Christ in pouring out the grace
of the Trinity on all Creation. The Virgin Mary, in her perfect humanity, participates and assists in all that the
Perfect Humanity of Christ does. God created Adam and Eve, through Jesus Christ, with the participation of
the Virgin Mary. God delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, through Christ and with Mary. God’s
Providence and Grace, throughout all Time and all Creation, is through Christ and with Mary.
From her place in the Timelessness of Heaven with the Eternal Triune God, the perfect humanity of the
Virgin Mary participates in nearly all that the perfect Humanity of Christ does, throughout all Time and all
Creation. Christ’s humanity is united to His Eternal Divinity, and so Christ can be present throughout all
Time and Place, and beyond Time and Place. The Virgin Mary dwells in Heaven, with her Divine Son Jesus
Christ, with the Eternal Triune God, and so she too can be present throughout all Time and Place, and
beyond.
When God created Adam and Eve, Christ and Mary were there. When Adam and Eve fell from Grace,
Christ and Mary gave them grace to admit their sins and repent. When Abraham offered his only son as a
sacrifice to God, God gave Abraham the grace to love God so selflessly through Christ with Mary. When the
Israelites were delivered out of slavery in Egypt and wandered through the desert with God for forty years,
Christ and Mary were there. “For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock
was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:4). The Virgin Mary assists Christ in dispensing the Providence and Grace of God to all
Creation, throughout all Time and beyond.
The Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of grace given even from the beginning of Time, before she was conceived
on earth, because she dwells now with God, Who is Eternity, Who is beyond Time and Place. All the Elect in
Heaven dwell with the Eternal Triune God. All the Elect in Heaven assist Christ and Mary in pouring out
grace on Creation, even from the very beginning of Time and Place.
124
The Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix even of grace given by God before she was conceived. Once the perfect-
Virgin Mary entered into Heaven, beyond Time and Place, she could then be present-tense to all persons,
places, and events, everywhere and everywhen. From her place with God, Who is Eternity, the Virgin Mary
fulfills her role as assistant to Christ as He pours forth grace throughout all Time and all Place, and beyond
Time and Place.
The merits of Christ’s Passion were applied from the Eternal Now to bring about the Immaculate
Conception at a point in Time before Christ’s Passion had occurred. This is not a result of God, within Time,
applying foreseen merits as if it were money loaned in view of foreseen future earnings. Rather, Christ’s
Passion and death on the Cross is a source of grace, for all Creation, throughout all Time, from the Eternal
Now of Heaven.
Heaven is outside of Time. Once the Virgin Mary entered into Heaven, she left Time and Place. From
Heaven, with God Who is Eternity, the Virgin Mary can be present to all persons and all places throughout
Time. In this way, God continually pours forth grace from Christ on the Cross, with the Virgin Mary as the
holy Assistant and Mediatrix of Jesus Christ, to every Time and Place. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is
Mediatrix of grace given by Christ, even from the beginning of Time and Place. From her place in Eternity, the
Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of her Divine Son Jesus Christ, even for the multitude of graces given before she
was conceived and born on Earth. Furthermore, anyone can ask God to give grace to persons throughout
Time and Place, because God is beyond Time.
Whenever anyone states that the Virgin Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces, it must be clearly understood that
she is not the Mediatrix of grace given to the Human Nature of Christ, nor to her own human nature, but to all
the rest of Creation, throughout Time and Place, and even outside of Time and Place, in the Timelessness of
Heaven. The Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces which proceed from the Most Blessed Trinity to all
Creation, except the human natures of Christ and herself. Thus, there are two exceptions to the expression
“Mediatrix of all graces.”
The Virgin Mary is not only the Mediatrix of Grace; she is also the Mediatrix of God’s Providence. And she
is correctly called the Mediatrix of mercy. For this reason, the Virgin Mary should be called simply
“Mediatrix.”
The Difference between Mediatrix and Mediator
How does Christ’s role as Mediator differ from Mary’s role as Mediatrix? Christ mediates between God and
Creation. Mary never mediates; she merely assists Christ in His work of mediation. The Mediatrix is merely
the assistant to the Mediator. Christ is God, but Mary is merely human. Christ is the head of all Creation;
Mary is not the head, but rather part of the body. All created things are patterned after Christ. Mary is
patterned after Christ. All creation is not patterned after Mary. The Human Nature of Christ is the greatest of
all created things. The Humanity of Christ is thoroughly and intimately united to His Divine Nature. Thus,
when God pours out Grace on Creation, He does so through and with the Humanity of Christ. The human
nature of the Virgin Mary is not united to God in the same way as with Christ’s Humanity. The human nature
of the Virgin Mary is not united in One Person with a Divine Nature. Mary has such a closeness to Christ that
she is concerned with all that the Christ is concerned with; she intercedes for all persons and events throughout
Creation, (except herself and Christ) because of the purity of her love for Christ. But God does not Act through
Mary as God Acts through Christ.
The One Divine Eternal Act chooses the Human Nature of Christ as the Head of all Creation. The One
Divine Eternal Act offers Grace and Providence throughout Creation through the intimate union of Christ’s
Humanity and His Divinity. Not so with Mary as Mediatrix. Christ’s role as Mediator is fundamentally and
substantially different than Mary’s role as Mediatrix because Christ is Divine. Without Christ, Mary is
nothing. Without Mary, Christ is still the Second Person of the Trinity. Mary’s role as Mediatrix results from
and is dependent upon Christ’s role as Mediator.
There is a further reason why Christ’s role as Mediator is different than Mary’s role as Mediatrix. Christ is
male, but Mary is female. The title “Mediatrix” should be clearly understood as fundamentally different from
“Mediator,” because a mediatrix is a woman and a mediator is a man. Men are meant to have a
fundamentally different role than women in God’s plan for humanity. God has designed Creation so that men
125
and women have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. This design is intrinsic to the human
race and to Creation itself. Eve was created to be the helper to Adam (Gen 2:18). Men are meant to be leaders;
women are meant to be the helpers of men. The feminine form of the word, Mediatrix, implies the role of an
assistant or helper, whereas the male form of the word, Mediator, implies the role of a leader. Mary is not a
Mediator, she is a Mediatrix. Mary was created to be the helper to Christ in His work of salvation. Thus, the
role of Mediatrix must always be understood to be both different than, and subordinate in function and
capacity to, the role of Mediator. Mary is the subservient assistant of Christ in His work of salvation.
A Mediatrix is, by definition, an assistant to a Mediator. The use of the feminine word indicates a
difference, not only in gender, but also in role. Christ as Mediator is a unique role. Mary as Mediatrix is a very
different role and so also a unique role. If Mary’s role was much the same as Christ’s role, then neither role
would be unique. Christ’s role is to lead; Mary’s role is to assist. Thus there are two reasons why Mary’s role is
different than Christ’s role. First, Christ is God and His human nature is united to His Divine Nature; Mary is
not God and her human nature is not united with a Divine Nature. Second, Christ is a man and Mary is a
woman. Christ is a man; Mary is a woman. Mary does not have the type of role within Creation given only to
men.
Most Christians today do not understand that God has created men and women to have different roles
within Creation. It ought to be obvious, (but it is not, in the present day,) that a mediatrix would have a
different role than a mediator, because one term refers to a female and the other to a male. But our society has
almost completely lost the understanding that men and women are created to have intrinsically different roles
in the Church, the family, and society. This lack of understanding about the different roles of men and women
has resulted in a lack of understanding about the different roles of Christ and Mary.
Heaven, Hell, Purgatory
The Virgin Mary is not only Mediatrix of Grace and Providence, she is also Mediatrix of all that the power
of God does towards all of Creation, with two exceptions—Christ and herself. Mary is also Christ’s holy
assistant even in rewarding the just in Heaven and in punishing the unjust in Hell. Mary is Christ’s holy
assistant in raising the dead at the general Resurrection and in assuming the just to the new Heaven after the
Resurrection.
Is the grace of God present and effective within the fires of Hell? The condemned in Hell do not receive
grace from God, for that is why they are condemned and that is part of their condemnation. Yet God is
present in Hell in the sense that God’s power keeps Hell and the citizens of Hell in existence, and God gives
Hell order and justice. Hell is not a place where the devil reigns and keeps a perverse kind of order. Hell is a
place where the devil is sent to be punished. The devil will be a prisoner within the prison of Hell and not its
warden. God rules in Heaven, on Earth, and under the Earth; therefore, God rules even in Hell. That is why
Christ, after His death on the Cross and before His Resurrection, descended to Hell. Christ went to Hell to
bring renewed order to this place where the unrepentant are punished by God.
Mary is Mediatrix of grace given by Christ to the holy souls in Purgatory. Mary is Christ’s holy assistant in
nearly all that He does. The holy souls in Purgatory receive more than grace from God. The holy souls in
Purgatory receive knowledge and just punishment and comfort and more. Mary is Christ’s holy assistant in
dispensing all of these things within Purgatory. Mary is not merely Mediatrix of grace, but of much more. That
is why Mary should be called simply: “Mediatrix.”
Grace and Salvation
Why does God give grace to you for your salvation? God’s reason, for anything and everything that God
is/does, is all that God is/does. God is One Divine Eternal Act. His reason for dispensing grace to anyone at
any time is everything that God is/does, including His understanding of all persons, places, things, and events
throughout all Creation, especially His understanding and love for Christ’s Divine sacrifice on the Cross and
for the Virgin Mary’s participation in that one sacrifice. The reason that God dispenses grace to you for your
salvation is All that God Is, and Christ’s one true sacrifice on the Cross and Mary’s sharing in that sacrifice,
and then also by the prayers and sacrifices of others.
126
Grace is an effect of the One Divine Eternal Act. To receive grace is to be touched directly by God. The
grace you receive through Christ with Mary is not first given to her, and then given from her to you. God gives
you grace directly and immediately from God. The sacrifice of Christ’s suffering and death on the Cross is first
among the events of all Creation and, therefore, it has the first place within Creation as a reason for all that
God does.
When Christ was on the Cross, the Virgin Mary was at the foot of the Cross. There she received grace from
Christ. Mary was not on a second cross, doing the same work as Christ. Rather, she was at the foot of Christ’s
Cross as His holy Assistant. She was not at the foot of the Cross to dispense grace to Christ, but to receive
grace. Mary is not the Mediatrix of all grace without exception. She did not dispense grace to Christ when He
died for her salvation. She did not dispense grace to herself at the foot of the Cross.
When the angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin that she would be the mother of the Messiah, Mary did
not consider herself to have a similar role as that of the Son of God, but rather the role of His humble assistant.
“And Mary said, ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.’ ” (Lk 1:38).
She calls herself the handmaid of the Lord, meaning both that she is the humble assistant of God and also that
she is the humble assistant of the Messiah, her Lord. The Virgin Mary is not equal to Christ, nor does she have
the same role as Christ; the Virgin Mary is the humble and holy Assistant of Christ.
The Definition of Dogma
“The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines
dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith,
truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary
connection with these.” 209
Dogmas are truths found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture) and
infallibly taught by the Sacred Magisterium. Such truth may be present in Tradition and Scripture either
explicitly or implicitly. But any truth properly called a dogma must have been taught explicitly and infallibly
by the Sacred Magisterium, even if that truth itself is present only implicitly in Tradition or Scripture.
The Second Vatican Council clearly taught the different ways that the Magisterium can teach infallibly. The
Pope can teach infallibly by his sole ability and authority. Papal infallibility was used to define Church
teaching on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. 210 The body of Bishops led by the Pope can also
teach infallibly. This type of infallibility is often exercised by an Ecumenical Council.
The Church can also teach infallibly by the constant teaching and witness of the body of Bishops led by the
Pope. (This is sometimes called the “universal and ordinary Magisterium.”) Most dogmas fall under this type
of Church teaching. It is often difficult to discern which teachings of the Church have been taught infallibly by
the constant teaching and witness of the body of Bishops led by the Pope, because the infallibility of such
teachings is not based on one particular infallible statement or definition.
Many truths found in Tradition or Scripture have not yet been taught explicitly and infallibly by the Church.
Many theological questions are open questions which the Magisterium as not yet decided. These truths are not
generally classified as dogmas, but they could be defined by the Magisterium in the future. Once it is infallibly
and explicitly defined, a doctrine becomes classified as a dogma.
The So-called “Fifth and Final Marian Dogma”
Some persons claim that the doctrine of Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate is the “fifth
and final dogma” to be declared about the Virgin Mary. They list five dogmas about the Virgin Mary: 1) her
perpetual virginity; 2) her Immaculate Conception; 3) her Assumption to Heaven; 4) her role as Mother of
God; 5) her role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate. These five truths about the Virgin Mary are part of
the teaching of the Church. But the claim that there exist only five dogmas to be defined by the Church about
the Virgin Mary, comes from a combination of arrogance and ignorance.
First, the Church already teaches more than five dogmas about the Virgin Mary. In addition to the above
listed doctrines, Church teaching on the Queenship of Mary is a dogma of the Church. The teaching of the
127
Church that Mary is Queen of Heaven is a well-established teaching of the Church. The Church has, for many
years, celebrated the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the liturgical calendar (in August). The Church
has prayed the fifth glorious mystery of the Rosary, in remembrance of Mary’s Queenship in Heaven, for
many centuries. Mary’s role as Queen of Heaven is a true and certain teaching of the Church under the
“universal and ordinary Magisterium,” and should certainly be included on any attempted list of Church
dogmas about Mary.
There are at least several other Marian doctrines which rise to the level of a dogma. The Virgin Mary is
often called “Spouse of the Holy Spirit.”211 This teaching has been taught by the Church through centuries of
Church history. The Church has constantly and universally taught the doctrine that Mary suffered with Christ
during His Passion and Crucifixion. Mary’s sacrifice at the foot of the Cross is a Marian dogma. The doctrine
of the Immaculate Heart of Mary has been accepted and taught by the Church as a sure truth of the Faith and
has become in integral part of our veneration of Mary and our worship of God. This doctrine is also a Marian
dogma, yet it is not on the list of five Marian dogmas.
The Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Church. 212 This teaching is drawn from Sacred Scripture, especially
the passage where Christ on the Cross, in one of the last acts before His death, gave His mother to us all (Jn
19:26-27). This constant teaching of the Church is certainly a Marian dogma, yet it is not included in the list of
five dogmas. The expression “fifth and final Marian dogma” does not allow the Magisterium to teach as a
dogma that Mary is the Mother of the Church.
Ironically, many persons who promote this idea of the “fifth and final Marian dogma” also repeatedly refer
to Mary’s Queenship, her role as Spouse of the Holy Spirit, her role as Mother of the Church, her Immaculate
Heart, and her suffering with Christ. Why then do they claim that there can only ever be five dogmas about the
Virgin Mary?
If anyone tries to claim that these doctrines do not yet rise to the level of a dogma, they must still admit that
the Church could infallibly define such doctrines in the future. Either way, the dogmas about the Virgin Mary
cannot be limited to five. There are many fundamental truths to be known about the Virgin Mary. Numerous
doctrines about the Virgin Mary are already dogmas of the Church, while other doctrines await further
clarification and definition by the Magisterium. And there is no support in Tradition, Scripture, or the
Magisterium for a list of Marian dogmas limited to five.
Second, those who make this claim do not even understand the five doctrines which they list and promote.
They do not understand that Mary’s perpetual virginity includes a virgin conception and a virgin birth. They
do not understand that her Immaculate Conception, which kept her free from original sin, also made it
impossible for her to commit the least personal sin throughout her entire life. They do not understand that
Mary died and rose from the dead, before being assumed into Heaven, and that the faithful will also be
assumed into Heaven (after the general Resurrection). They know that Mary’s role as Mother of God is a
dogma, but they do not understand that Mary’s role as Mother of the Church is also a dogma. They do not
understand that Mary is Mediatrix of God’s Providence. They do not understand that her role as Mediatrix of
all grace has two exceptions. They do not understand why the title co-Redemptrix begins with “co-” when the
other titles do not. They do not understand even these five doctrines about Mary, and yet they claim that these
are the only five Marian dogmas which can be known and defined by the Church.
Third, the claim that the so-called fifth dogma is the “final dogma” implies that God will not reveal to His
Church any further truths about the Virgin Mary. How can they be certain that God does not understand more
than five fundamental truths about the Virgin Mary? This claim is really a claim to know everything that God
knows about Mary. The Vox Populi petition even claims “such a definition will bring to light the whole truth
about Mary.” 213
This claim attempts to limit what the Church can teach about the Virgin Mary. These persons not only
attempt to pressure the Magisterium to infallibly define these three titles, but, in claiming that this is the “final
dogma,” they are claiming that the Magisterium cannot infallibly teach or define any further truths about the
Virgin Mary. Who put them in charge of the truth, apart from God and the Sacred Magisterium, that they
should decide which things and how many things can be infallibly taught about Mary? The idea of limiting
128
Marian dogmas to five does not come from the Magisterium, but rather attempts to usurp the authority of the
Magisterium.
In the same Apostolic Constitution wherein Pope Pius XII infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption
of Mary into Heaven, he also taught on the subject of her death (called her “Dormition”) and her
Resurrection, prior to her Assumption. The Magisterium has not yet infallibly defined Church teaching about
the Virgin Mary’s death and Resurrection. Future clarification about the Dormition and Resurrection of the
Virgin Mary by the Sacred Magisterium could define an additional Marian dogma.
There are other important theological questions about the Virgin Mary which await clarification and
possible infallible definition by the Sacred Magisterium. For example, the Magisterium has not yet decided
whether Mary’s Immaculate Conception was also a miraculous virgin conception and her holy birth was a
miraculous virgin birth. The Church teaches that Mary was entirely free from both original sin and personal
sin, throughout her life. But Mary’s holiness is more than the mere absence of sin. Mary’s holiness is greater
than that of all the saints and angels put together. A future infallible definition by the Magisterium could
further clarify and define this doctrine.
Other teachings of the Church which either are already dogma or could be defined as dogma by the Church
include: the role of the Virgin Mary as martyr among martyrs; the predestination of the Blessed Virgin Mary;
her perfect holiness and perfect imitation of Christ; her roles as Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, Reparatrix of the whole
world, Mother of all the living, etc. And there are many more truths about the Virgin Mary: her holy
childhood, her increase in holiness and grace, her role within the Holy Family, and her fundamental role
within each and every one of the Seven Sacraments.
Thus, there are many Marian dogmas which can be infallibly defined by the Sacred Magisterium in the
future. The Magisterium is able to decide upon these important Marian doctrinal questions. The expression
“fifth and final Marian dogma” incorrectly claims that the Magisterium cannot decide infallibly on any
Marian doctrinal questions other than those five. Since this claim detracts from the fundamental ability and
authority of the Sacred Magisterium to define doctrine infallibly, this claim is a heresy and contrary to the
Catholic faith.
Fourth, all the Marian doctrines are closely interconnected, so that it is ridiculous to try to number them.
Notice that they list three separate titles for Mary under one dogma, because these three are related. But all the
doctrines about the Virgin Mary are related to one another and to every doctrine about her Divine Son Jesus
Christ. For example, Mary’s Immaculate Conception was also a virgin conception, which is part of her
perpetual virginity. Mary’s perfect virginity includes her sinlessness, which began with her Immaculate
Conception. Her perfect virginity is dependent upon and proceeds from Christ’s perfect virginity. Her
Immaculate Conception means that she is sinless, which is part of the reason that she was assumed into
Heaven, before the rest of the faithful, in imitation of Christ’s Ascension. Her role as Mediatrix flows from her
role as Mother of God, but she is also thereby Mother of the Redeemer, Reparatrix of the whole world, etc.
Mary’s perfect virginity is part of her perfect imitation of Christ, which is part of the reason that she who was
without sin nevertheless died and rose from the dead, just as Christ died and rose from the dead. All truths
about the Virgin Mary are one Truth. There are not five dogmas to be known about the Virgin Mary. There is
one truth to be known about Mary, and only God knows it in all its fullness.
Fifth, the Virgin Mary is greater and holier than all the rest of humanity put together, except for the Human
Nature of Christ. Therefore, the entire human race put together, except for Christ and Mary, cannot fully
comprehend the Virgin Mary. The whole truth about the Virgin Mary is beyond complete comprehension by
any human mind, other than that of Christ and Mary. Those who think that they can understand and number
and limit the truths about the Virgin Mary are overestimating themselves and underestimating her.
Future Infallible Definitions
The Magisterium of the Church will continue to teach infallibly about the Virgin Mary and her place in
God’s plan. The Magisterium may declare infallible definitions having to do with Mary’s role in God’s plan
under a number of different titles. However, the Sacred Magisterium of the Catholic Church will never
129
infallibly declare any doctrine about Mary to be fifth or final. The Magisterium cannot infallibly number
doctrines, because doctrines are not numbered within Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. And the
Magisterium cannot infallibly declare that there are no further doctrines which could be known or declared in
the future, because the whole truth about the mysteries of faith is beyond human comprehension.
One cannot make a list of all of the infallible teachings of the Church. It is difficult to say which teachings of
the Church have been taught infallibly. Much of the infallible teaching of the Church falls under the first form
of the third charism of the Sacred Magisterium, that is, under what is called “the universal and ordinary
Magisterium.” Such teachings are usually established by the constant teaching and witness of the Bishops in
union with the Pope, not by a particular infallible definition in a particular document.
Furthermore, the infallible Sacred Magisterium cannot merely state that the Virgin Mary is Mediatrix, co-
Redemptrix, and Advocate without also defining what those terms mean. The infallible definition of the
Immaculate Conception, in the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, does not even use the term
“Immaculate Conception.” Instead, that document gives a precise definition of this truth about Mary. The
Magisterium could not infallibly define the term “Immaculate Conception,” without also defining its meaning,
because that would have left the faithful uncertain as to the correct meaning of the term. An infallible
proclamation without an accompanying definition would be empty. The Magisterium cannot infallibly define
that the Virgin Mary is Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix, Advocatrix without also explaining the meaning of those
terms. Most of those who strongly promote this doctrine have a limited understanding as to what the terms
mean.
Attempts to Pressure the Magisterium
Some groups of Catholics have attempted to pressure the Sacred Magisterium of the Church to infallibly
declare the Virgin Mary as Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix, and Advocate. Such efforts show a distinct lack of faith
and humility.
The teaching of the infallible Sacred Magisterium proceeds from the Trinity. Any attempt to pressure the
Magisterium to teach a particular doctrine is really an attempt to pressure God and cannot possibly succeed.
Those who make such attempts are acting as if they believe that the infallible teaching of the Sacred
Magisterium is merely the result of human will and action. They are acting as if God was not involved at all.
Faithful Catholics who believe in the Virgin Mary as Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix, Advocatrix can pray,
practice self-denial, and be merciful to others, as a way to speed the acceptance of this teaching by the whole
Church. Another way to spread this true doctrine throughout the Church is to study the doctrine so as to
understand it better. Many who favor this doctrine hardly understand it at all. They pressure the Church to
accept a doctrine which they themselves do not correctly understand. They are very much mistaken.
Errors in the Petition of Vox Populi
The following is the text of the petition of the lay organization “Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici,” addressed
to the Pope, which Vox Populi is asking Catholics to sign. This petition contains serious theological errors.
“With filial love, we the faithful wish to humbly petition you, the Vicar of Christ, to solemnly define
as Christian dogma the Church's constant teaching on Mary's co redemptive role with Christ the
Redeemer of humanity. It is our belief that such a definition will bring to light the whole truth about
Mary, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Spouse of the Spirit and Mother of the Church.
Therefore it is our prayer that the Holy Spirit will guide you, Holy Father, to define and proclaim the
Blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace and Advocate for the People of God.” 214
First, the Virgin Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix is not a co-redemptive role. Her role is not to redeem. Only
God can redeem us. Christ is God; Mary is not. Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix is to assist Christ in His
redemptive work and to cooperate with us as we accept and follow Christ. Mary walks beside us as we are
redeemed by Christ. Mary cannot co-redeem because she is not co-Messiah and she is not co-God Incarnate.
Second, such a definition (of Mary as Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix, Advocatrix) is not the whole truth about
the Virgin Mary. It does not complete the Church’s teaching about Mary. The implication is that such a
130
definition is the final dogma to be taught by the Church about Mary. There are certainly further teachings
about the Virgin Mary (see above), therefore this definition does not “bring to light the whole truth about
Mary.” A correct definition would increase the Church’s understanding of the Virgin Mary, but certainly
would not complete our understanding about her.
Third, Mary is not “Mediatrix of all grace.” She is not Mediatrix of grace which proceeds from the Trinity
to the humanity of Christ, nor is she Mediatrix of grace which proceeds from Christ to herself. In addition, the
term “Mediatrix of all grace” is lacking because Mary is Mediatrix of God’s Providence as well as of God’s
grace.
Fourth, the term “Advocate” is inaccurate when rendered in the English language. Unlike the terms
Mediatrix and co-Redemptrix, the term “Advocate” lacks the feminine form which would help distinguish it
from Christ as Advocate and the Holy Spirit as Advocate. A better term is “Advocatrix.” Mary’s role as
Advocatrix is exercised as a member of the People of God. She is not above or apart from the people of God.
The People of God are the Body of Christ, with Christ as its head. Mary is a part of the body, not a part of the
head. Mary is Advocatrix for us, but she is also with us as a part of the People of God. The expression
“Advocate for the People of God” tends to portray Mary as if she were our Advocate instead of Christ or
along with Christ. Truly, Christ alone is our Advocate. Mary is not an Advocate at all, not even in a way
which is subordinate to Christ. Mary’s role as Advocatrix is both fundamentally different from, and radically
subordinate to, Christ’s role as the One Advocate for the People of God.
The Vox Populi organization has stated that millions of persons have signed this petition. 215 But the petition
is filled with theological errors. What would happen if the Sacred Magisterium responded by infallibly defining
this doctrine in its correct form, in contradiction to the version found in the petition? Some persons would
certainly respond to God’s grace, by admitting their error and placing their faith in the teaching of the Church.
Even so, it is likely that at least some persons would respond by rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium. Vox
Populi is gathering the support of millions of persons for a doctrine which, though true in its correct form, is
full of theological errors as they present it. By encouraging people to firmly adhere to their particular version of
a doctrine not yet defined by the Magisterium, they are laying the groundwork for dissent from Church
teaching.
Associated Theological Errors
Numerous erroneous theological ideas have become associated with the true doctrine of Mary as co-
Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. First, this true doctrine is neither the fifth Marian dogma nor is it the final
Marian dogma (see above). The claim that this doctrine is fifth and final is not a part of the doctrine itself, nor
is it even implied by the doctrine.
Also, some persons have gone so far as to suggest that acceptance and proclamation of this doctrine by the
Magisterium is associated with the end of the world. “And we must proclaim it to the world in order for the
Immaculate Heart to Triumph and the Holy Spirit to come, in our hearts first and then in all nations.” 216 The
claim is even made that proclamation of this dogma will result in a time of peace for the whole world.217 Such
apocalyptic and eschatological claims are not a part of the doctrine itself, nor are they even implied by the
doctrine.
Some claim that acceptance of this doctrine will “make known the whole truth regarding her unique
participation with and under Her Divine Son in the work of Redemption.” 218 The doctrine of Mary’s triune
role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix does shed light on Mary’s participation in Christ’s work of
Redemption, but it is not the whole truth. This false claim that the doctrine is the whole truth is similar to the
false claim that it is the last Marion dogma; both erroneously assume that nothing further could be known or
taught about Mary by the Sacred Magisterium. On the contrary, the Sacred Magisterium cannot be prevented
from teaching and defining further truths about Mary.
Many who repeatedly refer to Mary as Mediatrix of all graces fail to mention the two exceptions: she is not
Mediatrix of the grace received by Christ’s human nature, nor is she Mediatrix of the grace which she herself
receives. In addition, they often ignore Mary’s role as Mediatrix of Providence, and, in truth, of nearly all that
God does with respect to Creation.
131
The expression “Advocate for the People of God” is an incorrect phrasing of Mary’s true role. Christ is the
one true Advocate for the People of God; any expression which refers to Mary’s participation in Christ’s
Advocacy must contain some reference to Christ. For example, the term Advocatrix is feminine. Women were
created to be helpers and assistants to men. So the term Advocatrix implicitly contains the idea that the
Advocatrix is helper and assistant to the Advocate. Mary is not properly called “Advocate for the People of
God,” but she can be correctly called: “Advocatrix to the Advocate for the People of God.”
Many of those who promote the doctrine of Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate understand
that Mary’s role is subordinate to Christ. They use the expression “with and under Christ” to refer to her
subordinate role. However, they fail to understand that Mary’s role is not only subordinate to Christ’s role, but
also substantially and fundamentally different than Christ’s role. They incorrectly speak as if Mary had a role
of her own as a Redeemer, Mediator, and Advocate, whereas the truth is that Mary only participates in
Christ’s role as Redeemer, Mediator, and Advocate. Mary’s role is to assist Christ. Mary does not do any work
of redemption, mediation, or advocacy; she only assists Christ in His work of redemption, mediation, and
advocacy.
Another common error suggests that the “co-” prefix in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary’s role in relation to
Christ. They say that the “co-” prefix means “with” and that Mary has a co-redemptive role with and under
Christ. This claim is a distortion of true doctrine. Mary is co-Redemptrix, but she is not a co-Redeemer, nor
even “with and under” Christ. Only Jesus Christ has the role of Redeemer. The Virgin Mary cannot, in any
sense of the word, be called co-Redeemer. Christ is the Son of God and so He alone has the power to Redeem
the world. The Virgin Mary is not Divine and does not have the power to redeem anyone, not even herself.
Even a moderated expression of this idea, which gives Mary a co-redemptive role which is subordinate to
Christ is unacceptable, because Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix is substantially and fundamentally different than
Christ’s role as Redeemer. Mary’s role is not redemptive or co-redemptive, because only God Incarnate can
redeem us.
This controversy about the meaning of “co-Redemptrix” is really a controversy about how Christ our
Redeemer accomplishes our redemption. If a mere human person were able to offer redemption to anyone,
then God could have redeemed us through Abraham or Moses or Peter or Mary. Some Jews have the idea that
the Messiah will be merely human, that he will not be God Incarnate. On the contrary, the Christian idea is
that God became Incarnate in Christ Jesus because no mere human person would be able to accomplish our
redemption. Mary is not able to redeem the human race, not even “together with Christ,” because no mere
human person can redeem anyone. Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is able to redeem us because Christ is God
Incarnate. Many mere human persons have suffered crucifixion, but none were able to offer redemption except
God Incarnate. Mary’s great suffering at the foot of the Cross has no power whatsoever to redeem anyone, not
in the least, because the sufferings of a mere human person are not able to redeem. God alone redeems. We
mere human beings must participate in our redemption by Christ and assist others in their redemption by
Christ, but we have no ability to obtain or offer redemption to anyone, not even in a way which is partial and
subordinate to Christ.
Mary participates in Christ’s work of redemption in a way which is both radically subordinate to, and
radically different from, Christ’s role. The expression “with and under Christ” refers to the subordinate aspect
of Mary’s role, but fails to acknowledge the fundamental difference in her role. Mary does not have the role of
Redeemer, not even in a subordinate way.
The meaning of the “co-” prefix is very widely misunderstood. If the “co-” prefix referred to Mary’s role
“with and under” Christ, then that prefix would also be used in front of her other titles, for Mary does nothing
alone. Instead, the “co-” prefix in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary’s cooperation with us as we participate in our
redemption by Christ. Redemption is different from Mediation and Advocacy because each of us must
participate in our own redemption by cooperating with God’s grace. Mary cooperates with us and is a co-
worker with us as we are saved by Christ the One Redeemer.
Examples of Theological Errors
The following quotes erroneously speak as if Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix were
much the same as Christ’s role as Redeemer, Mediator, Advocate. Though some of the quotes correctly point
132
out that Mary’s role is subordinate to Christ’s role, they fail to show an understanding of the fundamental
difference between Christ’s role and Mary’s role.
A popular book about this Marian doctrine states: “The fact that Mary together with Christ redeemed the
human race quite naturally led the faithful who continued to meditate on this fact to coin the word
Coredemptrix in order to describe her role.”219
This quote has a phrasing similar to that attributed to Pope Benedict XV: “…we may rightly say that she
redeemed the human race together with Christ.”220
Both quotes speak of Mary redeeming the human race “together with Christ.” It is a serious theological
error for anyone to claim that Mary redeemed the human race, even in a way which is partial or subordinate to
Christ. In truth, Mary does not redeem anyone, not even “together with Christ.” Only God Incarnate can
redeem the human race. Without the Incarnation, the Crucifixion would be ineffective. One may rightly say
that Christ redeems the human race with the assistance of the Virgin Mary. But it is entirely incorrect to claim
that Mary does any work of redemption, as if she had a similar role to Christ in our salvation. This quote from
Pope Benedict XV is a rare example of a theological error in a papal document. 221
Christ is God; Mary is merely human. If a mere human person could redeem anyone, then why did God
become Incarnate in Jesus Christ and then die for us? Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix is not at all the same as
Christ’s role as Redeemer. Christ alone redeems the human race; He does not redeem together with Mary.
Mary’s role is to assist Christ in His work of redemption. Her role is fundamentally different from Christ’s role;
He redeems and she does not redeem. Mary does not ever redeem anyone in the least because Mary is not
God Incarnate. God became Incarnate in order to suffer and die for us. If Mary had a co-redemptive role, then
the meaning of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion would be substantially different.
The same book quoted above also calls Mary “the distributor (Mediatrix) of all graces and the great
intercessor (Advocate) for her children after Jesus himself…and the Holy Spirit….”222 The theology found in
this quote is deeply flawed. Mary’s role as Mediatrix is not to distribute all graces, but to assist Christ as He
mediates for us before God and to assist Christ as He dispenses grace to us. If Mary were the distributor of all
graces, then what would be Christ’s role? If a mere human person could Mediate and Advocate for the People
of God, then why did God become Incarnate?
Christ and Mary do not have the same role, neither each alone nor both together, as the distributors of all
graces. Christ mediates; Mary assists. She herself does not mediate. Christ advocates; Mary assists. She herself
does not advocate. Christ acts; Mary assists. Mary cannot be correctly called “the great intercessor (Advocate)
for her children after Jesus and the Holy Spirit”223 because Mary’s role is not the same as Christ and the Holy
Spirit’s role. Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity; the Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity. Mary is not
the fourth person of the Trinity. She cannot possibly have the same role as Christ and the Spirit, not even with
the proviso that her role is subordinate to Christ and the Spirit. Rather, the truth is that Mary merely
participates in Christ’s role as Advocate. Thus, it is better to call her “Advocatrix”—a different word for a
different role.
Dr. Mark Miravalle is a promoter of Mary’s role as “the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.”
However, he speaks of Mary as if she has a “co-redemptive role with Jesus.”224 Though he correctly states that
her role is subordinate to Christ’s role, he incorrectly speaks as if Mary has much the same role as Christ. On
the contrary, Mary’s role is both different from, and subordinate to, Christ’s role.
Dr. Miravalle calls Mary “the New Eve, who with and under her Son redeems all peoples.”225 Again, he
correctly states Mary’s subordinate role, but he incorrectly speaks as if Mary could redeem. On the contrary,
Christ redeems all peoples; Mary does not redeem anyone, she only participates in Christ’s redemptive work.
This type of theological error is common in writings about this doctrine. Mary is repeatedly and incorrectly
described as if she had the same kind of redemptive role as Christ. Theological errors such as these impede the
definition and proclamation of this doctrine by the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
Note the grammar used in the several of the above quotes. Mary is the subject of the sentence about
redemption; Christ is only mentioned in a dependent clause. The grammar they use is a reflection of their
theology. Mary is spoken of as if she were the one doing the redeeming. If Mary is the subject of the sentence,
then the sentence is theologically incorrect, because Mary is a mere human person who cannot do any
redeeming, not even together with Christ.
133
If Christ is the subject of the sentence, as in, “Christ redeems together with Mary,” the statement is closer to
the truth, but it still incorrectly implies that Mary does some work of redemption, as if both Christ and Mary
could redeem. On the contrary, Christ does the work of redemption; Mary merely participates in Christ’s
work. Christ alone redeems; Mary assists Christ, but she does no redemptive work per se. She only participates
in Christ’s work. Christ redeems; Mary assists Christ in His work of redemption. This point is important
because correct doctrine teaches that salvation is from Christ, from God Incarnate who suffered and died for
us, whereas the above incorrect doctrine teaches that salvation is from Christ together with Mary.
Dr. Miravalle also states that “Co-redemptrix means ‘with the Redeemer.’ ” 226 He considers the prefix “co-”
to refer to Mary’s role with Christ in our Redemption. If that were the case, then the same prefix would also
precede her other roles, for she does nothing alone. On the contrary, the prefix refers to Mary’s role with us, as
we cooperate with God’s grace towards our salvation. Mary is co-worker with us as we follow Christ. Mary is
like the Church in that she assists us as God’s grace leads us to salvation. But salvation itself comes from
Christ. Without Christ, Mary cannot save. Without Christ, the Church cannot save. Even with Christ, Mary
does not save us or co-save us. Therefore, the “co-” prefix can only refer to Mary’s cooperation with us as we
participate in our salvation by Christ.
Consider the following quote from Dr. Miravalle: “only when our Holy Father, in his freedom as Vicar of Christ,
proclaims this Marian truth on the highest level of revealed dogmatic truth, will our Lady then be released to mediate the
special graces necessary for our present human situation.”227 On the contrary, Mary does not mediate grace. Christ
mediates grace; Mary merely assists Christ is His work of mediating grace. The Mediatrix is not the Mediator,
she is the “Mediatrix to the Mediator.” 228
This quote reflects a fairly common belief, associated with the doctrine of Mary as co-Redemptrix,
Mediatrix, Advocatrix, that formal proclamation of this doctrine by the infallible Sacred Magisterium is
necessary for future events to unfold. While the doctrine itself is implicit in Tradition and Scripture, and has
been taught repeatedly and explicitly by the Ordinary Magisterium, the belief that a proclamation is necessary
to unbind the Virgin Mary’s power as Mediatrix is not found in Tradition, Scripture, or the Magisterium. It is
contradictory to call Mary the Mediatrix of all graces and yet claim that she cannot be the Mediatrix of certain
graces until a particular proclamation by the Magisterium. Mary has exercised her unique role in God’s plan
throughout the history of the Church, despite the lack of official Marian dogmatic proclamations in the early
Church. Mary exercised this same unique role, from her place in Heaven before Christ, even in Old Testament
times, before she was conceived and born, before anyone on earth had even heard her name. An official
dogmatic proclamation is not necessary to allow Mary to act as Mediatrix. This erroneous idea comes from
false private revelation.
False Private Revelation
The true doctrine of Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix has become associated with, and
distorted by, particular false private revelations, those of Ida Peerdeman at Amsterdam. 229 Many persons, in
accepting this true doctrine about Mary’s triune role, have also accepted the false private revelation associated
with it. As a result, their understanding of the doctrine has been impaired.
Numerous theological works, which support this true doctrine, also repeatedly refer to the same false private
revelation, giving the reader the impression that the two are inseparable. Some theological works, on the
subject of this true doctrine, inexplicably include several false conclusions based solely on this particular false
private revelation.
The Magisterium is able to infallibly teach this doctrine about Mary, because it is based on Tradition and
Scripture. Constant references to the false apparitions and messages of Ida Peerdeman at Amsterdam
undermine the understanding and acceptance of the true doctrine. In my opinion, the Magisterium should not
approve of this doctrine until it has become completely dissociated from the false private revelation and from
the false ideas which have grown up as many bad weeds around a single good plant. Some persons have
incorrectly connected the false apparitions and messages of Amsterdam to the true private revelations of
Fatima, Akita, Medjugorje, Garabandal, and others. These last have no real connection to the falsehoods of
Ida Peerdeman at Amsterdam.
134
There is no support whatsoever, in Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium, for the claim that there are, or
can only ever be, five Marian dogmas. The Church has never numbered the dogmas about the Virgin Mary.
The Church has never numbered the dogmas about Christ or the Church or the Trinity. Neither has the
Church ever taught, even implicitly, that there are a set number of dogmas about the Virgin Mary. However,
the Church has clearly taught several other dogmas about Mary in addition to the ones in the list of five.
So then, why do some persons promote the idea of a “fifth and final Marian dogma?” They have been
influenced by the false apparitions and false messages of this claimed private revelation at Amsterdam. This
false private revelation promotes the doctrine of Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, but also
distorts that doctrine in a number of ways. One distortion is the claim that this doctrine is fifth and final. This
insidious error implies that the Magisterium cannot teach and define any further dogmas about the Virgin
Mary, and it implies that other teachings about Mary (her Immaculate Heart, her Queenship, her suffering at
the foot of the Cross, etc.) are not dogmas. Another distortion purports to give Mary a similar role to Christ in
redemption, mediation, advocacy. And there are many other errors in this false private revelation.
All false apparitions and false messages, (such as those which pretend to be a private revelation from the
Trinity or from Jesus or Mary,) contain some truth. If a false private revelation contained only falsehoods,
then no one would believe and be deceived. False private revelations always contain some truth—the bait on
the hook, so to speak—such as praise for God and Mary, encouragement to prayer, etc. One can recognize
false private revelation because the messages also include some falsehoods or distortions of truth. There are
three possible types of falsehoods: 1) denial of something true, 2) assertion of something false, or, 3) distortion
of something true. This last type of falsehood is the most insidious and damaging to the Church. It begins by
acknowledging a true doctrine, but then distorts one or more essential parts of the doctrine into something
erroneous. This last type of falsehood is found in the false private revelations which both promote and distort
the doctrine of Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.
The idea that Mary has a role in God’s plan as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix does not come from
private revelation, but is implicit in Tradition and Scripture. Pope Leo XIII even used the terms “co-
Redemptress” and “Mediatrix” in the 1890’s and Pope Pius X called Mary “advocate” in the early 1900’s (see
above). A claimed private revelation from the 1940’s and 1950’s is not the source of this idea.
“3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by
propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own,—is taken away either by the powers of human
nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled
us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said
merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered
in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men,
whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins
of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.” 230
Summary of Correct Doctrine
Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, Mediator, Advocate. Christ is assisted by the Virgin Mary in her triune role as
co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. The following 12 points are an important part of a correct
understanding of this doctrine.
1. Mary’s triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix is a reflection of the Three Persons of the Holy
Trinity.
2. All three aspects of this one role are substantially different from, and wholly subordinate to, Christ’s triune
role as Redeemer, Mediator, Advocate.
135
3. Mary’s role is different from, and subordinate to, Christ’s role because, in God’s plan for Creation, the role
given to women is different from, and subordinate to, the role given to men.
4. The “co-” prefix in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary’s cooperation with us; it does not mean that Mary is co-
Redeemer, not even with and under Christ. (The “co-” prefix should not be capitalized, since it refers to our
mere human efforts towards our salvation; the “R” in co-Redemptrix should be capitalized since it refers to the
Divine efforts, in which Mary participates, towards our salvation.)
5. Mary is not a co-Redeemer and is not able to save anyone, not even with and under Christ. Christ alone
redeems; Mary merely assists Christ in His work of redemption. Her role is not co-redemptive.
6. Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, but with two exceptions. She is not Mediatrix of grace given to Christ, nor
is she Mediatrix of grace she herself receives from Christ.
7. Mary is also Mediatrix of Divine Providence and of mercy and of all that God does within Creation, except
with respect to Christ and herself. Therefore, she should be called: “Mediatrix.”
8. Mary is Advocatrix. The term “Advocate,” when applied to the Virgin Mary, is theologically deficient
because it lacks the feminine form, which would distinguish Mary’s different and subordinate role from
Christ’s role as Advocate. Use of the Latin form of the word allows a clear theological definition to be attached
to the term, unfettered by the various connotations which the word “advocate” has when translated into
various languages.231
9. The expression “Advocate of the People of God” can only be used to refer to Jesus Christ, or the Holy
Spirit. The Virgin Mary has no role of advocacy herself; instead, her role as Advocatrix is to assist Christ, our
Advocate. Mary is not “Advocate of the People of God,” but rather is a humble assistant to Christ, the
Advocate of the People of God.
10. Mary does not stand before God as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. In truth, only Christ stands
before God to redeem, mediate, and advocate. The Virgin Mary humbly kneels before Christ, in worship of
Him, and assists Christ fully in His work of redemption, mediation, advocacy.
11. Mary is truly co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. But this true doctrine is neither the fifth Marian
dogma, nor is it the final Marian dogma. The claim that this doctrine is “the fifth and final Marian dogma” is
a heresy which fundamentally contradicts the teaching of the Church.
12. Theological works about Mary’s triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix should omit any
and all references to the false private revelations of Ida Peerdeman at Amsterdam. Works on this topic should
clearly and unequivocally reject the apparitions and messages of Ida Peerdeman.
When Should the Doctrine Be Infallibly Defined?
This doctrine should not, and probably will not, be defined until several things occur. First, the doctrine
must become dissociated from the false private revelations of Ida Peerdeman at Amsterdam. Second, the
doctrine must be freed from numerous serious theological errors which plague most writings on this topic.
Third, the correct understanding of this doctrine must spread throughout much of the Church, so that the
definition can be planted as a seed in well-prepared fertile soil.
The currently-popular version of this doctrine is distorted and deficient. This version cannot be infallibly
defined as is, because it is full of errors. If the correct doctrine were defined at a time when most promoters of
the doctrine are in error, many would reject the infallible definition and the authority of the Sacred
Magisterium. When faced with a choice between rejecting their own errors and rejecting the authority of the
Church, too many persons would choose to reject the Church. That is why it would be imprudent to define
this true doctrine prematurely—because so many persons, who seem to be devout, are significantly lacking in
faith.
136
Perhaps it would be wise for the Church to issue a document on this doctrine first under the fallible
Ordinary Magisterium. Then the faithful could discuss the doctrinal points in such a document, and arrive at
an increased understanding, in preparation for a future infallible pronouncement.
The doctrine of Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix may be infallibly defined by the Sacred
Magisterium whenever the Holy Spirit wills. This true teaching, in its correct form, does not come from
private revelation, nor from theologians, nor from special interest groups. This true doctrine comes from God
alone.
137
Chapter 7
Trinity: Father-Son-Spirit
The Father-Son-Spirit is one God. The First Person of the Trinity does not proceed from the Second Person
or the Third Person. The First Person of the Trinity is First and so cannot proceed from anyone.
The Second Person of the Trinity proceeds solely from the First Person of the Trinity. The Second Person is
not primary, but secondary. The Father’s knowledge of Himself is the Son. 232 All that the Son is comes from
the Father. The Son depends entirely upon the Father. Therefore, the Father is greater than the Son: “….for
the Father is greater than I.” (Jn 14:28).
Christ could not have been referring merely to His human nature, when He said that the Father is greater
than the Son. 233 The Human and Divine Natures of Christ are united in One Person, so Christ would not have
spoken of His Human Nature as if it were separate, He would not have compared His Human Nature alone,
which in itself is finite, to the infinite First Person of the Trinity.
The Son said that the Father is greater than the Son, not because the Son took on a Human Nature, but
because the First Person of the Trinity is truly greater than the Second Person of the Trinity. The Father is
greater than the Son, because the Son obtains everything He has from the Father. “Truly, truly, I say to you,
the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that
the Son does likewise.” (Jn 5:19). Here Christ is speaking metaphorically. Christ is saying, not merely that the
Son does what the Father does, but that everything the Son is/does comes from the Father, because the Son
proceeds solely and entirely from the Father. The Father is greater than the Son because the Son proceeds
entirely from, and depends entirely upon, the Father. The Father is first and the Son is second.
Even though the Father is greater than the Son, the Father and the Son are One God. The Father and Son
are the same Divine Nature. The Father and the Son are One: “I and the Father are one.” (Jn 10:30). Since the
Father and Son are One God, they are in that sense equal. The Father-Son-Spirit is One God. They each and
together are the One Divine Eternal Act. The Son is not a lesser God, nor is the Spirit. Yet truly and without
doubt, the Father is greater than the Son, and the Father and Son are each greater than the Spirit, because the
Son entirely proceeds from and depends upon the Father, and the Spirit primarily proceeds from and depends
upon the Father and secondarily proceeds from and depends upon the Son.
The Third Person of the Trinity proceeds primarily from the First Person of the Trinity and secondarily from
the Second Person of the Trinity. It cannot be otherwise. All that the Spirit is depends first upon the Father
and second upon the Son. The Spirit proceeds secondarily from the Son because the Son depends upon the
Father. All that the Spirit is proceeds first from the Father and second from the Son. The Spirit is the Love
between the Father and the Son. 234
The Spirit cannot proceed only from the Father, because Father and Son are One. Neither can the Spirit
proceed equally from the Father and the Son, for the Father is greater than the Son. The Third Person cannot
proceed primarily from the Second Person, because the Second Person is not primary, but secondary. The
Third Person cannot proceed primarily from both Father and Son, because Father and Son are primary and
secondary in their relationship with one another.
The Spirit cannot proceed only from the Father, because the Spirit is the Love between the Father and the
Son, not the Love of the Father alone. 235 The Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from
the Son. The Spirit depends primarily upon the Father and secondarily upon the Son. The Father, Son, Spirit
is One God. The Three are one and the same Divine Nature. The Father-Son-Spirit is One.
The statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is correct, but incomplete. This
statement cannot be interpreted to mean that the Spirit proceeds equally from Father and Son, for Father and
Son are not equal. The statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father is correct, but incomplete. The Spirit
138
also proceeds from the Son, but secondarily. Those two incomplete statements become complete when joined
together. The first correctly states that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son; the second correctly
places procession from the Father above procession from the Son. No other explanation suffices.
God is One 236
God is Three Divine Persons as One Divine Being. The Three Persons are One Divine Eternal Act. Trinity
is the One Act of Existence, Love, Mercy, Justice, and so on. Trinity is the One Act of everything God is/does
throughout all Time and all Place and all Creation and beyond.
How can God be Three, since is God is so thoroughly One? The One Divine Eternal Act is the Act of Being
the Father and of Being the Son and of Being the Spirit. The Father-Son-Spirit is One Divine Eternal Act.
When a human person does one thing, only one thing is done. But the One Divine Eternal Act accomplishes
All in One Act. The Act of the Father Existing and the Act of the Son proceeding from the Father and the Act
of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is One Divine Eternal Act.
The Son proceeds from the Father; the Father does not proceed from the Son. The Son is dependent upon
the Father; the Father is not dependent upon the Son. The Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and
secondarily from the Son. The Spirit is primarily dependent upon the Father and secondarily dependent upon
the Son.
The First Person of the Trinity does not proceed from the Second Person of the Trinity or the Third Person
of the Trinity. The Second Person of the Trinity proceeds from the First Person of the Trinity. The Third
Person of the Trinity proceeds primarily from the First Person of the Trinity and secondarily from the Second
Person of the Trinity. The Second Person of the Trinity is dependent upon the First Person of the Trinity. The
Third Person of the Trinity is primarily dependent upon the First Person of the Trinity and secondarily
dependent upon the Second Person of the Trinity. The First Person of the Trinity is not dependent upon the
Second Person of the Trinity or the Third Person of the Trinity.
Infallibility of the Trinity237
God is infallible. All other infallibility proceeds from God. There is no infallibility apart from God. The
Most Holy Trinity is entirely infallible without exception. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each and all
entirely perfect and entirely infallible. The Father-Son-Spirit is one infallible being.
The Trinity is without flaw, omission, or imperfection. To have a flaw is to have something that one ought
not to have. An omission is something lacking that ought to be present. An imperfection is when something
that ought to be present is present, but in a lesser form and not entirely as it ought to be. The Most Holy
Trinity is three times perfect and entirely perfect, without flaw, omission, or imperfection. 238
Obedience within the Trinity239
Obedience to God is a reflection of the First Person of the Trinity, because even the Son and the Spirit are
obedient to the Father. There is Obedience even within the Trinity itself. Obedience and Love are identical
within the Trinity. God is Love, therefore, there is obedience within the Trinity. Love is first in all things good,
just as the Father is first in all things good.
Eternity and Procession
Procession within the Trinity is not a past event. It is not an event within Time at all. It is not an event at all.
God is Eternal. Procession within the Trinity is Eternal. Everything that God is/does is One. God is One
Divine Eternal Act. God is Mercy is Love is Peace is God. Procession within the Trinity is God. The One
Divine Eternal Act—by which the Father gives rise to the Son, and the Father and Son give rise to the Spirit,
and the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son—is God and is
One with all that God is/does. Procession within the Trinity is Eternity is Mercy is Love is Knowledge is
Peace is Everything that God is.
139
Chapter 8
The End Times
This chapter is a follow-up to my first book, The Bible and the Future of the World.240 The purpose of this
chapter is to provide an overview of future events, to offer additional insights and comments on certain topics,
and to refute some common misunderstandings about the future. The interested reader should refer to The
Bible and the Future of the World for details on the future events mentioned in this chapter. Read The Bible and the
Future of the World first, and then read this chapter.
The Tribulation
The tribulation is the time of suffering for the Church and the world, described in the book of Revelation.
The tribulation is divided into two parts; the first part is similar to, but less severe than, the second part. Each
part is a time of great suffering for the Church and the world. Each part is followed by a time of peace and
holiness. The first time of peace and holiness is less than the second, just as the first part of the suffering is less
than the second. The first part of the tribulation is a reflection of the second part, but the second part of the
tribulation is much more severe. The first part of the tribulation is a foreshadowing of the second part of the
tribulation. So also is the first time of peace and holiness a foreshadowing of the second time of peace and
holiness, but the second time of peace and holiness is much greater.
The book of Revelation organizes the sufferings of the tribulation into seven parts, called the Seven Seals.
The Seventh Seal is further divided into Seven Trumpets, and the Seventh Trumpet is finally divided into the
Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath. But these events do not occur one immediately after the other. The tribulation
also includes other sufferings, which do not fall under the punishments from God of the Seven Seals, such as
the reign of the Antichrist and the sufferings which precede his reign.
The first part of the tribulation takes place from A.D. 2009/2010 to early A.D. 2040. This first part includes
the sufferings described in the book of Revelation as the first Six Seals, and the first Six Trumpets of the
Seventh Seal. The sufferings continually increase in severity, culminating with the Sixth Trumpet, sometime
during the winter of late 2039/early 2040, which (I believe) is the event commonly called the Three Days of
Darkness.
After the first part of the Tribulation, there is a time of relative peace and holiness during the A.D. 2040’s
and 2050’s, gradually giving way to a return to sin and conflict. The world falls back into sin and the sufferings
which result from sin, including wars and crimes of every kind. The remaining sufferings of the tribulation do
not occur until the early 25th century.
In the 24th and early 25th century, in advance of the second part of the tribulation, the world will reject
Christianity: “…you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.” (Mt 24:9). There will still be Christians
who are faithful to God, and the Catholic Church will continue through great adversity. But the governments
of all major nations and kingdoms, and most people on earth, will reject the Christian faith. Islam will be the
dominant religion. Judaism will be the second-favored religion. Gradually, Christianity will become an
outlawed religion and Christians will be oppressed and persecuted.
By the late 24th or early 25th century, in advance of the reign of the Antichrist, the world will be divided
into ten kingdoms. Each of these ten kingdoms will be composed of a group of (what today are) individual
nations. Each kingdom will have one dominant ruler, so that the world will be ruled by ten kings only. “As for
the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different
from the former ones, and shall put down three kings.” (Dan 7:24). The Antichrist is not initially one of the ten
kings. Rather, he rises to power within one of the kingdoms, and then takes over that kingdom from th e
previous ruler, becoming one of the ten kings. Soon after, he puts down three of the other kings. The Antichrist
then rules over four of the ten kingdoms, while the six other remaining kings each rule one kingdom. Thus,
there will eventually be seven rulers over the ten kingdoms: “And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten
horns and seven heads….” (Rev 13:1). Once the Antichrist has control over four of the ten kingdoms, the
remaining six other kings decide not to fight against him, but rather to give their allegiance to him. Thus, the
140
The End Times
Antichrist becomes ruler over almost the whole world. The Antichrist never controls the entire world. There
are always some small areas of the world, which rebel against him or slip out of his control.
The reign of the ten kings and the subsequent reign of the Antichrist is included in the second part of the
tribulation. But the tribulation does not end with the Antichrist’s reign of nearly seven years. After the
Antichrist is removed from power, a series of punishments from God upon his followers and his kingdom
occur. These are the Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath (Rev 16:1), also called the Seven Plagues, “which are the
last, for with them the wrath of God is ended.” (Rev 15:1).
The Two Parts of the Tribulation Compared
The first part of the tribulation is a reflection of the second part of the tribulation. The first part occurs in the
21st century; the second part occurs in the 25th century. The second part contains the time of the Antichrist’s
reign; the first part contains only a foreshadowing of the Antichrist. Each part contains a series of sufferings
caused by the sinful acts of people as well as a series of supernatural sufferings sent as a punishment from God.
During each part of the tribulation, some portion of the faithful, (but not every faithful servant of God,) will
receive the Seal of God on their foreheads. This event occurs twice (Rev. 7:1-8 and 14:1-5). The first Seal is
given to some faithful servants of God, even though they are sinners, during the first part of the tribulation.
The second Seal is given, during the second part of the tribulation, only to the First Fruits, who have original
sin, but no personal sin whatsoever. Those with the Seal are spared from some of the sufferings of the
tribulation.
Each part of the tribulation sees an increase in the power of the Islamic faith. During the first part of the
tribulation, the Arab nations invade and conquer Europe and most of Africa. These conquered areas remain
under the control of the Islamic nations for many years. They will be forced to adopt the Islamic calendar and
various Islamic customs. Christians will suffer, first grave oppression, then martyrdoms and massacres. During
the second part of the tribulation, Islam will be the dominant religion over most of the world. The Jewish faith
will be the second most accepted religion. But the Christian faith will be rejected by all nations (Mt 24:9). The
Christian faith will be first suppressed, outlawed, and persecuted, and then (during the last half of the
Antichrist’s reign) the Christian Faith will be attacked with the intent to destroy the Faith entirely.
Each part ends with a suffering sent by God called the Three Days of Darkness. The first Three Days of
Darkness occurs in the winter of late 2039/early 2040. The first Three Days of Darkness is called the sixth
Trumpet of the Seventh Seal in Sacred Scripture. “By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed, by the
fire and smoke and sulphur issuing from their mouths.” (Rev 9:18). The first Darkness is not merely three days
without light; horrible suffering and death will overcome a third of mankind during that time. The second
Three Days of Darkness is also described by Sacred Scripture. “The fifth angel poured his bowl on the throne
of the beast, and its kingdom was in darkness….” (Rev 15:10). This second Darkness is more severe than the
first. During each time of Darkness, the faithful servants of God will have light and will have a way to keep
themselves safe.
Each of the two parts of the tribulation is followed by a time of peace and holiness. The first part is followed
by a time of relative peace and holiness and success for the Church; that time gradually ends as sin gradually
increases. The second part is followed by a time of great peace and holiness, called the Millennium; that time
lasts well over a thousand years.
The Great Apostasy
“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes
first....” (2 Thess 2:3)
During both parts of the tribulation, the Christian faith will experience a time of great persecution and
martyrdom. During each of these times, many will fall away from the Church all together, in what is called the
great apostasy. The term “apostasy” usually refers to persons who completely abandon the Christian faith.
However, the same term can also be used, in a more specialized sense, to refer to Catholics who completely
abandon the Catholic faith, but who may remain, to some degree, as Christians.
141
The first part of the tribulation will have a less extensive apostasy. Some persons will fall away from the
Catholic faith, but remain Christian. Others will fall away from Catholicism and Christianity all together.
During the first part of the tribulation, Islam will dominate most of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
Christians will be greatly oppressed and persecuted. Many members of the Church will fall away from the
Catholic faith rather than suffer for Christ. This first apostasy occurs during the Arab occupation of Europe
and Africa. The Arab occupation begins in the A.D. 2010’s.
At La Salette, the Virgin Mary described this first apostasy:
“Italy will be punished for her ambition in wanting to shake off the yoke of the Lord of Lords; also she
will be delivered over to war; blood will flow on all sides; the Churches will be closed or desecrated; the
priests, the religious will be hunted; they will be made to die, and to die a cruel death. Several will
abandon the faith, and the number of priests and religious who will separate themselves from the true
religion will be great; Among these persons there will be found even some Bishops.”241
The second part of the tribulation will have a more extensive apostasy. When only ten kings rule over the
whole world, (divided into ten kingdoms,) then Islam will be the dominant religion and Christianity will be
suppressed. The Antichrist will take control of one of these ten kingdoms; then he will put down three other
kings; then the rest of the kings will pledge their obedience to him. Once the Antichrist controls almost the
whole world, the Christian faith will be in an even worse state. Halfway through the Antichrist’s reign of
nearly seven years over nearly the whole world, he will try to destroy the Christian faith completely. Some
apostasy may occur in advance of and during the time of the ten kings, but the severest degree of apostasy will
occur during the reign of the Antichrist.
A foreshadowing of the great apostasy occurred during the Ministry of Christ. When Christ taught the
disciples about the Eucharist, many could not accept this teaching and so they fell away from Christ. “Many of
his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’… After this many of his
disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’ ”
(Jn 6:60, 6:66-67). The verse which tells us that many of Christ’s disciples drew back from him is John 6:66.
This passage is a foreshadowing of the great apostasy during the reign of the Antichrist. During that time, the
Church will reaffirm Christ’s teaching about the Eucharist, (and other teachings,) and many will fall away
from the faith.
Foreshadowings of the Antichrist
There is one human person who is properly called the Antichrist. He is referred to, for example, in Rev. 13
and in Daniel 7:24-26. But Sacred Scripture also uses the term “antichrists” to refer to persons who in some
way are like, or who foreshadow, the Antichrist (1 John 2:18). However, these persons are not the one
Antichrist (Rev. 13). They are merely like him in some ways. Any evil dictator who persecutes faithful
believers in God, or who wants to be worshiped as if he were God, might be said to be like the Antichrist.
Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:10ff) was a foreshadowing of the Antichrist. Some of the Roman
Emperors during the first few centuries A.D. can be compared to the Antichrist. For example, Caligula tried to
have a gold statue of himself installed in the Temple of Jerusalem. Nero persecuted Christians to an extreme
degree, as did Domitian. Hitler was like the Antichrist, especially because he killed many Jews and tried to
destroy the Jewish faith. Similarly, the Antichrist will kill many Christians and try to destroy the Christian
faith.
In the world today, there are one or two persons who foreshadow the Antichrist. Perhaps one foreshadows
the Antichrist and the other foreshadows the false prophet. These two persons will be the leaders of Iran and
Iraq, when the Arab nations conquer and occupy Europe and Africa. Eventually, these two will instigate a
severe persecution of Christians in the occupied lands. The first part of the tribulation (A.D. 2009 to 2040)
mirrors, in many ways, the second part of the tribulation (in the 25th century). That is why there is a
foreshadowing of the Antichrist during the first part of the tribulation. But he is not the Antichrist himself,
only a precursor to him.
142
The End Times
The Antichrist’s Reign
The Antichrist’s reign over nearly the whole world begins in either A.D. 2430 or 2431 and ends in A.D.
2437. The length of his reign is nearly seven years. (But he obtains a great deal of power, even before his reign
over nearly the whole world.) His reign is divided into two parts. About halfway through his reign, his forces
back down from a battle with “ships of Kittim,” and, as a result, he becomes enraged (Dan 11:30). He takes
out his anger on the Church, and thus begins the 42 months (3½ years) of the worst persecution of Christians
the world will ever see (Rev 13:5).
The Antichrist is not in the world today. Any prophecies, messages, or claimed private revelation, which
says that the Antichrist is in the world today, or that he will arrive in the 21st century, are completely false and
not at all from God. There have often been evil leaders in the world, and some of these have been said to
foreshadow the Antichrist. But there will be only one Antichrist. He will have power over almost the whole
world for less than seven full years. The length of his reign and the extent of his power will both be limited by
God.
At La Salette, the Virgin Mary said that the father of the Antichrist will be a Bishop. “It will be during this
time that the antichrist will be born of a Hebrew religious, of a false Virgin who will have communication with
the old serpent, the master of impurity; his father will be Bishop….”242
The father of the Antichrist will be a Bishop within the Catholic Church, an evil Bishop who pretends to be
good and to worship God. This is true, for the Antichrist is the offspring of all the serious sins of Christians
throughout the ages. If clergy and religious avoided all serious sin, there would never be an Antichrist.
The mother of the Antichrist will be a woman religious, of Hebraic decent. She pretends to be devout, but
she does not worship God and has gone completely astray from the true faith. She has relations outside of
marriage with a similarly corrupt Bishop. The Antichrist will be the offspring of these two religious hypocrites.
The mother of the Antichrist will make the false claim that she is a virgin and that her child was conceived
miraculously by the power of God.
The Antichrist himself will not be Bishop or Pope. He does not want to be a leader within the Church. The
Antichrist wants to be worshiped as if he were the Messiah, the Son of God. Though the Antichrist will be the
son of a Catholic Bishop, he will not acknowledge this parentage (since he also will make the false claim that
his mother was a virgin). He will court the favor of Muslims and Jews, before he rises to power and falsely
claims to be the son of God and the Messiah.
The False Prophet
The Antichrist will have an assistant, the false prophet, who will be a woman. The Virgin Mary assists
Christ in every good work that He does. Similarly, the false prophet will assist the Antichrist in every evil work
that he does. Unlike the Virgin Mary, the false prophet will be a religious leader, with authority over those
who worship the Antichrist (Rev 13:11-17). A woman should not have authority to teach or lead any group
that includes adult men, especially within religion. But the false prophet perversely does the opposite of what is
good and right, and so she excises such authority over men.
The Antichrist will never become Pope nor will he be an antipope. The Antichrist wants to be worshipped
as if he were the Messiah, the Son of God. Neither will the false prophet become a Pope or antipope. She does
not strive to be a leader of the Christian Church. She assists the Antichrist in convincing people to worship
him. The Antichrist and the false prophet do not want to take control of the Christian faith. Instead, they try to
destroy the Church and replace it with their own religion. Some false prophecies have claimed that the
Antichrist or the false prophet would become a Pope or an antipope; but these are false prophecies.
The Destruction of the Antichrist
The Antichrist’s reign ends at the time of the Return of Jesus Christ. “And then the lawless one will be
revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and
his coming.” (2 Thess 2:8). The Antichrist will not be destroyed by war or illness or injury or revolts or
143
assassination or by any type of human act taken against him. The Antichrist will only be destroyed by Christ
upon His Return.
At the end of the Antichrist’s reign, his arrogance reaches such an extreme degree that he even tries to
ascend to Heaven, as if he were the true Messiah. But, according to the Virgin Mary’s words at La Salette, the
archangel Michael casts him down to earth. “He will raise himself up with pride into the air in order to go
even up to heaven; he will be smothered by the breath of the holy Archangel Michael.” 243 The archangel
Michael smothers the Antichrist and casts him down to earth, but he does not kill him.
Sacred Scripture teaches that the Antichrist and the false prophet are both cast alive into the fires of Hell.
“These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.” (Rev 19:20). The first Heaven
contains the souls of the Just, but not yet their glorified bodies. Only Christ and Mary are present, body and
soul, in the first Heaven. Similarly, the first Hell contains the souls of the wicked, but not yet their resurrected
bodies. Only the Antichrist and the false prophet are present, body and soul, in the first Hell.
After the general Resurrection, the just and the unjust are each given resurrected bodies. Then the just will
be assumed, body and soul, into the new Heaven and the unjust will be cast into a new Hell, body and soul. A
new Heaven is needed to reward the just in body and soul. Likewise, a new Hell is needed to punish the
wicked in body and soul, not in soul only.
The Return of Christ
Jesus Christ will Return in the year A.D. 2437. The Return of Jesus Christ is also called the Second
Coming. After His Return, there will be a space of time for repentance, after which God will punish the
wicked, who followed the Antichrist, with the Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath.
We cannot know the day or the hour that Christ will Return, but we can know the year. There are several
ways to determine the year of Christ’s Return. The first two ways were described in detail in my first book, The
Bible and the Future of the World. The third way was described in detail in my second book, Important Dates in the
Lives of Jesus and Mary. I will only briefly summarize each way as follows.
1. “ ‘Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the
transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to
seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.’ ” (Dan 9:24).
The book of Daniel tells us about a period of time called “seventy weeks of years” (Dan 9:24). A week of
years is seven years; seventy weeks of years is 490 years (70 x 7 = 490). At the end of that time, the reign of sin
over the world will end and everlasting righteousness will begin. Therefore, at that time, the tribulation will
end and a time of great peace and holiness will begin.
“ ‘And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause
sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until
the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.’ ” (Dan 9:27).
The last week of years is the time of the reign of the Antichrist. The half a week of years is the last half of his
reign, the 42 months during which he viciously attacks the Church and attempts to destroy the Christian faith.
The phrases “one who makes desolate” and “the desolator” refer to the Antichrist.
The 490 years begins “from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25). A
number of commentators, including myself, believe that this refers to the founding of the State of Israel in A.D.
1948. Counting 1948 as year one, gives us A.D. 2437 as year 490. Therefore, A.D. 2437 is the last year of the
Antichrist’s nearly seven year reign over nearly the whole world.
According to St. Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, the Antichrist will be destroyed at the end of his reign by
the Return of Jesus the true Christ. “And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay
him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.” (2 Thess 2:8). St. Paul
uses the apt expression “the lawless one” to refer to the Antichrist. Jesus Christ destroys the Antichrist at the
time of Christ’s appearing and His Second Coming. (The “breath of his mouth” refers to the Archangel
Michael, who strikes down the Antichrist when he tries to ascend to Heaven.) Clearly, the Return of Jesus
Christ will occur at the end of the Antichrist’s reign. In fact, the Antichrist is destroyed by this very means, by
144
The End Times
the appearance and return of Christ. Therefore, and without any doubt, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ
will occur in A.D. 2437.
2. At La Salette, the Virgin Mary gave two dates related to the start of the Antichrist’s reign: “In the year
1864, Lucifer with a great number of demons will be unleashed from hell;” and “In the year 1865, the
abomination will be seen in holy places….”244 These events did not occur in the A.D. 1800’s. However, during
both parts of the tribulation, the Islamic faith will have a certain dominance in the world. The dates 1864 and
1865 in the Islamic calendar correspond to the dates A.D. 2430 and 2431 in the Christian (Gregorian) calendar.
The events described as occurring in those years mark the start of the Antichrist’s reign over nearly the whole
world. The Antichrist’s reign lasts for nearly seven years, therefore his reign will end in 2437. The Antichrist is
destroyed by the Return of Christ, therefore Christ will Return in A.D. 2437.
3. The Jews in ancient times believed that the Jubilee year was associated with the arrival of the Messiah. 245
The Jubilee year is a symbol of the Messiah. As explained in my second book, Important Dates in the Lives of
Jesus and Mary, Christ was born in a Jubilee year (15/14 B.C.).
“The Sabbatical year is the 7th year; but 7 sets of 7 years are also counted, so that the 49th year, a Sabbatical
year, contains the start of the Jubilee year (in the 7th month of that 7th year, counted from Nisan, as it ought
to be). The Jubilee years are 49 years apart from one another, but the Jubilee year is the 50th year. So, if we
count 50 sets of 49 years (50 x 49 = 2450), the last year of those 2450 years would be the 50th Jubilee year. If
we start the count of this Jubilee of Jubilees from the Jubilee year at the Birth of the Messiah (15/14 B.C.),
adding 2450 years brings us to the year A.D. 2436 as the start of the 50th Jubilee year. That Jubilee year begins
in fall of A.D. 2436 and ends in fall of A.D. 2437. (This counting of 50 Jubilee periods does not include the
Jubilee at the time of Christ’s Birth, for that year is the end of the previous Jubilee period.)” 246
The arrival of the Messiah, at His Birth, coincided with a Jewish Jubilee year, but so also will the Messiah’s
Return (the Second Coming of Jesus Christ) coincide with a Jewish Jubilee year. If we count forward a Jubilee
of Jubilees from Christ’s Birth, we arrive at the Jubilee year which begins in A.D. 2436 and ends in A.D. 2437.
Christ will Return in the year A.D. 2437.
4. The 24th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew contains Christ’s eschatological discourse, that is, His talk to
the disciples and to us about the end times. The time of the Antichrist’s reign occurs in the A.D. 2400’s. The
verse which refers to the Return of Christ is verse 37: “As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the
Son of man.” Christ will Return in the year A.D. 2437.
The 23rd chapter of the Gospel of Matthew describes various problems among the religious leaders (the
scribes and Pharisees). Christ was not only criticizing the religious leaders of that past time, but also future
religious leaders who will behave similarly. In a particular way, the 23rd chapter refers to future problems in
the Christian faith in the A.D. 2300’s. Many of the leaders of the Church in that century will fit the description
and criticism given by Christ in Matthew 23.
The chapter and verse numbers of Sacred Scripture are not inspired of God in the same way that the words
of Sacred Scripture itself are inspired. Nevertheless, some chapter and verse numbers are arranged by the
Providence of God so as to give us some additional information about Scripture. For example, Revelation
13:18: “…for it is a human number, its number is six hundred sixty-six.” But a footnote in the RSV edition
states that some ancient versions of this text give the number as “six hundred and sixteen.” The numbers 616
add up to 13, and the numbers 666 add up to 18. The chapter and verse (Rev 13:18) reflect this dual
interpretation of this number. Therefore, the number referring to the Antichrist’s name is both 616 and 666.
The Antichrist’s first name will have six letters, his middle name will have six letters, and his last name will
have six letters, giving us the number which refers to the Antichrist: 666. Sometimes people use a middle
initial in place of their middle name, giving us the alternate number which also refers to the Antichrist: 616.
The Return of the Virgin Mary
Christ returns at the end of the Antichrist’s reign in order to establish a reign of peace and holiness on earth.
When Christ returns to earth, with body and soul and Divinity united in one Person, does the Virgin Mary
145
accompany Him? I think so. The Virgin Mary assists Christ in all that He does towards our salvation. Mary
assists Christ in establishing the reign of God on earth. Christ and Mary are the only two persons who are
present in the first Heaven in both body and soul. When Christ descends from Heaven in body and soul and
Divinity, so also will the Virgin Mary descend from Heaven with Christ.
When Christ again returns to earth at the end of the Millennium, at the time of the general Resurrection,
Mary must also return with Christ. At that time, all the holy souls in the first Heaven descend to earth in order
to receive glorified bodies at the Resurrection. Mary returns to earth with Christ and the holy souls. Christ and
Mary are already glorified in body and soul. At the general Resurrection, Christ gives the holy souls new
bodies, patterned after His glorious body and Mary’s glorious body. The soul, too, achieves new heights
because, being joined now to a glorified body, the soul’s own glory is increased.
The First Resurrection
At the start of the Millennium, some of the faithful who died in Christ are resurrected from the dead. This is
not the kind of resurrection given to Lazarus, for Lazarus later died again and will rise on the last day. Rather,
this first Resurrection is like the general Resurrection, but at an earlier time. The Virgin Mary died in Christ
and was resurrected from the dead (and then assumed into Heaven). Similarly, these faithful souls are also
given a Resurrection prior to the general Resurrection. Not all the faithful are given the first Resurrection.
Those who are martyred for Christ during the time of the Antichrist’s reign will share in the first Resurrection.
Perhaps some martyrs from earlier times might also share in the first Resurrection, especially if they were
martyred in an earlier portion of the tribulation. Perhaps some holy persons who did not die as martyrs, but
who lived as martyrs, (especially if they did so during the tribulation or the Antichrist’s reign) might also share
in the first Resurrection. In any case, Sacred Scripture plainly states that there will be a first Resurrection.
The First Resurrection differs from the general Resurrection in a number of ways. Those blessed with the
First Resurrection do not yet have the glorified bodies which they and all the Just will be given at the time of
the general Resurrection. When Christ rose from the dead, He had a resurrected body, not too different from
His pre-Resurrection body, but when He ascended to Heaven, His body was transfigured into a glorified body.
At the general Resurrection, those few who have been blessed with the First Resurrection do not die and rise
again, but they do receive the benefits of the general Resurrection in that their resurrected bodies are then
changed into glorified bodies. Those many Just persons, who are raised from the dead at the general
Resurrection, are first given resurrected bodies and then their bodies are transfigured into glorified bodies.
Thus, they follow the path which Christ followed, being given first a resurrected body and next a glorified
body.
Second Ascension
Christ is the only One who can raise the dead at the first Resurrection, therefore, the first Resurrection
occurs after His Return (the Second Coming). However, Christ does not remain on earth to reign in the flesh
for the Millennium. After He raises the dead and establishes His kingdom on earth, Christ Ascends to Heaven
again. This event is the Second Ascension. Christ’s reign over the whole world during the Millennium is
accomplished by means of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, and especially His Real Presence in the
Eucharist. The reign of Christ during the Millennium is called His Eucharistic reign by Fr. Gobbi of the
Marian Movement of Priests.
The Second Ascension of Christ differs somewhat from the First Ascension of Christ. When Christ first
ascended to Heaven, He had not yet been glorified. His body was a resurrected body, but not yet a glorified
body. That is why Christ said to Mary Magdalene: “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the
Father….” (Jn 20:17). When Christ Returns, at the end of the Antichrist’s reign and prior to the start of the
Millennium, He will return in His glorified body. Therefore, when Christ again ascends to Heaven, at the
Second Ascension, He will be ascending in His glorified body.
At the First Ascension, relatively few out of all the persons on earth witnessed Christ ascending to Heaven.
The Church was but an infant at that time. At the Second Ascension, many more persons will witness the
event. At that time, the Church will be full-grown. The First Ascension was preceded by the Resurrection of
146
The End Times
Christ, whereas the Second Ascension will be preceded by the First Resurrection of those martyred during the
Antichrist’s reign (Rev 20:4-6). The First Ascension was followed by the First Pentecost, given to a relatively
small number of faithful, whereas the Second Ascension will be followed by the Second Pentecost, given to a
very large number of faithful.
Second Pentecost
After the Second Ascension, Christ will again send the Holy Spirit upon the faithful, this time upon the
whole world, in a Second Pentecost. In this way, the whole world will become faithful to God and to the
Church. At the Second Pentecost, God will send out His Spirit to renew the face of the earth. Without the
Second Pentecost, the long period of peace and holiness on earth (called the Millennium) would never occur.
With the gifts of the Holy Spirit given at Second Pentecost, people are better able to avoid sin. They also
have the benefit of many centuries of Church teaching and many centuries of the example of the Saints. They
also benefit from the effect which the tribulation has on the Church and the world. The tribulation is a kind of
Passion and Crucifixion of the Church; afterwards the Church and the world will be holier. Thus, the gift of
Second Pentecost completes many centuries of blessings poured out upon the Church, resulting in a time of
great peace and holiness on earth for well over a thousand years.
After the Second Pentecost, the faithful still retain the stain of original sin. The third aspect of original sin,
concupiscence, still remains with us. The time of the Millennium is not a time without any sin at all. This is
clear from the Scripture passage which describes the end of the Millennium of peace and holiness (Rev 20:7-
10). Over a thousand years after the Second Pentecost, the devil is still able to deceive and lead astray some
Christians.
The Millennium
“Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God,
and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their
hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life
until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.”
(Rev 20:4-5)
Chapter 20 of the book of Revelation describes a thousand year period of time, often called the Millennium.
After the Return of Christ, the kingdom of God will be established on earth in the sense that the whole world
will become Christian, the Catholic Church will reign supreme and all other religions will vanish, and a time
of profound peace and holiness will continue for a long time. The Millennium begins after the Return of
Christ, and after the punishments of the Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath. Though it is called the thousand years,
the Millennium lasts for well over a thousand years.
Some persons object to the idea of a Millennium of peace and holiness with the claim that this teaching is
equivalent to the false doctrine of millenarianism. But the Millennium of peace and holiness is substantially
different than millenarianism.
1. True Messianic Hope versus False Messianic Hope
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to
realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the
eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the
kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political
form of a secular messianism.247
The true Messianic hope is our hope to be with Christ forever in Heaven. Christ offers us a salvation, which
includes the general Resurrection and the kingdom of God in Heaven. The eschatological judgment is the
147
Return of Christ at the time of the general Resurrection, to judge the living and the dead. The true Messianic
hope is realized beyond this judgment, when we will live, in body and soul, with Christ in Heaven forever.
The false messianic hope seeks merely a better tomorrow on earth, that is, a hope only for a kingdom of
God on earth and not an everlasting kingdom in Heaven. The false messianic hope is that Christ came merely
to make things better on earth.
However, within the true messianic hope, Christ does offer us hope for a better tomorrow on earth and hope
for the success of the Church and the Christian faith on earth, while we await our final salvation and glory in
the kingdom of Heaven. Christ does offer us a better life on earth, by following His teachings, while we await
our final glory in Heaven, in the general Resurrection, and in a new Heaven and a new earth.
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away….”
(Rev 21:1). Notice that there is both a new Heaven and a new earth. Therefore, God’s kingdom will be
established permanently on earth as well as in Heaven. But the idea that God’s kingdom will only be
established on earth is contrary the teaching of the Church.
2. Christ as Heavenly King versus Christ as Earthly King
Christ Himself rejected secular messianism, that is, He rejected attempts to make Him into an earthly king.
“Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again
to the hills by himself.” (Jn 6:15). One of the false ideas of millenarianism is the claim that Christ will reign as
an earthly king (i.e. visibly, in person, etc.).
Even so, Christ did not reject the idea that the kingdom of God will be established on earth as it is in
Heaven. “Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On
earth as it is in heaven.” (Mt 6:9-10). Notice that the phrase “on earth as it is in heaven” refers both to “Thy
will be done” and to “Thy kingdom come.” The Our Father prayer seeks God’s kingdom to be established on
earth as in Heaven. So then, it could not possibly be a heresy to believe that there will be a long time of peace
and holiness when God’s kingdom is fully established on earth.
When the Apostles asked the Risen Lord when He would establish His kingdom on earth, Christ did not
correct them for expecting an earthly (as well as Heavenly) kingdom. Instead, He merely declined to say when
this would occur. “So when they had come together, they asked him, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by
his own authority.’ ” (Acts 1:6-7).
The kingdom of God will be fully established on earth. The Church will succeed in preaching the Gospel
worldwide. There will be one faith, one Lord, one Baptism. The Christian faith will be the only religion on
earth. Peace and holiness will finally win out over conflict and sin. These ideas are in no way contrary to the
teaching of the Church. This is the true meaning of the Millennium.
During the Millennium, Christ will reign as a Heavenly King, not as an earthly king. During that long time
of peace and holiness on earth, Christ will reign from Heaven through the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the
Sacraments, especially the Eucharist.
3. Christ Returns Twice versus Christ Returns Only Once
Some Christians believe that Christ returns at the end of the tribulation, then He reigns for a thousand years
on earth, and then He judges the living and the dead. They think that Christ returns only once: He returns and
remains for a long time, before judging the living and the dead. There are many different versions of this idea.
This view is common among Protestants, though some Catholics believe similarly.
Other Christians believe that Christ returns at the end of the tribulation and then judges the living and the
dead at that time. They interpret the thousand years of Revelation 20 as merely symbolic. This view is the
most common among Catholics, perhaps due to the influence of Saints Augustine and Aquinas, who both
interpreted Revelation 20 symbolically. In this view, the reign of Christ is the whole present time, wherein the
saints on earth now reign in the Church, and the first Resurrection is merely symbolic, wherein the just are
resurrected from a life of sin to a life of grace. The thousand years is not a specific length of time, but merely
denotes a long period of time. 248
148
The End Times
In both of these views, Christ returns only once. In one view, He returns to reign on earth for a long time
before judgment day. In the other view, He returns at the end of the tribulation to judge the living and the dead
without delay. But both views have in common that Christ returns only once. The one view is common among
Protestants and is often associated with millenarianism. The other view is considered by many Catholic
leaders and theologians to be the correct interpretation.
On the contrary, the correct and true doctrine is that Christ returns twice. He returns at the end of the
Antichrist’s reign, about the time of the end of the tribulation, (though the very last punishments for the
wicked continue after He arrives). After Christ sets things right on earth, He again ascends to Heaven (Second
Ascension) and again sends out the Holy Spirit (Second Pentecost). The Millennium of peace and holiness
follows, during which time Christ reigns, not visibly on earth, but invisibly from Heaven, through the Spirit,
the Church, and the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. After the Millennium, Christ returns a second time,
to judge the living and the dead.
4. Two Resurrections versus One Resurrection
“Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God,
and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their forehead or their
hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life
until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first
resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they
shall reign with him a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4-6)
The above passage from Sacred Scripture describes the First Resurrection, followed by a thousand years of
peace and holiness on earth. The thousand years is not a literal 1000 years, but denotes a long period of time,
lasting well over a thousand years. However, the First Resurrection is not merely symbolic. Those faithful
souls martyred during the reign of the Antichrist are truly and literally resurrected from the dead by Jesus
Christ at this time. This First Resurrection is not the general Resurrection of the just and the unjust at the end
of the world, which occurs after the Millennium.
Will there be one Resurrection or two? There will be two Resurrections, but the First Resurrection is only
for a select number from among the many souls in Heaven. This select group consists mainly or only of those
martyrs who were killed for rejecting the Antichrist. Whether or not any other martyrs or Saints are also
blessed with the First Resurrection is unclear. But this First Resurrection is certainly not the Resurrection of all
the just (as some have claimed). The Second Resurrection is the general Resurrection of the just and the
unjust.
The view of Saints Augustine and Aquinas was that the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is merely
symbolic. Aquinas cites Augustine as follows: “Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 7) that these words are
to be understood otherwise, namely of the spiritual resurrection, whereby men shall rise again from their sins
to the gift of grace: while the second resurrection is of bodies.” Most Catholic leaders and theologians tend to
agree with this view. However, the Magisterium has not decided the question.
I answer that the First Resurrection cannot be understood to refer symbolically to the present time. The
book of Revelation presents the First Resurrection as one in a sequence of events during the end times. The
thousand years is presented (Rev 20:1-3) as an event following the destruction of the Antichrist and his
followers (Rev 19:17-21). Therefore, the thousand years cannot be interpreted as encompassing the whole
period of the present time. Furthermore, those who participate in the First Resurrection are specifically those
who were martyred during the time of the Antichrist’s reign. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until
the thousand years were ended.” (Rev 20:5). The First Resurrection is highly selective. Therefore, the First
Resurrection cannot be taken to refer to a spiritual resurrection, whereby the faithful of every generation rise
from a life of sin to a life of grace.
In summary, the return of Christ at the end of the Antichrist’s reign is not the time of the general
Resurrection, nor is it the end of the world. Instead, the kingdom of God is established on earth and a long
period of peace and holiness follows, called the Millennium. Sometime after the Millennium, Christ returns to
149
judge the living and the dead. Thus, Christ returns twice, once at the end of the tribulation and once at the end
of the Millennium.
Many Christians mistakenly believe that the world will come to an end when Christ returns at the end of the
tribulation. They expect apocalyptic sufferings and events to occur in a short space of time, followed by the
return of Christ, the general Resurrection, and the end of the world. This view is common and yet incorrect.
The Millennium of peace and holiness is not the false doctrine of millenarianism. The Millennium is a time
of peace and holiness on earth, after the tribulation but before the final judgment. Even during the Millennium,
holy persons will look forward to the time of the general Resurrection, when God will take away Heaven and
earth, and make a new Heaven and a new earth. The Millennium of peace and holiness is not an everlasting
home for those saved by Christ. Rather, it is a temporary resting place, a further step on the Way of Christ
towards the general Resurrection and the kingdom of God in the new Heaven and the new earth. Christ does
not reign on earth visibly during the Millennium. At the start of the Millennium, Christ again ascends to
Heaven (Second Ascension) and again sends the Holy Spirit (Second Pentecost). Christ reigns from Heaven
through the Spirit, the Church, and the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist.
The End of the Millennium
Despite the name, the Millennium will certainly last for well over one thousand years. The Millennium
begins in the mid 25th century, about the year A.D. 2440 (more or less). Since it lasts for over a thousand
years, it must end sometime after A.D. 3440. In my opinion, the Millennium will end hundreds of years after
A.D. 3440.
“And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be loosed from his prison and will come out to deceive
the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, that is, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their
number is like the sand of the sea.” (Rev 20:7-8).
About the time of the end of the Millennium, God will allow Satan and the devils to influence events on
earth. God will also allow, in His Providence and Grace, a time of trial for people all over the world, so that it
will not be as easy as it had formerly been to do good and to avoid evil. The flesh, the world, and the devil,
will all be allowed to offer greater temptation and trial to people. When doing good becomes difficult, many
will turn away from doing good. When doing evil becomes easy, many will choose evil instead of good.
Despite all of the years of peace and holiness, at the end of the Millennium many will choose to do evil
instead of good: “their number is like the sand of the sea.” I am not certain what is meant by the expression
“Gog and Magog.” I think that the meaning of this term will become clearer as the time for the end of the
Millennium approaches.
“And they marched up over the broad earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city; but
fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the
lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and
night for ever and ever.” (Rev 20:9-10).
Even though a huge number gather for battle against the saints (those who are faithful to Christ), no war
occurs at all. The faithful do not gather for battle nor to defend themselves. Instead, fire comes down from
heaven, meaning that fire comes down from the sky at the behest of Heaven. At the end of the Millennium, the
devil is then thrown into Hell, where the Antichrist and the false prophet were thrown before the Millennium
started.
Notice that Hell is described with a term which implies Time: “day and night.” The damned in Hell are
trapped unceasingly in a form of Time. In this case, the term “for ever and ever” does not mean eternity, but a
form of Time which continues without ever ceasing. The damned do not experience the eternity of Heaven. It
is a part of the suffering of the damned in Hell to remain for ever within Time. It is a part of the joy of the
blessed in Heaven to share in the Eternity of God.
150
The End Times
Judgment Day and the General Resurrection
After the Millennium, Christ will Return again in what can be called His Second Return. Christ returns at
this time to Judge the living and the dead. This Judgment Day is the day of the general Resurrection. “And I
saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. . . . And the dead were
judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.” (Rev 20:12). The books mentioned here are
a metaphor for the deeds of our lives.
Judgment Day is for both the just and the unjust, as Saint Paul tells us in Acts of the Apostles: “there will be
a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.” (Acts 24:15). Saint Peter the Apostle also tells us that the unjust
are resurrected on Judgment Day: “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the
unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment….” (2 Peter 2:9).
At the general Resurrection, the souls of the just come down to earth from Heaven, and the souls of the
unjust come up to earth from Hell. Both Heaven and Hell are emptied on Judgment Day of all human souls.
Christ descends from Heaven for Judgment Day will all the blessed souls of the just. The Virgin Mary must
also descend from Heaven to earth on Judgment Day. She cannot stay in Heaven without Christ. Christ has
the assistance of Mary in judging the just and unjust on this Day. Christ and Mary are present in Heaven in
body and soul, so when they descend to earth with the souls of the just, they are present on earth in body and
soul, before the just souls are given their resurrected bodies.
When the unjust souls are thrown out of Hell to earth for Judgment Day, the Antichrist and the false
prophet accompany them. These two are present in Hell in body and soul, so when they are taken from Hell to
earth by the power of God, they are present on earth in body and soul, before the rest of the unjust are given
resurrected bodies befitting of their sins.
On Judgment Day, the general Resurrection of the dead occurs wherein the just are given glorified bodies,
befitting of the glory of the risen Christ, and the unjust are given horrible bodies, befitting of their own sins.
The souls of the just are also changed for the better at this time. When the souls of the just are in Heaven,
are they not holy and pure and beautiful? Yet, in being united to glorified bodies, these souls become even
more perfect. They are now complete, having a body and a soul, not only a soul. At the time of the general
Resurrection, the just now have both a glorified body and a glorified soul. “For to him who has will more be
given….” (Mk 4:25). The blessed experience a new quality of happiness, now that they have both a glorified
body and a glorified soul.
Similarly, the unjust are also changed for the worse at the time of the general Resurrection. Were they
suffering immensely in Hell within their souls? Yet, now they will suffer in both body and soul, day and night
without ceasing. The damned now experience a new depth of suffering, befitting of the sins they committed in
body and soul.
The Rapture
The Creed teaches us that Christ “shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.” Therefore,
when Christ returns for the general Resurrection of the dead, some human beings will still be alive on earth
and they, too, will be judged. They, too, will receive the benefits of the resurrection of the just—they will be
transfigured in body and soul. Those faithful Christians who are still alive at the time of the general
Resurrection do not die and then immediately rise again; rather, they receive the benefits of the Resurrection
without having to die and rise again. This event is what many have called “the rapture,” though most who use
that term do not truly understand what it means.
“And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with
them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.” (1 Thess 4:16-17)
The term “rapture” comes from the Latin (rapiemur), translated above as “caught up,” in the first letter of
Saint Paul to the Thessalonians. The Rapture occurs at the time of the general Resurrection, as is clear from
the teaching of Sacred Scripture that “the dead in Christ will rise first.”
151
At the time of the general Resurrection, what will become of those who have not yet died? Do they all
immediately die at the Return of Christ, only to be immediately raised from the dead? No, not so. Those who
are left alive at the time of the general Resurrection never die, they simply receive the benefits of the
Resurrection—a glorified soul united to a glorified body—without ever dying or rising from the dead.
The Assumption of the Faithful
At the end of her life on earth, the Virgin Mary was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven. This even
occurred not long after her death and immediately after her resurrection. The path to Heaven that Mary
followed is the path to Heaven that Christ established: He died, rose from the dead, and ascended to Heaven.
This path, which Christ established and Mary followed, is the ordinary path that the faithful will also follow.
The faithful who die in Christ will be raised from the dead by Christ at the general Resurrection; next they will
be assumed, body and soul, into Heaven. In this way, the faithful will experience an Assumption into Heaven
similar to the Virgin Mary’s Assumption to Heaven. However, the resurrected faithful will be assumed into a
new Heaven, for the first Heaven and the first earth will pass away (Rev 21:1).
“Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep [die], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.” (1 Cor 15:51). Those who are still alive at the time of the general
Resurrection will not die and then immediately rise again. Instead, they will receive the benefits of the
Resurrection, a glorified body united to a glorified soul, without ever having died. Then they will be assumed,
body and soul, into the new Heaven, without ever having died and gone, in soul only, to the first Heaven.
Therefore, the first Heaven does not contain the souls of everyone who ever will be saved.
A New Heaven and a New Hell
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the
sea was no more.” (Rev 21:1).
The first Heaven is for the souls of the faithful. When someone dies in a state of grace, their soul goes to
Heaven, but their body does not. The Virgin Mary said to Saint Bridget: “Know, too, that there is no human
body in Heaven but the glorious body of my Son and mine.” 249
After the general Resurrection, each of the resurrected faithful will have both a glorified body and a glorified
soul. The new Heaven is for both body and soul—that is why a new Heaven is needed. The new earth is an
earth renewed and transfigured by God to fully reflect the glory of the risen Christ. The first earth was created
by God and so it reflected the glory of God, but it was also injured by original sin and personal sin. The new
earth will be untouched by sin.
The first Hell, likewise, is for the souls of the damned. When someone dies in a state of mortal sin, their soul
goes to Hell. The first Hell is for the fallen angels and for the souls, not the bodies, of the wicked. Only the
Antichrist and the false prophet will be present, in both body and soul, in the first Hell. The false prophet (a
woman) is to the Antichrist as the Virgin Mary is to the true Christ. Thus, the false prophet is the Anti-Mary.
Scripture says that the Antichrist and the false prophet will be thrown alive into Hell. “These two were thrown
alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.” (Rev 19:20). Death is the separation of body and soul.
Since they will be sent to Hell alive, they will be sent to Hell with both body and soul. Only Christ and Mary
are present, body and soul, in the first Heaven; only the Antichrist and the Antimary will be present, body and
soul, in the first Hell.
After the general Resurrection, each of the resurrected wicked will have both a horrible body and a horrible
soul. The new Hell is for both body and soul—that is why a new Hell is needed. “This is the second death, the
lake of fire; and if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of
fire.” (Rev 20:14-15). The new Hell is the second Hell, called “the second death” and “the lake of fire” by
Scripture. The first Hell is also called “the lake of fire” by Scripture (Rev 19:20).
152
The End Times
The End of Purgatory
Heaven and earth shall pass away and be replaced by a new Heaven and a new earth. The sea which is no
more is not an ocean or a sea of water. The sea is here a metaphor for Purgatory. Sacred Scripture teaches us
that Purgatory is not eternal, it has an end. Purgatory shall cease. This interpretation is confirmed by the
subsequent passage: “and death shall be no more….” (Rev 21:4). One must first die in order to go to
Purgatory. Since there is no more death, there is no more Purgatory. During that future time, the power of sin
has been broken and so there is no more death and no need for Purgatory. The sea is used here as a metaphor
for Purgatory because Purgatory is like a great sea of souls from every nation, language, and culture.
A New Earth
Many people imagine that one day the world will end and there will be only Heaven and Hell. But Scripture
teaches us that there will be both a new Heaven and a new earth. After Judgment Day, sometimes called “the
last day,” God makes a new earth and so Time continues. The “last day” is the last day for the first earth, but
it is also a new beginning.
What will the new earth be like? This question is very speculative, but we can deduce a few things about the
new earth from Scripture. After telling us that God will make a new earth, Scripture says: “and death shall be
no more….” (Rev 21:4). The people of the new earth will not die—at least not in the current sense of the word.
Currently, death is a result of original sin. The death which comes from original sin is occurs by disease,
injury, or advanced age. The people of the new earth will have no original sin, therefore they will not have
disease or injury, nor will they suffer deterioration of body and mind as a result of aging.
“Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither
shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:3-4).
As a result of original sin, we have death and mourning and crying and pain. When God makes a new
Heaven and a new earth, these sufferings shall cease and so will their cause—original sin. There cannot be any
more original sin, because the things which result from original sin have passed away. Original sin is one of
the former things which shall pass away when God makes a new earth.
In that distant future time, the new earth will be free from sin and death, conflict and war, disease and
injury. The people of the new earth will have no original sin and no personal sin. They will be like the Virgin
Mary. Even though the Virgin Mary had no original sin and no personal sin, she still died at the end of her life.
But her death was not a death due to original sin, not a death due to injury, disease, or the deterioration of
advanced age. Mary died a painless death; her soul separated from her body, and soared up to Heaven, out of
pure love for God.
The people of the new earth will not experience the pain of a death which comes from original sin. But
neither will they have the type of painless separation of body and soul which the Virgin Mary experienced.
Mary had to go first to Heaven in soul only, and later be resurrected and assumed into Heaven body and soul,
in part because Christ died and rose. But, in that blessed future time, when people of the new earth go to
Heaven, they are assumed into Heaven, body and soul, without ever dying and rising from the death. They
will go to Heaven in a way similar to the way that just persons were still alive on earth at the time of the
general Resurrection did. In other words, they will not die and immediately rise from the dead; rather, they
will be transfigured and assumed into Heaven as the Apostle Paul describes (1 Thess 4:16-17).
153
A Timeline of Future Events
The following is merely an overview! Please do not read this timeline in isolation from the rest of this
chapter and from my first book, The Bible and the Future of the World.
• A.D. 2000 to 2039/2040: The Forty Years is a period of time that will transform the Church and the
world, through special graces from God and through a time of great suffering, to become closer to
God.
• A.D. 2003: The death of Pope John Paul II. The election of Pope Benedict XVI.250
• A.D. 2009: God will turn the hearts of His people away from abortion.
• Before the end of the first decade of the 21st century: The Day of Repentance
• Before the end of the first decade of the 21st century: The Day of Healing
• A.D. 2009 and 2010: The beginning of the first part of the Tribulation.
• A.D. 2009 or 2010: The death of Pope Benedict XVI. The election of the Pope whom St. Malachy
called “Peter the Roman”.
• A.D. 2009 or 2010: A small war among the Arab nations, resulting in a consolidation of power under
the leadership of Iraq and Iran.
• A.D. 2010 or 2011: The start of World War III. The Arab nations attack and invade Europe. Later
they attack and invade large parts of Africa. This war will be long and bloody; millions of people will
die. This war is the first Seal of the Seven Seals in the book of Revelation and the first of the four
Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
• A.D. 2012: Rome and Vatican City are invaded by the Arab forces. The Pope (“Peter the Roman”)
escapes from Vatican City, but is soon captured and taken to Syria. He will later die in a prison in
Iraq. See The Bible and the Future of the World for more detailed information.
• A.D. 2013: The Allies recapture Rome and Vatican City.
• A.D. 2013: New York, Rome, and Vatican City are destroyed by nuclear weapons. Rome and
Vatican City are destroyed in July of 2013.
• mid A.D. 2010’s: World War III continues; the Arab forces are unstoppable. They conquer all or most
of Europe and most of Africa. As a result of the war, there is much civil disorder and civil violence.
This civil disorder and violence is the second Seal of the Seven Seals in the book of Revelation and the
second of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
• mid A.D. 2010’s: A great famine begins in this decade; it will be in full effect by 2015 and will not end
until all Christians are united in one holy Catholic Church. This famine is the third Seal of the Seven
Seals in the book of Revelation and the third of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
• A.D. 2010’s: The war, civil disorder, and famine result in many deaths in many countries. These
deaths by various causes is the fourth Seal of the Seven Seals in the book of Revelation and the fourth
of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
• A.D. 2019: The 2000th anniversary of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• A.D. 2020 to 2023: Over the course of about 3½ years, all Christian Churches join together in one
holy Catholic Church. In other words, the non-Catholic Christian Churches repent, convert, and
become part of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church will then be restructured into one Church
with seven parts: one part for the Latin Roman Catholic Rite, one part for the Eastern Churches, and
five parts for the formerly-Protestant Churches.
• A.D. 2020’s: The oppression and persecution of Christians in the areas occupied by the Arab forces
continues and increases.
• A.D. 2030’s: The persecution of Christians in the occupied areas becomes increasingly severe.
Christians will be hunted, jailed, tortured, and killed. Churches will be desecrated or destroyed. The
Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist will be mostly taken away in the occupied areas. The Arab leaders
will try to put an end to Christianity in the lands under their control. As the Holocaust was to the
Jewish people, so this persecution will be to Christians. This great martyrdom is the fifth Seal of the
Seven Seals in the book of Revelation.
154
The End Times
• A.D. 2030’s: The severe persecution and martyrdom of Christians in the occupied lands is the main
reason that the United States and its Allies decide to free Europe and Africa from the occupation. The
great monarch will be the most prominent leader among those who gather the forces needed to invade
and free the occupied lands.
• A.D. 2030’s: The war to free the occupied lands is shorter than World War III, but also much more
intense. This war could be called World War IV, (though I don’t know whether people will use that
term or not). Many nuclear weapons will be used in this war. This great war is the sixth Seal of the
Seven Seals in the book of Revelation.
• late A.D. 2030’s: The Allies will win the war and free the occupied lands from the Arab forces. The
Arab nations themselves will also be invaded and conquered. The great monarch will become the
leader of the nations freed by the war.
• late A.D. 2030’s: The Seal of the Living God is given to select members of the Church. Those who
bear the Seal of God will be protected from the remaining afflictions which are to follow (cf. Ezek 9:4-
6). This is the first of two occasions when God will give His Seal to select faithful persons.
• A.D. 2038 to 2039/2040: The Seventh Seal is divided into Seven Trumpets. The events of the first six
Trumpets take place at this time.
o First Trumpet (Rev 8:7) – Many fragments of a comet, (possibly Comet Tempel 1,) broken
into pieces, fall to earth and burn up a third of the earth’s surface.
o Second Trumpet (Rev 8:8-9) – One large piece of the same comet falls into the ocean, causing
destruction on a global scale: tidal waves, atmospheric disturbances, and abrupt changes in
ocean temperature.
o Third Trumpet (Rev 8:10-11) – The rivers and other sources of fresh water will be made toxic
by radioactive fallout (from the war of the Sixth Seal) and will cause the death of many
people.
o Fourth Trumpet (Rev 8:12) – The atmosphere will be obscured such that less light is able to
reach the earth’s surface. Temperatures will fall worldwide and agriculture will become very
difficult. The fourth trumpet describes a nuclear winter caused by the nuclear war of the sixth
seal, or by the widespread fires in the first trumpet, or by the large piece of the comet falling
into the sea in the second trumpet, or by a combination of these. Nations, groups, and
individuals should store food in order to survive this nuclear winter.
The events of the first four trumpets are caused by nature and human action, under the Providence of God.
But the next three trumpets are most likely supernatural in origin. The first six trumpets occur within the same
time period (A.D. 2038 to 2039/2040); but the seventh trumpet occurs much later.
o Fifth Trumpet (Rev 9:1-12) – This event is described by Sacred Scripture using the symbolism
of locusts. These so-called locusts torture those on earth who were not given the Seal of God
on their foreheads. These are not real locusts, since they do not eat any green grass or plants
or trees (Rev 9:4). These things are similar to locusts in that they are small, can fly, travel in
great numbers, and are a kind of plague on mankind. This affliction is most likely
supernatural, and not from nature. (However, it is possible that these locust-like things are
some type of man-made weapon.)
o Sixth Trumpet (Rev 9:13-21) – The sixth Trumpet is the Three Days of Darkness, which was
foreshadowed by the darkness God sent upon the Egyptians through Moses (Ex 10:21-23)
and by the three hours of darkness when Christ was on the Cross (Mk 15:33). About one third
of the human persons living on earth at that time will be killed by this affliction. The Three
Days of Darkness occurs sometime during the winter of A.D. 2039/2040. Everyone must
stay indoors during these three days. Pray, practice self-denial, and be merciful to one
another.
After the Three Days of Darkness, which is the Sixth Trumpet, the first part of the Tribulation ends and the
people of the world experience a time of peace and tranquility. The events of the Seventh Trumpet are divided
155
into seven Bowls of God’s wrath; these events do not occur until the mid 25th century, hundreds of years after
the Sixth Trumpet.
• A.D. 2040’s: A time of respite and rebuilding begins. The great monarch is elected the leader of the
formerly-occupied lands. The great monarch is a holy Catholic leader of many nations. The Pope of
this time period is very holy and works with the great monarch to rebuild the nations. The Church has
much success preaching the Gospel to all nations during his time of peace and holiness on earth.
Church and State will work together to benefit the world.
• At the end of the great monarch’s reign: The great monarch voluntarily steps down as leader and
monarch. His role of leadership does not go to a relative nor to anyone like him. His kingdom is
divided into four parts and the leaders of those four parts are not devout and holy like him.
• Soon after: The world begins to slip into increasing sin and self-indulgence.
• After many years, sinfulness and violence in the world have increased significantly, and, as a result,
wars and internal conflicts resume.
• late 24th or early 25th century A.D.: The Church will be restructured to have 12 divisions within one
holy Catholic Church. This transformation is similar to that of the early A.D. 2020’s, when the
Church is restructured to have 7 divisions within one Church.
• late 24th or early 25th century A.D.: The world will be ruled by ten kings only. The world will reject
Christianity; the Christian faith will be an outlaw religion. Persecution of Christians will be
widespread. Both the law and social custom will support the persecution and mistreatment of
Christians.
• A.D. 2430/2431 to 2437: The reign of the Antichrist lasts nearly seven years. For more information
about the Antichrist, see The Bible and the Future of the World.
• During the reign of the Antichrist: For the second time in history, select faithful are given the Seal of
God on their foreheads. This time, those sealed are the First Fruits redeemed by Christ from the
world. These holy persons have original sin, but no personal sin whatsoever.
• Sometime after the First Fruits are given the Seal of God: The Antichrist has his followers marked
with his name or number on their foreheads or hands. He does this in perverse imitation of the act of
God whereby some of God’s servants were marked on their foreheads.
• About halfway through the Antichrist’s reign: The Antichrist begins a severe attack on the faithful, in
an attempt to completely destroy the Christian Faith worldwide. This event is the Crucifixion of the
Church.
• At the end of his reign, the Antichrist tries to ascend to Heaven. He is put down, but not killed, by the
Archangel Michael.
• A.D. 2437: The year of the Return of Christ. (Yes, I am certain.)
• After Christ’s Return: A space of time for repentance and conversion.
• A.D. 2438/2439: The last of the sufferings of the Tribulation are called the “Seven Bowls of God’s
Wrath.” These punishments are only for the wicked who followed the Antichrist. In this way, these
wicked persons are killed and their souls are sent to Hell. But the Antichrist and the false prophet (a
woman) are thrown alive, body and soul, into the fires of Hell.
o First Bowl of God’s Wrath – “So the first angel went and poured his bowl on the earth, and
foul and evil sores came upon the men who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its
image.” (Rev 16:2).
o Second Bowl of God’s Wrath – “The second angel poured his bowl into the sea, and it
became like the blood of a dead man, and every living thing died that was in the sea.” (Rev
16:3).
o Third Bowl of God’s Wrath – “The third angel poured his bowl into the rivers and the
fountains of water, and they became blood.” (Rev 16:4). The waters become undrinkable,
causing illness and death.
156
The End Times
o Fourth Bowl of God’s Wrath – “The fourth angel poured his bowl on the sun, and it was
allowed to scorch men with fire….” (Rev 16:8).
o Fifth Bowl of God’s Wrath – “The fifth angel poured his bowl on the throne of the beast, and
its kingdom was in darkness; men gnawed their tongues in anguish….” (Rev 16:10). This
darkness is only for the wicked; the faithful will have light wherever they dwell (Ex 10:23).
This darkness is similar to the Three Days of Darkness (of the winter of A.D. 2039/2040),
with some exceptions: it does not result in the deaths of a large proportion of the earth’s
inhabitants, instead causing great anguish to the wicked (though some may die); it might
perhaps last longer than three days; and it is only an affliction for the wicked.
o Sixth Bowl of God’s Wrath – “The sixth angel poured his bowl on the great river Euphrates,
and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east…. And they
assembled them at the place which is called in Hebrew Armageddon.” (Rev 16:12.16). The
sixth Bowl of God’s Wrath includes not merely the drying up of a great river, but also the
subsequent events wherein the evil leaders of the world gather at Armageddon, to make war
against the faithful. They are later destroyed by God, before they can even begin the war (Rev
19:21).
o Seventh Bowl of God’s Wrath – The Seventh Bowl includes extraordinary lightning, thunder,
and noises. There is “a great earthquake such as had never been since men were on the earth,
so great was that earthquake.” (Rev 16:18). This is a worldwide earthquake. Cities all over
the world are destroyed: “the cities of the nations fell.” (Rev 16:19).
The Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath complete the sufferings of the Tribulation. Notice that the Antichrist’s reign
ends with the Return of Christ in A.D. 2437, but the Antichrist and his followers are not immediately
destroyed. They are made to suffer the Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath and they are now unable to harm the
faithful. At the end of these sufferings, the Antichrist and the false prophet are thrown alive, body and soul,
into the fires of Hell. And the wicked who are gathered at Armageddon, are all put to death by God. “And the
rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the
birds were gorged with their flesh.” (Rev 19:21).
• About A.D. 2439 or 2440: The beginning of the Millennium—over a thousand years of peace and
holiness when Christianity will reign over the whole world.
• At the start of the Millennium: The First Resurrection (Rev 20:4-6). Those faithful servants of God
who were martyred during the time of the Antichrist’s reign will be resurrected from the dead. I do
not know if any other martyrs or very holy persons will be resurrected, such as from other periods of
time. However, the vast majority of the just souls in Heaven are certainly not resurrected at this time,
nor are any of the wicked resurrected at this time.
• At the start of the Millennium: The Second Ascension of Christ. Jesus does not reign in person and in
the flesh during the Millennium. He reigns through His Church, through the Holy Spirit, and through
the Sacraments, esp. the Eucharist. Thus, He must again ascend to Heaven. At this time, if the Virgin
Mary descended to earth with Christ at the end of the Antichrist’s reign, then she is again assumed
into Heaven (her Second Assumption).
• At the start of the Millennium: The Second Pentecost. In order to establish the kingdom of God
throughout the whole world, in order to strengthen the Church for over a thousand years, and in order
to renew the face of the earth, Christ again sends the Holy Spirit as He did on the first Pentecost.
• The Millennium of peace and holiness continues for over 1,000 years. The Church grows in holiness
and knowledge of God during this time period. It is not a stagnant time of peace and holiness, but a
dynamic time of holy change and growth for the Church and the world.
• At the end of the Millennium: After well over 1,000 years, the Devil is released from Hell and is given
the opportunity to try to lead astray the people of the world. Many are led astray and eventually they
prepare and gather to attack the Church and the faithful. Before they can attack, God destroys them
all with fire from heaven (Rev 20:9).
157
• Next, there is a period of time whereby the people of the world destroy the weapons and bury the
dead. “Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go forth and make fires of the weapons and
burn them . . . and they will make fires of them for seven years.” (Ezek 39:9). “For seven months the
house of Israel will be burying them, in order to cleanse the land.” (Ezek 39:12). Just as occurred
during the time of peace in the A.D. 2040’s and during the early years of the Millennium, the people
of the world will again destroy the weapons and bury the dead at the end of the Millennium.
• Sometime afterwards (perhaps long afterwards):

• the general Resurrection of the just and the unjust
• the Rapture (wherein those faithful still living on earth do not die, but are given the benefits of the
Resurrection, just as the holy souls from Heaven are given)
• God takes away Heaven and earth, and makes a new Heaven and a new earth (Rev 12:1)
• Christ ascends to the new Heaven; Mary and the faithful are assumed into the new Heaven. (This
marks Christ’s third Ascension and Mary’s third Assumption.)
• And after that, who knows?
“For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before me, says the LORD; so
shall your descendants and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath,
all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the LORD. And they shall go forth and look on the dead bodies
of the men that have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and
they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (Isaiah 66:22-24).
158
Chapter 9
Dormition, Resurrection, Assumption
At the end of her life on earth, the Blessed Virgin Mary died, was resurrected from the dead, and was
assumed into Heaven. Death is the separation of body and soul. At the end of her life on earth, the Virgin
Mary’s soul separated from her body and was brought into Heaven by Christ. Her body remained on earth,
incorruptible, until her Resurrection. At the Virgin Mary’s Resurrection, her soul was brought from Heaven to
earth by Christ and was reunited to her soul by Christ. Mary’s death and Resurrection occurred on earth.
Next, immediately after her Resurrection, Mary was assumed, with body and soul united, into Heaven by
Christ.
Some of the faithful doubt that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected before being assumed into
Heaven. But the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, clearly and repeatedly refers
to the death of the Virgin Mary. 251 In no less than seven separate paragraphs this Apostolic Constitution refers,
in one way or another, to the death of the Virgin Mary:
1. “In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only
begotten Son, had actually passed from this life.” (n. 14)
2. “ ‘Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered
temporal death….’ ” (n. 17, quoting the Sacramentarium Gregorianum)
3. “ ‘As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has
glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.’ ” (n. 18, quoting the Byzantine liturgy)
4. “…this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but
that she gained a triumph out of death….” (n. 20, referring to the feast of the Assumption)
5. “ ‘It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body
free from all corruption even after death.’ ” (n. 21, quoting St. John Damascene)
6. “ ‘…she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up
from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.’ ” (n. 22, a quote attributed
to St. Modestus of Jerusalem)
7. “Hence the revered Mother of God…finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges,
that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having
overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven….” (n. 40)
In no less than three places, this Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, also clearly refers to the
Resurrection of the Virgin Mary:
1. “Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of
Lausanne, held that the Virgin Mary’s flesh had remained incorrupt—for it is wrong to believe that her
body has seen corruption—because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned
with great glory in the heavenly courts.” (n. 28)
2. “ ‘What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after
death if he could?’ ” (n. 35, quoting St. Francis of Sales)
3. “ ‘…she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up
from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.’ ” (n. 22, a quote attributed
to St. Modestus of Jerusalem)
159
The infallible teaching of the Church, under the first charism of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, is that
Mary was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven: “…we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely
revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of
her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”252
This infallible definition of Mary’s Assumption does not mention her death and Resurrection. However, the
document as a whole does clearly teach that the Virgin Mary died, and that she was raised from the dead,
prior to her Assumption. Nowhere does the document discuss the possibility that Mary was assumed into
Heaven without first having died and been raised from the dead. But, since the teaching of Munificentissimus
Deus on Mary’s death and Resurrection is not found within the infallible definition of her Assumption, it falls
under the fallible Ordinary Magisterium, at least in so far as it is presented within that document.
One could argue that the Church has consistently taught the faithful about the death (“Dormition”) of the
Virgin Mary, and that this teaching, therefore, falls under the first form of the third charism of the infallible
Sacred Magisterium—the daily teaching and witness of the Bishops and the Pope on faith and morals. If so,
then the death of the Virgin Mary would also be part of the explicit and infallible teaching of the Sacred
Magisterium, defined under the third charism rather than the first.
One could also argue that the Church has not yet infallibly taught the Virgin Mary’s death and Resurrection,
but only her Assumption. The Resurrection of the Virgin Mary has been taught much less often, and much less
clearly, than either her Dormition or her Assumption. Many of the faithful are unclear as to whether or not the
Virgin Mary experienced death and resurrection prior to her Assumption.
In any case, the Magisterium has clearly taught, at least under the fallible Ordinary Magisterium, that the
Virgin Mary died and was raised from the dead, prior to her Assumption. The Apostolic Constitution
Munificentissimus Deus clearly and repeatedly teaches that Mary experienced death and resurrection prior to her
Assumption. Therefore, the faithful should accept this teaching about Mary’s death and Resurrection, even
though it might not yet have been taught infallibly.
Other Possibilities
Some of the faithful think that the Virgin Mary was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven, without ever
having died. They correctly say that Mary had no original sin and therefore she did not deserve the
punishment of death which results from original sin. This is true. But it does not follow that Mary did not die.
Mary did not inherit original sin and so did not inherit the consequences of original sin, which include
susceptibility to injury, disease, and the deterioration of body due to old age. Mary could not die due to injury,
disease, or advanced age.
But Christ also did not have original sin and did not deserve death as a punishment for sin. Christ died as a
punishment for our sins; but He Himself was sinless. Christ did not inherit the consequences of original sin,
therefore, Christ could not die due to injury, disease, or advanced age. Christ could only die by the will of
God. Even though Christ was crucified on a cross, He could only suffer and die because it was the will of God.
Mary, like her Son and Savior, had no original sin and so could only die by the will of God.
Others among the faithful think that Mary died, and that her dead body was assumed into Heaven where it
was united to her soul. This idea directly contradicts the infallible teaching of the Church that Mary was
assumed, body and soul, into Heaven. It was not Mary’s dead body which was brought up to Heaven by
Christ. When Christ died, he first rose from the dead before ascending to Heaven. Similarly, when Mary died
in Christ, she first was raised from the dead by Christ, before she was assumed into Heaven by Christ.
Death is the separation of body and soul. When someone dies, their soul leaves their body. Similarly,
resurrection is the reuniting of body and soul. At the end of her life on earth, the Virgin Mary died. Her soul
was brought up to Heaven by Christ, but her body remained on earth. At the Resurrection of the Virgin Mary,
Christ brought Mary’s soul down from Heaven to earth and reunited her body and soul. Thereafter, Mary was
assumed, body and soul, into Heaven by Christ.
If Mary died, then she first had to be raised from the dead, before she could be assumed into Heaven. These
three things—death, Resurrection, Assumption—are joined together. At her death, Mary’s soul left her body.
160
Her soul then had to return to her body in a resurrection, before she could possibly be assumed, body and soul,
into Heaven. If one believes that Mary died, it is contrary to both faith and reason to believe that Mary was not
also resurrected from the dead, before she was assumed into Heaven.
The Virgin Mary’s Life after the Cross
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother,
‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the
disciple took her to his own home.” (Jn 19:26-27).
The disciple whom Jesus loved is the gospel writer, John (cf. Jn 21:20-24). When Jesus spoke these words
from the Cross, He made His mother be the mother of John, and He made John be her son. God’s Sacred
Infallible Scripture uses the expression “the disciple whom he loved,” instead of using John’s name, so that
John could stand in the place of all disciples whom Jesus loves. From His Cross, at the hour of His death,
Jesus made His mother become our mother. Mary became our mother at the at the foot of the Cross at the
hour of Christ’s death.
After the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of her Son Jesus, the Virgin Mary lived in the home of the
gospel writer John. According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, after the Ascension of Jesus to Heaven,
the Virgin Mary lived for three years on Mount Zion (in Jerusalem), three years in Bethany and nine years in
Ephesus. 253 Saint John had a house built for the Virgin Mary in Ephesus before they moved there.254
“The Blessed Virgin lived here alone, with a younger woman, her maidservant, who fetched what little food
they needed. . . . There was no man in the house, but sometimes they were visited by an Apostle or disciple on
his travels. There was one man whom I saw more often than others going in and out of the house; I always
took him to be John, but neither here nor in Jerusalem did he remain permanently near the Blessed Virgin. He
came and went in the course of his travels.”255
At Ephesus and in Jerusalem, John did not remain in the same house as Mary, but traveled about preaching
the Gospel. He looked after her as his own mother. He took her into his home and his heart, but he also
continued to preach the Gospel wherever it took him.
The Virgin Mary spoke to Saint Bridget of Sweden about her life after the Ascension of her Son Jesus.
“After my Son ascended to Heaven, I lived in the world fifteen years—the time from my Son’s Ascension to
my death.” 256 During those 15 years, the Virgin Mary meditated constantly on the sufferings of her Son Jesus.
She faithfully visited the places of His sufferings in Jerusalem. And when she lived in Ephesus, she set up the
Stations of the Cross in remembrance of the Passion and death of her Divine Son Jesus Christ.257
“For all the time that I lived, after the Ascension of my Son, I visited the places in which He suffered and
showed His wonders. So rooted, too, was His Passion in my heart, that whether I ate or worked, it was ever as
if fresh in my memory.”258
The Virgin Mary, Perfect Disciple of Christ
The Virgin Mary shared in the sufferings of her Divine Son Jesus Christ more fully than any other created
being. The Virgin Mary’s great love for Jesus, who is her God, her Savior, and her Son, allowed her to be fully
united with Jesus in His time of great suffering. She opened her heart fully and without reservation to suffer
with Jesus at the Cross. The Virgin Mary could not have suffered more, even if she had been crucified next to
her Son.
The Virgin Mary shared in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, and so she also shared in the entrance of Jesus
into Heaven. At the end of her life on earth, the Virgin Mary was raised up to Heaven, body and soul, to be
with Jesus who had raised Himself up to Heaven, Body and Soul and Divinity.
The Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ is also His only perfect disciple. She, more completely than any other
follower of Christ, has fulfilled the words of Holy Scripture: “The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we
shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him . . . .” (2 Tim 2:11-12). Thus, it was fitting
that the Virgin Mary should also share in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by dying and being raised
from the dead before Her triumphant entrance into Heaven, so that, even in death, her following of Jesus
Christ would be complete.
161
The Death of the Virgin Mary
The Virgin Mary described her own death to Saint Bridget of Sweden.
“Some years after the Ascension of my Son, I was one day much afflicted with a longing to rejoin my Son;
then I beheld a radiant angel, such as I had before seen, who said to me: ‘Thy Son, who is Our Lord and God,
sent me to announce to thee that the time is at hand when thou shalt come bodily to Him, to receive the crown
prepared for thee.’ ‘Dost thou,’ I replied, ‘know the day or hour when I shall leave the world?’ The angel
answered: ‘The friends of thy Son will come and inter thy body.’ Saying this, the angel disappeared, and I
prepared for my departure, going, as was my wont, to all the spots where my Son had suffered; and when one
day my mind was absorbed in admiring contemplation of divine charity, my soul was filled therein with such
exaltation that it could not contain itself, and in that very consideration, my soul was loosed from the body.
But what magnificent things my soul then beheld; with what honor the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost then
honored it, and by what a host of angels it was wafted up, thou canst not conceive, nor will I tell thee before
thy soul and body are severed . . . .” 259
At the end of her life, the soul of the Virgin Mary was loosed from her body. This is a description of her
death, for in death the soul is separated from the body. At the end of her life on earth, the Virgin Mary died.
The death of the Virgin Mary is also called her “falling asleep in love,” meaning that she died out of love for
God. Her own description of her death makes it clear that this is true. The Virgin Mary died while
contemplating the love of God. She died in the love of God and because of the love of God, as she said to
Saint Bridget: “and in that very consideration, my soul was loosed from the body.”
Immediately after her death, the soul of the Virgin Mary, without her body, was welcomed into Heaven by
Jesus, by the Holy Trinity, by countless heavenly angels, and by the souls of the Elect. This teaching does not
contradict the teaching that Mary was assumed into Heaven with both her body and her soul. The soul of the
Virgin Mary went to Heaven first. Later on earth, her soul was reunited with her body at her Resurrection,
after which she was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven.
The Twelve Apostles
After the Ascension of Jesus to Heaven, the disciple Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot (Acts
1:15-26). “And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven
apostles.” (Acts 1:26). So then there were again Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ.
According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, ten of the Twelve Apostles were present at the death
(“Dormition”) of the Virgin Mary. James the Greater could not have been present, because he was martyred
seven years, three and one half months before the Virgin Mary’s death. 260 Thomas arrived late, after the Virgin
Mary had died and her body had been placed in the tomb.261 The other ten Apostles arrived before the Virgin
Mary died and was entombed.
Blessed Anne Catherine’s description of the Dormition includes specific mention of each of the Twelve
Apostles. All except Thomas and James the Greater, were present at the Dormition of the Virgin Mary.262
Before she died, the Holy Virgin Mary gave her blessing to the Apostles.263
The Virgin Mary, Perfect Martyr
The Virgin Mary died at the end of Holy Mass, after receiving the Holy Eucharist. Saint Peter celebrated
this Holy Mass with the assistance of some of the other Apostles, in the home of the Blessed Virgin. The
Apostles all knew that the Virgin Mary was near death. During Holy Mass, Saint Peter gave the Virgin Mary
Extreme Unction (the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick). He then gave her Holy Communion. 264
“Peter then gave her Holy Communion. . . . The Apostles prayed for a while, and then, raising herself rather
less, she received the Chalice from John. As she received the Blessed Sacrament I saw a radiance pass into
Mary, who sank back as though in ecstasy, and spoke no more.”265
162
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich next describes her vision of the death of the Virgin Mary, which
occurred at the end of Holy Mass.
“Then I saw a wonderfully moving vision. The ceiling of Our Lady’s room disappeared . . . and I saw
through the sky into the heavenly Jerusalem. Two radiant clouds of light sank down, out of which appeared
the faces of many angels. Between these clouds a path of light poured down upon Mary, and I saw a shining
mountain leading up from her into the heavenly Jerusalem. She stretched out her arms towards it in infinite
longing, and I saw her body, all wrapped up, rise so high above her couch that one could see right under it. I
saw her soul leave her body like a little figure of infinitely pure light, soaring with outstretched arms up the
shining mountain to heaven. The two angel-choirs in the clouds met beneath her soul and separated it from
her holy body, which in the moment of separation sank back on the couch with arms crossed on the breast.”266
The Virgin Mary’s death did not occur by the usual causes of death which afflict humanity. She did not die
of illness or injury or old age, as those who have original sin die. Instead, she died out of intense longing for
union with God. Mary died out of pure love for God and she died because it was God’s will, as is clear from
the statement that the angels helped to separate Mary’s soul from her body. The Virgin Mary died in a
miraculous manner, free from all of the effects of original sin. God miraculously separated her soul from her
body, and brought her soul up to Heaven. Cause of death: an act of God.
The all-holy Virgin Mary died out of love for Jesus Christ. The Holy Eucharist is nothing other than Jesus
Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Mary died soon after receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist,
while she was in Communion with her Divine Son. The all-pure Virgin Mary gave up her life for love of the
Son of God. She died a martyr to the Holy Eucharist.
“ ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’ ” (John 15:12-13).
The Holy Virgin Mary loves Christ the Lord more than any other disciple. She loved Jesus Christ more,
even before she went to Heaven, than any other created being ever will love Him, even in Heaven. The all-
blessed Virgin Mary laid down her life for her Divine Friend Jesus and for us, in fulfillment of the
commandment of her Son Jesus.
The Dormition of Mary
The death of the Blessed Virgin Mary is called her Dormition, which means her “falling asleep.” This
expression comes from Holy Scripture.
“. . . then he said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.’ . . .
Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them
plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead . . . .’ ” (John 11:11, 13-14).
Jesus uses the expression “fallen asleep” to show that death is not final, but will be followed by Resurrection
to new life. The miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead is a sign to give people faith in the
Resurrection of the just at the last day (cf. John 11:23-27, 38-44). The Virgin Mary’s Dormition, her falling
asleep, likewise refers to her death, not to actual sleep. Mary’s death is aptly called sleep because she soon
woke from that sleep, when Christ raised her to eternal life.
“For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is
futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. . . . But in
fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.” (1 Cor 15:16-18, 20).
The Virgin Mary never sinned, and so she did not deserve death as a punishment for sin. Yet still she died at
the end of her life, for she desired with her whole heart to be like her Son Jesus Christ in all things. The Blessed
Virgin Mary’s falling asleep in Christ was the fitting end to her life on earth, since she sought to follow Christ
without limits, even unto death. Christ had to die, and so enter into His glory (cf. Luke 24:19-26). In the same
way, the Virgin Mary, the closest follower of Christ, also had to die before entering into her glory in Heaven,
because her glory is nothing but a sharing in the glory of the Crucified One. The Virgin Mary is Christ’s most
perfect imitator and follower. Mary’s death and resurrection is part of God’s gift of making her as much like
Christ as she could be.
163
God gave the Virgin Mary a role in His plan for our salvation—to participate in Christ’s saving work.
Christ’s death and resurrection are an essential part of His saving work. Mary’s death and resurrection is a
participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. She died in Christ and rose in Christ because she followed
Christ in all things.
The Time and Place of Mary’s Dormition
According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, the Virgin Mary died at the same time of day as Our Lord
died. “The Blessed Virgin died after the ninth hour, at the same time as Our Lord.”267 (According to the Jewish
custom, the hours were counted from sunrise, so that the ninth hour would correspond to about 3 o’clock in
the afternoon.) Jesus died for us about 3 p.m., and so this time is called the hour of great Mercy.268 It was
fitting that the Virgin Mary should die at the hour of great Mercy, for she assists her Divine Son Jesus as He
pours out the Mercy and Love of God upon all creation.
The Virgin Mary died and was buried at Ephesus. She had visited Jerusalem about a year and a half before
her death. And at that time, in Jerusalem, she suffered so much from her recollections of the Passion and death
of Jesus, that her companions thought she might die soon. “She herself chose a cave in the Mount of Olives,
and the Apostles caused a beautiful sepulchre to be prepared here . . . . By the time, however, that the
sepulchre was ready, she had recovered and was strong enough to journey back to her home in Ephesus,
where she did in fact die eighteen months later.”269 The Virgin Mary was not buried at Jerusalem, as some still
believe, but rather at Ephesus.
The Virgin Mary’s little house at Ephesus is believed to be the Panaya Kapulu, the House of the Holy Virgin.
It is the remains of a small stone building on a mountain in Turkey, overlooking the Aegean Sea. 270 Her tomb
has not yet been discovered.
The Burial of the Virgin Mary
According to Saint Bridget of Sweden, when the Virgin Mary asked the angel about her death, the angel
replied: “The friends of thy Son will come and inter thy body.”271 The friends of her Son, about whom the
angel spoke, are the Apostles. They came, by divine inspiration and with divine assistance, to attend at the
death and burial of Mary, the Mother of their Savior. Thus, the body of Mary must have been separated from
her soul for some period of time, since there was sufficient time to bury her before her Resurrection and
Assumption.
How many days passed between the death of the Virgin Mary and her Assumption into Heaven? The
answer is found in the Virgin Mary’s own description of her Assumption, as recounted by Saint Bridget.
“After this, the friends of my Son, divinely sent, interred my body in the valley of Josaphat, countless
angels, like specks in sunlight, attending, but malignant spirits not daring to approach. For fifteen days my
body lay buried in the earth; then, with a multitude of angels, it was assumed into Heaven.” 272
“After my Son ascended to Heaven, I lived in the world fifteen years—the time from my Son’s Ascension to
my death. And when dead, I lay in the sepulcher three days; then I was taken up to Heaven with infinite honor
and joy . . . .” 273
How can we reconcile the Virgin Mary’s two statements, that her body lay buried in the earth for fifteen
days and that after her death she lay in the sepulcher for three days? The length of time between Mary’s death
and her Assumption to Heaven must have been 15 days, for Mary plainly said so to Saint Bridget. After her
death, her body was placed in the earth, in a sepulcher or tomb of some kind. The tomb was probably left
open, so that devout persons could visit the body. Recall that the tomb of Our Lord was large enough for
persons to enter and move about (John 20:1-13). This event would be something like the custom today to hold
a “wake” after someone’s death.
The three days, then, would be counted from the end of the time for visiting the body of Mary, when the
coffin was covered and the sepulcher closed, to the time when she was assumed into Heaven. Thus, the wake
for the body of the Virgin Mary would be a fairly long time, about 12 days. This conclusion, about the time
period for the wake and the closing of the tomb, is my interpretation of the Virgin Mary’s words as told by
Saint Bridget.
164
The Virgin Mary’s body “lay buried in the earth” for 15 days, meaning that her body was in the tomb for
that length of time. The tomb is said to be “in the earth” because it was a cave-like burial chamber hollowed
out of a rock, perhaps on a hillside.274 And Mary’s body “lay in the sepulcher three days,” meaning that her
body was in the closed-up tomb (or sepulcher) for 3 days, the last 3 days of the entire 15 day period from her
death to her Resurrection and Assumption into Heaven.
The Feast of the Dormition of Mary
In the Eastern Churches, many Christians observe the 14-day Fast of the Dormition prior to their
celebration of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. The Church has celebrated the Feast of the
Dormition of the Virgin Mary for many centuries in the East. The Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos
(meaning ‘God-bearer’ or ‘Mother of God’) is celebrated on August 15. Preparation for the Feast begins on
August 1 with the Dormition Fast, which lasts until the Feast of the Dormition on August 15. Most Christians
do not know that the Fast of the Dormition represents the period of time from the death of the Virgin Mary to
her Resurrection and Assumption 15 days later.
The Resurrection and Assumption of Mary
Before the Virgin Mary could be assumed into Heaven, body and soul, her soul first had to be reunited with
her body. The Church’s teaching on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is that she was assumed into Heaven
with her body and soul united. The reunification of her body and soul could not have taken place in Heaven,
but only on earth, because it was not her dead body which was assumed into Heaven, but her whole self, body
and soul. If the Virgin Mary died, so that her body and soul were separated, then her soul first had to be
reunited with her body, before her Assumption to Heaven could take place. The reunification of the body and
soul of the Virgin Mary is her Resurrection from the dead.
Fifteen days after her death, the Virgin Mary was raised from the dead by her Divine Son Jesus Christ.
Immediately after her Resurrection, the Virgin Mary was raised up to Heaven by Jesus, who is her Son, her
Savior, and her God. Jesus Christ is “the first-born of all creation” and “the first-born from the dead”
(Colossians 1:15.18). The all-blessed Virgin Mary is the second-born of all creation and the second-born from
the dead, for in all things she loved and followed her Son and God, Jesus Christ. Mary makes it clear to us that
she was the second person Resurrected from the dead after Jesus, through her words to Saint Bridget: “Know,
too, that there is no human body in Heaven but the glorious body of my Son and mine.” 275 Even Lazarus,
whom Jesus raised from the dead, later died again, and now awaits his place in the general Resurrection of all
the faithful.
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich described the Resurrection and Assumption of the Virgin Mary into
Heaven.
“It was as if a shaft of light descended from heaven towards the tomb, and in this shaft was a lovely form
like the soul of the Blessed Virgin, accompanied by the form of Our Lord; then the body of Our Lady, united
to the shining soul, rose shining out of the grave and soared up to heaven with the figure of Our Lord.”276
The Virgin Mary’s soul descended from Heaven and was reunited with her holy body in her resurrection
from the dead. Notice that Jesus brought Mary’s soul down from Heaven and resurrected her by reuniting her
soul with her body. Jesus raised the Virgin Mary from the dead. The all-holy Virgin Mary cannot resurrect
herself from the dead, nor can she ascend to Heaven herself, because she is not God and is not the Messiah.
Jesus is the Messiah who is God. Jesus can raise Himself from the dead, and Jesus can raise Himself up to
Heaven, because Jesus is God.
“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. . . . I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” (John 10:17.18)
The Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven, meaning that God raised her up to Heaven, body and soul.
Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, meaning that Jesus who is God raised Himself up to Heaven. The humanity
of Mary is all that she is; she has no Divinity. The humanity of Mary, her whole self, was raised up to Heaven
165
by God. The humanity of Jesus Christ is united to His Divinity. The humanity of Jesus Christ was raised up to
Heaven by His Divinity. Thus, Jesus ascended to Heaven by His own power.
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich also gave a second description of the Resurrection and Assumption of
Our Lady into Heaven.
“A broad shaft of light came down from heaven to the rock, and I saw descending in it a triple-ringed glory
of angels and spirits surrounding the appearance of Our Lord and of the shining soul of Mary. The appearance
of Our Lord, whose wound-marks were streaming with light, moved down in front of her soul. . . . As this
vision, becoming ever clearer, streamed down upon the rock, I saw a shining path opened and leading up to
the heavenly Jerusalem. Then I saw the soul of the Blessed Virgin, which had been following the appearance
of Our Lord, pass in front of Him and float down into the tomb. Soon afterwards I saw her soul, united to her
transfigured body, rising out of the tomb far brighter and clearer, and ascending into the heavenly Jerusalem
with Our Lord and with the whole glory.”277
Notice that, in the vision, the appearance of the Virgin Mary is far brighter and clearer after her soul is
united to her body. This increased radiance indicates an increase in the glory of the Virgin Mary in Heaven
because of her Resurrection. The glory of the soul of the Virgin Mary in Heaven is greater than the glory of
any other created being, except the humanity of Jesus Christ. Yet, because of her Resurrection and
Assumption, her glory is increased; the unification of her resurrected transfigured body with her soul gives her
an even greater measure of glory and happiness than she would have with her soul only. In Heaven, only the
glory of the Most Holy Trinity, including the glory of Jesus Christ in His humanity and His Divinity, is greater
than the glory given to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Yet even we poor sinners, who have been faithful to Christ in our lives, will likewise receive an increase in
glory, in both body and soul, at our Resurrection. When we arrive in Heaven, the glory we experience then
will be indescribable. Yet after the general Resurrection, the glory we all share, in body and soul, will be even
greater.
Saint T homas, Apostle of Our Lord
Saint Thomas had a special role in revealing the Assumption of Our Lady to the Church. As Blessed Anne
Catherine has said, Saint Thomas arrived at Ephesus too late to be present for the death and burial of the
Virgin Mary. “He always tried to do too much and so often arrived too late.”278 The Apostle Thomas’ late
arrival was not merely due to his tendency to want to do too much, but was also an act of God’s Providence.
Thomas arrived after the death, Resurrection and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Another disciple,
named Jonathan, accompanied Thomas. “Oh, how distressed they were to learn that they had come too late!
Thomas cried like a child when he heard of Mary’s death.”279 They asked to be shown the tomb of the
Virgin Mary. After going inside the tomb with some of the other Apostles, they removed the cover from the
coffin.
“When the light of the torches shone into the coffin, they saw with awe and amazement the grave-clothes
lying before them still wrapped round as before, but empty. . . . The transfigured body of Mary was no longer
on earth. . . . John called to those outside the cave: ‘Come, see, and wonder, she is no longer here.’ All came
two by two into the narrow cave, and saw with amazement the empty grave-clothes lying before them. They
looked up to heaven with uplifted arms, weeping and praying, praising the Lord and His beloved transfigured
Mother (their true dear Mother, too) like devoted children, uttering every kind of loving endearment as the
spirit moved them.”280
The late arrival of Saint Thomas and Jonathan was the reason that the Virgin Mary’s tomb and coffin were
re-opened after her death. God’s Providence ordained that Thomas should arrive late, so that the miracle of
the Virgin Mary’s Resurrection and Assumption to Heaven would be immediately discovered and known to
all of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.
See the holy Church, in Her earliest and most tender years, being given by God an understanding of the
holy Virgin Mary’s place in Heaven and in the Church! From the very beginning, the Church has understood
that the Mother of Jesus followed Him in her life, her death, her Resurrection, and her Assumption into
166
Heaven. Let us then, in the present time, reaffirm this teaching which was witnessed by all of the Apostles and
known to various Saints throughout the ages.
The Virgin Mary Leads Us in Following Christ
At the end of His Ministry, Jesus suffered on the Cross, died, was resurrected from the dead, and Ascended
to Heaven. The life of Jesus Christ is the pattern for the life of every faithful Christian: “and if children, then
heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be
glorified with him.” (Rom 8:17). All Christians must follow the pattern of Christ’s life in order to be glorified
with Him.
The all-holy Virgin Mary suffered with her Divine Son Jesus Christ at the Cross. As the first and foremost of
all disciples of Christ, the Virgin Mary had to walk the same Way of the Cross that Jesus walked, the same
Way of the Cross that all true disciples must walk. Even after Jesus died and was removed from the Cross,
Mary’s suffering continued, as if she were still at the foot of the Cross. Mary’s suffering at the Cross ended
only with her holy death, just as Jesus’ suffering at the Cross ended with His holy death, for she had to
continue to follow her Divine Son and Lord, even unto death.
It is not surprising that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected from the dead, for this is the pattern which
Jesus Christ established by His own death and Resurrection. And this is the ordinary path the faithful who
carry the Cross of Jesus Christ must follow, to die in Christ and to be resurrected in Christ. No one else shared
in the Cross of Jesus Christ as fully as did the Virgin Mary, and so God chose her to be the one resurrected
after Jesus and before all others. God would not allow the all-blessed Virgin Mary to be excluded from the
glory of the Resurrection of the Just, for in all things she loved, imitated, and followed her Son, her Savior,
and her God, Jesus Christ.
The Resurrection of the Just
“But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will
change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things
to himself.” (Phil 3:20-21).
The Resurrection of the Virgin Mary is a foreshadowing of the Resurrection of all the faithful on the last
day. The souls of the faithful who die in Christ go to Heaven, just as the Blessed Virgin Mary’s soul went to
Heaven. Then, at the Resurrection of the Just, the souls of the faithful will descend from Heaven, as Mary’s
soul did, and be raised from the dead by Jesus Christ, just as Mary was. And, like the Virgin Mary, at the
Resurrection our souls will be reunited with our transfigured bodies, which shall be glorious and new,
patterned after the glory of Jesus Christ.
The Glorification of the Soul
Yes, the resurrected just have glorified bodies, free from all effects of original sin—not susceptible to disease,
injury, or death. They will have incorruptible bodies like unto the resurrected and glorified body of Jesus
Christ. But, truly I tell you, the soul of the resurrected just will also be glorified, even beyond the glory given to
the soul in the first Heaven. In each of those who are given the blessing of the resurrection of the just, body
and soul are united as one human person. Therefore, the soul shares in, and benefits from, the glory of the
body. When the soul is united with a resurrected and glorified body, the soul experiences an increase in glory.
At the general Resurrection, each of the souls of the just descend from the first Heaven to be united to its
glorified resurrected body. The glory given to each soul in the first Heaven is great, yet this glory is not
perfection, not the completion of the journey, not the soul’s final destination—otherwise there would be no
resurrection. If the soul in the first Heaven possessed all that God willed, then a general Resurrection would be
unnecessary and futile. On the contrary, God’s plan is not for us to dwell forever, in the first Heaven, in soul
only. Each human person is meant by God to have both a body and a soul, united in perfect harmony.
Even so, the soul does not achieve its greatest glory at the time of the general Resurrection. After the
Resurrection, God takes away Heaven and earth, and then He makes a new Heaven and a new earth. Next,
167
the resurrected just are assumed into the new Heaven. Entering the new Heaven gives the resurrected just yet
another increase in glory, due to an increased closeness to God within the beatific vision. The beatific vision of
God—the mutual knowledge and love between God and the faithful in Heaven—is clearer and deeper and
more intense in the new Heaven than in the first Heaven. In this way, the glory given to the resurrected faithful
reaches yet a new height, even beyond the glory given to the souls in the first Heaven and the glory received at
the Resurrection on the last day.
The Glorification of Christ’s Soul
When Jesus Christ rose from the dead, His Human Nature—in both body and soul—was changed. (I will
use the term ‘transfigured’ to refer to this change for the better, but this is different from the Transfiguration
event described in the Gospels, e.g. Mark 9:2-8.) Jesus Christ’s body and soul were transfigured by His
Resurrection. This change in body and soul is unlike the raising from the dead of Lazarus, for Lazarus was
simply restored to his previous state, with his ordinary mortal body and soul basically unchanged.
When the Virgin Mary was raised from the dead by Jesus Christ, her body and soul were transfigured. She
received the full Resurrection from the dead that all the faithful who die in Christ will one day receive. The
Virgin Mary’s soul was entirely sinless, free from original sin and all personal sin. Yet, when she was
resurrected from the dead, both her body and soul were changed for the better.
The true Resurrection benefits both body and soul. And how could it be otherwise? When Christ heals the
body, he also heals the soul. When Christ gives a benefit to your body, He does not ignore your soul, but gives
His blessing to the whole person, body and soul. Thus, in the Resurrection of the body, the soul likewise
receives benefits and an increase in glory.
But how can something, such as the Human Nature of Christ, be perfect and yet experience an increase in
greatness? Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are each entirely perfect, yet the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is
greater than the human nature of the Virgin Mary. Each is perfect, yet one is greater than the other. Christ as
an adult was greater in His Human Nature than Christ was as a child, for Scripture says: “And Jesus increased
in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Lk 2:52). When Christ suffered for our salvation
on the Cross, His Human Nature was greater in wisdom and in favor with God than earlier in His Ministry.
Similarly, Christ’s Human Nature again increased in greatness, when Christ received the benefits of the
Resurrection. The increase in greatness in Christ’s Human Nature occurred in His Life and in His
Resurrection from the dead, and benefited both Christ’s body and Christ’s soul.
The Resurrection of the Unjust
“And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by
what they had done.” (Rev 20:13).
At the Resurrection, all departed souls are resurrected, those who are in Heaven, those who are in
Purgatory, and even those who are in Hell. God’s Holy Infallible Scripture makes it clear that all will be
resurrected, through the words of Saint Paul the Apostle: “ ‘…having a hope in God which these themselves
accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.’ ” (Acts 24:15).
The Old Testament also contains the teaching that both the just and the unjust will be resurrected from the
dead. “ ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some
to shame and everlasting contempt.’ ” (Dan 12:2).
The unjust, those souls who are being tormented unceasingly in the fires of Hell, will be also resurrected
from the dead. At the Resurrection, these souls leave Hell to be united with a body befitting of the sinfulness
which marred and distorted their lives on earth. The transfigured bodies of the just souls from Heaven will be
beautiful and graceful and whole—reflections of the glory and love of God. But the resurrected bodies given to
the wicked souls from Hell will bring new torment and suffering to them, in proportion and in like kind to the
sins for which these souls were banished to Hell for ever.
168
The Assumption of the Faithful
The Resurrection of the dead will not occur in Heaven, for even the souls in Hell will be resurrected and
these cannot be resurrected into Heaven. Christ’s Resurrection occurred on earth. Mary’s Resurrection
occurred on earth. The general Resurrection from the dead will occur on earth. Yet, Heaven is our eternal
home. Therefore, after our Resurrection, we must next be raised up to Heaven, body and soul. The Virgin
Mary is not the only one who is assumed into Heaven. All the faithful will be assumed into Heaven after their
Resurrection on the last day. The Virgin Mary’s Assumption into Heaven is part of the ordinary path which all
the faithful who go to Heaven will follow.
The path Jesus walks is the path Mary walks. The path Mary walks is the path the faithful walk. The death,
Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ gave us all a Way to Heaven. The death, Resurrection, and
Assumption of Mary is a foreshadowing of the death, Resurrection, and Assumption of all the faithful. When
the Virgin Mary died, was Resurrected from the dead, and was assumed into Heaven, she was simply
following the path laid out by Jesus Christ, the same path which all the faithful who die in Christ must follow.
All faithful servants of Christ who die in God’s grace will also be Resurrected and Assumed into Heaven, as
the Virgin Mary was. For this is the reward of those faithful servants who share in the sufferings and death of
Christ Jesus, that they shall also share in His Resurrection and His triumphant Ascension into Heaven.
Therefore, whoever casts doubt on the Resurrection and Assumption of the Mother of Jesus Christ, casts
doubt on the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, and casts doubt on their own Resurrection and
Assumption.
The Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven was ordinary in that all the faithful will be assumed, body
and soul, into Heaven after the general Resurrection. And the Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven
was extraordinary in that her Resurrection and Assumption followed soon after the Resurrection and
Ascension of her Divine Son Jesus Christ, so that she did not have to wait for the general Resurrection on the
last day.
“ ‘For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’ ” (Jn 6:40).
Why is the day of the general Resurrection called the last day? The reason is that, immediately after the
general Resurrection, God will take away Heaven and earth, and make a new Heaven and a new earth. Thus,
the last day is not the last day of Time itself, but the last day before a tremendous change to a new Heaven and
a new earth.
Mary’s Second Assumption
The Virgin Mary is assumed into Heaven twice. In the past, the Virgin Mary was assumed into the first
Heaven about 15 days after her death and immediately after her resurrection. In the future, at the time of the
general Resurrection, Christ and Mary and the just souls in Heaven will descend from Heaven to earth. Then
those blessed souls will receive a glorified body, and their souls will increase in glory also. Next, God will take
away Heaven and earth, and make a new Heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1). The new Heaven is fitting for
both body and soul. Then Christ will ascend to the new Heaven. And Mary and all the resurrected just will be
assumed by God into the new Heaven. This event is the Assumption of the Faithful. Notice that this is the
second time that Mary is assumed into Heaven—the first time into the first Heaven, the second time into the
new Heaven.
The New Heaven
After the general Resurrection, Heaven and earth pass away, and God makes a new Heaven and a new
earth. Therefore, after the just are resurrected from the dead, they do not go up to the first Heaven, which has
passed away, but to the new Heaven. After the Resurrection, the faithful are assumed, body and soul, into the
new Heaven, not into the same Heaven where their souls went after their deaths. A new Heaven is needed
169
because the first Heaven was fitting for the souls of the faithful, but the new Heaven is fitting for body and
soul.
The Virgin Mary told Saint Bridget that there are no resurrected human bodies in the first Heaven, except
those of Jesus and Mary. “Know, too, that there is no human body in Heaven but the glorious body of my Son
and mine.” 281 If, after the general Resurrection, the just were assumed, body and soul, into the first Heaven,
then they would be there now, for Heaven is beyond Time (see chapter 4). So then, the faithful are assumed,
body and soul, into the new Heaven, not the first Heaven.
The End of Purgatory
The phrase “the sea gave up the dead in it” (Rev 20:13) has a spiritual meaning as well as a literal meaning.
Literally, it means that those who died in the sea will be resurrected along with those who died on land.
Spiritually, the sea is here also used as a metaphor for Purgatory. In the book of Daniel, the sea is used to
represent a great number of people, a sea of people (Dan 7:2-3). The four great beasts, described by Daniel as
coming out of the sea, represent four kingdoms which arise out of the peoples of the earth, from many different
nations, languages, and cultures.
In Revelation 20:13 and 21:1, the sea is used as a metaphor for Purgatory, a place where there are a vast
number of souls from every nation, culture, and language on earth. Notice that Holy Scripture marks the end
of Purgatory, “and the sea was no more (Rev 21:1).” This interpretation is confirmed by the subsequent verse,
“and death shall be no more…. for the former things have passed away (Rev 21:4).” Only deceased souls are
sent to Purgatory. Since there is no more death on the new earth, there is no longer any need for Purgatory.
A New Hell
“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if
any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:14).
After being given a new body, whose form will signify the effects of sin on the soul, the resurrected unjust
are thrown, body and soul, into a new Hell. The first death occurred when these persons died and their souls
went to Hell. The second death occurs after their resurrection, when they are thrown alive into this new
second Hell.
Death is the separation of body and soul. But in the new Hell, the unjust suffer with body and soul united.
Thus, “the second death” is not a death in the usual sense of the word. The second death is not a separation of
body and soul, but is rather the punishment of the entire being, body and soul, in a new Hell for ever.
Just as there is a new Heaven and a new earth, so too, there is a new Hell. In the new Hell, both body and
soul will suffer various torments and punishments without end. After the Resurrection, the faithful are
assumed, body and soul, into the new Heaven; but the wicked are thrown alive, body and soul, into a new
Hell, “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mk 9:48; cf. Isaiah 66:24). A new Hell is
needed because the first Hell was fitting for the souls of the unjust. But, after the Resurrection, the unjust have
both body and soul. The new Hell is a place of torment for both body and soul.
We Shall Not All Die
“Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we
shall be changed.” (1 Cor 15:51-52).
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with
the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left,
shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with
the Lord.” (1 Thess 4:16-17).
Those faithful Christians who are left alive at the last day, the day Judgment (cf. Rev 20:11-15), will not
have to die, and then immediately rise again, in order to go to Heaven. The ordinary path which most faithful
Christians follow is to die in Christ and to be raised up by Christ on the last day. But God’s Sacred Infallible
170
Scripture tells us, through the words of Saint Paul the Apostle, that those Christians left alive on the day of the
general Resurrection will not die.
These faithful Christians will be changed, so as to be like their fellow Christians who have died and been
resurrected from the dead. Their bodies and souls shall be transfigured into the same type of glorified bodies
and souls the resurrected faithful shall possess. They will share in the Resurrection of Christ by obtaining from
Christ the transfiguration of body and soul which occurs in the Resurrection. In a sense, they are resurrected
without having to die, because they receive the benefit and result of the Resurrection, even though they have
never died. Then God will take away Heaven and earth, and make a new Heaven and a new earth. And then
the faithful shall be raised up to the new Heaven, body and soul, just as the Blessed Virgin Mary was raised up
to Heaven, body and soul.
After all the just souls leave the first Heaven to be resurrected from the dead, God takes away the first
Heaven to replace it with the new Heaven. Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, who each had already been
resurrected and who are the only human beings with body and soul in the first Heaven, must also leave that
first Heaven, which is taken away. They both descend to earth on the last day, at the time of the general
Resurrection. Then Christ will ascend to the new Heaven, and the Virgin Mary will be assumed into the new
Heaven with the resurrected just.
Those faithful Christians, who are left alive on Judgment Day, share in the Resurrection without first having
to die. Since they have not died, their souls never went to the first Heaven. They enter the new Heaven
without ever having been to the first Heaven and without ever having died. Therefore, some of the Elect, who
are predestined for the new Heaven, are not present in the first Heaven (see chapter 4).
Not all Christians will die, but all the faithful will share in the Resurrection and Assumption of the Virgin
Mary and in the Resurrection and Ascension of her Divine Son Jesus Christ. The Resurrection and
Assumption of the all-holy Virgin Mary is our Resurrection and Assumption. The Resurrection and Ascension
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is our Resurrection and Ascension. Without doubt, all faithful and just
souls shall share in the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, just as the Virgin
Mary has already shared in her Divine Son Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension.
Objections and Replies
Objection 1: The Virgin Mary is entirely free from original sin. Death is a result of original sin and is a type of
punishment for sin. Mary had no original sin and no personal sin, therefore, Mary did not die.
Reply 1: Suffering is also a result of original sin. The Virgin Mary did not have original sin, yet still she
suffered, so that she could be as much like Christ as any mere creature could be. Mary was sinless and so she
did not receive death as a punishment for her sins. Even so, God willed that Mary should receive death and
resurrection from God so that she could be the most perfect imitator and follower of Jesus Christ.
Mary is often hailed as Queen of Martyrs. Mary is not only without sin, she is also without flaw, omission,
and imperfection. Therefore, Mary is a perfect martyr of Christ. Mary’s perfect martyrdom is an imitation of
Christ’s perfect martyrdom. Christ both suffered and died. Therefore, Mary both suffered and died. Her
martyrdom and her imitation of Christ would not be complete if she only suffered, but did not die.
Mary’s death was not due to natural causes, as is the case with those of us who have original sin. Instead,
Mary died due to the will of God and her perfect obedience to the will of God. Because Mary was free from
original sin, she would not have suffered or died, except that it was the will of God. Mary consented to her
death by the will of God in order to follow her Divine Son Jesus Christ in all things, even unto death. Mary
was obedient even unto death.
Objection 2: The Virgin Mary’s Dormition has been taught for centuries by the Church, especially in the East.
The term “Dormition” means falling asleep. At the end of her life on earth, just before she was assumed into
Heaven, Mary did not die, but merely fell asleep to awake in Heaven.
171
Reply 2: The general understanding of many Christians in the East, is that the Virgin Mary died. The
expression “falling asleep” is used in Sacred Scripture to refer to death because, in the Resurrection, the
faithful will “awake” from death. The term “Dormition,” therefore, contains an implicit reference to
Resurrection.
Objection 3: The Virgin Mary did not suffer death, for the following reasons. First, she did not suffer in child-
birth. Suffering in child-birth and suffering death are both consequences of original sin. She did not have the
one consequence, so she did not have the other. Second, Mary suffered immensely at the foot of the Cross as
her proper participation in the saving work of Christ’s suffering and death on the Cross. She did not need to
suffer again at her death, both because she already suffered with Christ and because Christ’s death, not hers, is
the source of our salvation. Third, God willed that her body not suffer corruption. The suffering which occurs
at death is often caused by disease or injury or the deterioration of the body due to advanced age. This type of
suffering at the time of death is a result of the corruption of the body by disease, injury, or old age. Mary could
not suffer corruption of body, therefore, she could not suffer and die.
Reply 3: Truly, the all-pure Virgin Mary could not suffer corruption of the body. Truly, she did not need to
suffer again at her death, having already participated fully in Christ’s suffering and death. Truly, she did not
suffer in child-birth and did not suffer in death, because both these types of suffering are a result of original sin.
Yet still she died, without suffering and without corruption of the body.
The Virgin Mary did not suffer at all at the time of her death. Her death was not due to disease, injury, or
old age. She died miraculously, by the will of God and by her perfect cooperation with the will of God. She
left this world at her death miraculously and painlessly, just as she entered this world miraculously and
painlessly at her conception and birth. 282 God brought about the separation of Mary’s body and soul. Mary
died solely and entirely by a miracle of God.
172
Appendix A
The Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary
The Apostolic Letter of the Pope
Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae (Rosary of the Virgin Mary), proposes to
the Church five new mysteries to be added to the Rosary. These mysteries are based on events within the
Divine Ministry of Christ.
“I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to
make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and
communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ's public ministry between his Baptism
and his Passion.”283
The five Mysteries of Light (or Luminous Mysteries) proposed by the Pope follow events in Christ's Ministry,
from the start of His Ministry at His Baptism by John in the Jordan, to the institution of the Holy Eucharist at
the Last Supper.
“In proposing to the Christian community five significant moments – ‘luminous’ mysteries - during this
phase of Christ's life, I think that the following can be fittingly singled out: (1) his Baptism in the
Jordan, (2) his self-manifestation at the wedding of Cana, (3) his proclamation of the Kingdom of God,
with his call to conversion, (4) his Transfiguration, and finally, (5) his institution of the Eucharist, as the
sacramental expression of the Paschal Mystery.”284
Blessed George Preca and the Society of Christian Doctrine
In devising these five new mysteries of the Rosary, Pope John Paul II drew upon the work of Blessed George
Preca, who founded the Society of Christian Doctrine in 1907. Fr. George Preca was beatified by Pope John
Paul II in May of 2001. In 1957, Blessed George Preca proposed to the members of the SDC the following five
mysteries of light:
“The first mystery is when Our Lord was baptized at the Jordan; the second consists in meditating the
events of Christ's miracles; the third, when Jesus Christ taught the Beatitudes; The fourth about Our
Lord's transfiguration; and the fifth is about the Last Supper.” 285
Notice that the Pope changed some of the mysteries from those practiced by Blessed George and his Society.
The first, fourth, and fifth mysteries are nearly the same. The Pope changed the second mystery from a
meditation on Christ's miracles in general to the particular miracle of changing water into wine at the wedding
in Cana. And the third mystery was changed from the teaching of the Beatitudes to the proclamation of the
Kingdom of God, with emphasis on the call to repentance and conversion which is essential to an acceptance
of that proclamation.
The Guidance of the Holy Spirit
The Pope was guided by the Holy Spirit when he chose the five Mysteries of Light for the Rosary. The Pope
proposed these five mysteries, based to some extent on the work of Blessed George Preca and his Society of
Christian Doctrine. But the work of the Holy Spirit both permeates and exceeds the work done by the Pope
and Blessed George in choosing these five mysteries. Neither the Pope nor Blessed George realized the overall
meaning of the five Luminous Mysteries intended by the Spirit. These mysteries are not merely five important
events during Christ's Ministry.
173
The five Luminous Mysteries have meaning as individual events in Christ's Life. But they also have a special
meaning when taken as a whole. The five Luminous Mysteries together comprise the Seven Sacraments
established by Christ during His Ministry on earth. Blessed George and the Pope did not understand this true
and fundamental meaning of the Mysteries of Light.
The Holy Spirit guided Blessed George Preca in laying the foundation for these new Mysteries. The Spirit
guided the Pope in making some wise changes to the choice of the five events from Christ's Ministry. The Holy
Spirit's plan is to strengthen the prayer life of the Church by adding to the Rosary a mediation on the mystery
of the Seven Sacraments established by Christ and enlivened by the Spirit.
First Luminous Mystery: the Sacrament of Baptism
“The Baptism in the Jordan is first of all a mystery of light. Here, as Christ descends into the waters, the
innocent one who became “sin” for our sake (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), the heavens open wide and the voice of
the Father declares him the beloved Son (cf. Mt 3:17 and parallels), while the Spirit descends on him to
invest him with the mission which he is to carry out.” 286
The first Mystery of Light is about the Sacrament of Baptism. Christ received this Sacrament when He was
baptized by John in the river Jordan. John's baptism, in general, was a sign of repentance. Any particular
individual received grace when they were baptized by John only in so far as each one was cooperating with
God's grace. However, John's baptism of Jesus was the first true Sacrament of Baptism. When Jesus was
baptized, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him, making John's baptism of repentance into the true and full
Sacrament of Baptism. The Holy Spirit gave to the human nature of Christ the charism of Baptism.
In meditating on the first Mystery of Light, we should think about Christ's baptism, our own baptism, and how
the gift of baptism has begun to transform the Church and the world to become more like Christ. We should
also consider the spiritual needs of those persons who have not received the true Sacrament of Baptism.
Second Luminous Mystery: the Sacrament of Marriage
“Another mystery of light is the first of the signs, given at Cana (cf. Jn 2:1- 12), when Christ changes
water into wine and opens the hearts of the disciples to faith, thanks to the intervention of Mary, the
first among believers.”287
Why did Christ change water into wine? Truly, Christ did not perform this miracle in order to provide wine for
drinking at a wedding. And the true miracle at the wedding at Cana was not the changing of water into wine-
that visible miracle was merely a sign of a far greater invisible miracle. At the wedding at Cana, Jesus changed
the water of the Old Testament marriage into the wine of the New Testament Sacrament of Marriage. The
wedding at Cana was the beginning of the first true Sacrament of Marriage.
The Virgin Mary noticed that the wedding had water, but no wine. By the grace of God, Mary then
understood that the marriage of the Old Testament was like water, and that it could become like wine if the
presence of Christ was brought within the marriage union. When the Virgin said to Christ, “They have no
wine,” she was speaking symbolically. She meant that the Old Testament marriage was lacking in grace from
God. Christ's grace inspired the Virgin Mary to understand this truth and to ask for Christ's help. And then
Christ responded by making this wedding the first true Sacrament of Marriage and by signifying that invisible
miracle with the visible and symbolic miracle of changing water into wine.
174
The Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary
Third Luminous Mystery: the Sacraments of Confession and Last Rites
“Another mystery of light is the preaching by which Jesus proclaims the coming of the Kingdom of
God, calls to conversion (cf. Mk 1:15) and forgives the sins of all who draw near to him in humble trust
(cf. Mk 2:3-13; Lk 7:47- 48): the inauguration of that ministry of mercy which he continues to exercise
until the end of the world, particularly through the Sacrament of Reconciliation which he has entrusted
to his Church (cf. Jn 20:22-23).”288
The meaning of the third Mystery of Light is found within the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In that Sacrament,
the Mercy of God gives us the grace of repentance, conversion, and forgiveness. Christ's preaching is useless to
us if we refuse to repent and convert. The effectiveness of Christ's preaching is seen in our conversion to
become more like Christ. Since we are sinners, we can only become more like Christ through the repentance
and forgiveness which comes from God.
The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is also called Last Rites because it is often administered to persons
who are close to death. This Sacrament offers us healing, not only for the body, but also for the soul. Since the
soul is more important than the body, this Sacrament is primarily aimed at healing the soul. How is a soul
healed?-through repentance and conversion and forgiveness. This Sacrament, like all the Sacraments, has the
power to forgive venial sins. And, under some conditions, it can even be effective in forgiving mortal sins. Last
Rites is sometimes a person's last chance to experience repentance and conversion and forgiveness.
The third Luminous Mystery is about the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Last Rites because both these
Sacraments are primarily based on Christ's call to repentance and conversion and forgiveness.
Fourth Luminous Mystery: the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders
“The mystery of light par excellence is the Transfiguration, traditionally believed to have taken place on
Mount Tabor. The glory of the Godhead shines forth from the face of Christ as the Father commands
the astonished Apostles to 'listen to him' (cf. Lk 9:35 and parallels) and to prepare to experience with
him the agony of the Passion, so as to come with him to the joy of the Resurrection and a life
transfigured by the Holy Spirit.”289
In the above quote, the Pope first discusses the actual event of Christ's transfiguration. Next, he points out its
true meaning: to invite us to experience Christ's agony and joy, so that we can live a life transfigured by the
Spirit. Which Sacraments transfigure us in this way?
Through the Sacrament of Confirmation, each Christian is offered the gifts of the Spirit needed to participate
more fully in Christ's suffering and glory. Confirmation offers us a life transfigured by the Spirit. Christ's
transfiguration on the mountain was a foreshadowing of the transfiguration of each of his disciples through the
Sacramental life of the Church.
Some men are called by the Holy Spirit to join Christ in His agony and His glory in a special way, by receiving
the Sacrament of Holy Orders. More so than the other Sacraments does this Sacrament offer a transfiguration
in the Spirit to those chosen by God. Those who receive Holy Orders are called to become as much like Christ
as they can be, to leave behind the world and themselves, and to be transfigured in the Spirit, just as Christ was
transfigured on the mountain.
Fifth Luminous Mystery: the Blessed Sacrament
“A final mystery of light is the institution of the Eucharist, in which Christ offers his body and blood as
food under the signs of bread and wine, and testifies 'to the end' his love for humanity (Jn 13:1), for
whose salvation he will offer himself in sacrifice.”290
175
The fifth Luminous Mystery is a meditation on the first consecration of the Eucharist and the establishment of
this Blessed Sacrament within the spiritual life of the Church. The Eucharist is nothing other than Christ under
the appearance of bread or wine. Christ is the light of the world and the light of the Church. The Blessed
Sacrament is a mystery of light because it is a mystery of Christ.
At the Last Supper, Christ consecrated the holy Eucharist once for all Time and Place. All other consecrations
of the Eucharist, by priests and Bishops at holy Mass, are effective only because Christ Himself consecrated
the Eucharist, everywhere and everywhen, all in one Divine act at that first Eucharist.
Conclusion
The five Luminous Mysteries are a meditation on the Seven Sacraments established by Christ during His
Ministry on earth. These Mysteries of Light teach us about the Sacramental Life of the Church. Whoever
prays this chaplet of the Rosary should understand that the Luminous Mysteries are closely related to the
Seven Sacraments.
This article was written by Ronald L. Conte Jr. in August of 2003. Copyright 2003.
176
Appendix B
Stewardship is not Time, Talent, Treasure
Christ said, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Lk 12:34). Does the word ‘treasure’
here mean ‘money’? Did Christ mean to say, ‘where your money is, there will your heart be also’? Certainly
not. This saying is meant to teach us not to set our hearts on money or worldly possessions. Yet in the
expression “Time, Talent, Treasure,” the word ‘treasure’ is used specifically to mean money and worldly
possessions. Using the word ‘treasure’ to refer to money is an unacceptable hypocrisy because it directly
contradicts the clear teaching of Christ in the Gospel.
We could change the usual description of Stewardship to, “Time, Talent, Money.” For this is really what
people mean when they say “Time, Talent, Treasure.” A better expression would be, “Time, Talent, Alms-
giving.” Even so, this is not anywhere near a complete or acceptable description of Stewardship. Let me tell
you what True Christian Stewardship is.
True Christian Stewardship is Prayer, Sacrifice, Mercy.
Prayer is the first and most important duty and joy of every faithful follower of Jesus Christ. With prayer you
can obtain guidance from God, participate in God's Providence over the lives of others, obtain the strength to
do good and avoid evil, and pour out a myriad of blessings, both tangible and mystical, upon the whole world.
Prayer is true treasure and there is where your heart should be. Whoever loves God prays.
Sacrifice is the second and next most important duty and joy of every beloved child of God. Christ offered the
ultimate Sacrifice to God—His own prayerful suffering and death on the Cross. We poor imitators of Christ
ought to make little sacrifices and practice self-denial in all aspects of our lives. Prayer and Sacrifice combined
are a powerful force in the world. Are you not getting what you ask for in your prayers? Add self-denial to
prayer and this combination cannot fail to obtain great favor from God.
Saint Therese of Liseux wrote: “Verily in prayer and sacrifice lies all my strength, they are my invincible arms;
experience has taught me that they touch hearts far more easily than words.” 291
Mercy is essential to the life of every sinner who hopes to obtain sufficient mercy from God to eventually enter
into Eternal Life. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” (Mt 5:7). We can practice mercy for
others by forgiving injury and insult, by doing good to those who do harm us, and by praying and sacrificing
for those in need, be they friend or foe. We can practice being merciful through the spiritual and the temporal
works of mercy. The practice of mercy includes offering our time and talents to those in spiritual or physical
need. It also includes giving alms. The giving of alms can be in the form of material goods, such as food or
clothing, or in the form of money.
Giving money is only one way to give alms. And giving alms is only one part of being merciful. Giving of your
time and talents is another way to be merciful and is also a kind of alms-giving. But the most important way to
be merciful is by being kind and forgiving and patient to others, and by praying and sacrificing for others.
Time, Talent, and Alms are only small part of the Stewardship of Mercy. And the true definition of
Stewardship must include Prayer and Sacrifice.
Now let me say a few words about “Tithing.” Christians are not bound by the external requirements of the
Jewish Law, such as circumcision, avoiding certain foods, keeping a Saturday Sabbath or the Jewish holy
days, etc. Neither are Christians bound by the ancient Jewish Law requiring that 10% of one's goods (or
income, in the modern view,) be given to God. Christians are not required to give a set percentage of their
income to the Church or to Charity or to both combined. No such law from Sacred Scripture is binding upon
177
any Christian. No such law, from God or from the moral law, exists. No such Canon Law exists within the
Catholic Church, nor could any such law ever be binding upon any Christian. The Church on earth can never
add to, nor subtract from, the moral law. The Church does not have the authority to require Christians to be
circumcised, to avoid eating pork, to tithe, or to follow any of the other ancient Jewish external practices. The
New Testament clearly teaches that these are not binding on Christians (see Acts 15; Galatians 2). Mercy and
alms-giving are required by God, but tithing is not.
Christians are required to be merciful and to give alms in various forms to many different persons or groups in
need. Mercy is required of all Christians; tithing is required of none. Christ taught us to give alms, but he never
taught “10%” or any percentage. Give as the grace of God guides you to give, and do not count the cost nor
figure out the percentage. Those who ask Christians to look up their income on a chart and find the correct
amount they should be giving are, in this way, failing to imitate Christ and failing to trust in God.
Brethren, I ask you, give as the Mercy of God guides you to give, but never count the cost.
This article was written by Ronald L. Conte Jr. in January of 2003. Copyright 2003.
178
Appendix C
The Future and the Popes
About the year A.D. 1139, Saint Malachy O'Morgair, Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, wrote down a list of
Popes. He listed 112 future Popes, each described by a phrase in Latin. 292 There has been increasing interest in
this list among Roman Catholics, for two reasons. First, the descriptions of Popes #109 and #110 match the
pontificates of Popes John Paul I and John Paul II to a tee. Second, there are only two more Popes on the list,
and the last Pope on the list is given a long apocalyptic description, instead of a quaint and cryptic phrase.
Pope #109 on St. Malachy's list is given the phrase: “From the Half of the Moon.”293 Pope John Paul I was
elected on August 26 of 1978, when the moon was in its last quarter (i.e. half the moon was visible in the sky).
He died on September 28, when the moon was again in its last quarter.294 The length of his Pontificate was
only 33 days, a little more than the length of one lunar cycle. St. Malachy's prophecy matches John Paul I's
Pontificate well.
Pope #110 on St. Malachy's list is given the phrase: “From the Labor of the Sun.” 295 What kind of labor does
the sun do? The sun's work is to travel around the earth, so to speak. (Yes, I know the earth revolves around
the sun.) The sun constantly travels around the world. And so does Pope John Paul II. He is the most traveled
Pope in history. His Pontificate is marked by his constant travels around the world. St. Malachy's phrase fits
John Paul II's Pontificate precisely.
Pope #111 on St. Malachy's list is given the phrase: “From the Glory of the Olive.”296 This prophetic phrase
has several meanings which correctly apply to this Pope.
a. What is the glory of the olive? The olive branch is a well-known symbol of peace. The glory of the olive is
peace. The next Pope after John Paul II will be a man of great peace. Peace will be his banner, peace will be
his work, peace will be his goal. He will seek peace among individuals, among nations, among Catholics,
between Catholics and other Christians, and between Catholics and adherents of other religions. The next
Pope after John Paul II will have a Pontificate distinguished for seeking Peace around the world. He is called
the Pope of Peace.
I do not know which man will be elected as Pope after John Paul II. St. Malachy's prophecy about John Paul
II only fit his Pontificate. Before being elected Pope, Karol Wojtyla did not distinguish himself by traveling
constantly. The next Pope after John Paul II may not have distinguished himself yet in works of peace-
making. Or, he may have distinguished himself in peace-making in God's eyes, but not yet in the eyes of the
world.
b . Some say that this prediction of St. Malachy, “From the Glory of the Olive,” refers to the Order of St.
Benedict, who are sometimes called 'Olivetans.' This is true. But it does not mean that this Pope will come
from the Order of St. Benedict, but rather that he will take the name of Benedict and live in imitation of him.
c. He will take the name Pope Benedict XVI, in imitation also of Pope Benedict XV. Just as Pope Benedict XV
was an emissary of peace, so will Pope Benedict XVI be an emissary of peace. Just as Pope Benedict sought
peace and spoke of peace and wrote papal documents seeking peace, so will Pope Benedict XVI do also. Just
as Pope Benedict XV failed to achieve peace in the world, so will Pope Benedict XVI fail to achieve peace in
the world. Just as the Pontificate of Benedict XV began prior to World War I, so will the Pontificate of
Benedict XVI occur prior to World War III. After the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, the Arab nations will
invade and conquer Europe and much of Africa.
179
Pope #112 on St. Malachy's list is given this description: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church
there shall reign Peter the Roman who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled
city will be destroyed and the terrible judge will judge the people.”297
Why is he called Peter the Roman? The descriptions given for John Paul I and II were about their Pontificates,
not about their lives before they were elected Pope. Will Peter the Roman be someone born in Rome or who
grew up in Rome or who has spent most of his vocation in Rome? Perhaps. But I think it is more likely that
the expression “Peter the Roman” refers to his Pontificate.
Perhaps he will take the name Peter: Pope Peter II. No Pope has chosen the name Peter since Christ gave that
name to Simon bar-Jonah, who became Saint Peter, leader of the Apostles and of the Church. The choice of
the name Peter by this modern Pope would reaffirm that the Pope is the Successor of Peter. On the other hand,
he might not actually take the name “Peter.” It could be that “Peter the Roman” is merely an expression
describing his Pontificate.
As a descriptive expression, “Peter the Roman” indicates that this Pope reaffirms the authority of the Pope
over the Church, authority based on his place as a Successor of Peter. The expression also indicates that this
Pope will reaffirm Rome as the proper seat of authority in the Church and require the faithful to acknowledge
“the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches.”298 His
predecessor, the Pope of Peace, will emphasize the good in other faiths and the unity among all peoples. But
Peter the Roman will emphasize the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Faith and the Roman Catholic Church
above all other religions and denominations, and its authority over all Christians and all peoples of the world.
Some commentators say that Peter the Roman will be the last Pope ever and that the world will end during his
Pontificate. No, not so! Peter the Roman is merely the last Pope on this list, not the last Pope ever. The time of
Peter the Roman's Pontificate is described in Apocalyptic terms because His Pontificate will see the beginning
of the events described in the Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation). But the events described in that last book
of the Bible unfold over many years (more than 400 years).
The seven-hilled city is the city of Rome, which not only has seven hills, but also is divided into seven Roman
Catholic dioceses. St. Malachy is predicting that the city of Rome will be destroyed during the Pontificate of
the second Pope after John Paul II, the Pope called Peter the Roman. My own interpretation of the Bible
places the destruction of Rome and Vatican City in July of A.D. 2013.299
My understanding is that Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope of Peace, will be elected sometime during 2003. His
reign will be short. Peter the Roman will reign at the time that the events of the Book of Revelation begin,
about the time of the end of this decade (the first decade of the 21st century). Therefore, the next Pope (after
John Paul II) will die before the end of the same decade in which he is elected.
The next Pope after John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, will seek to make peace in the world, but he will not
succeed. After his reign ends, during the reign of Peter the Roman, there will begin World War III. During this
war, the Arab nations together will attack, invade, conquer, and occupy Europe and large portions of Africa.
They will also attack, but neither invade nor conquer, the United States of America. This war begins in 2010
or 2011. (It is preceded by a small war among the Arab nations.)
One of these two Popes, either Pope Benedict XVI or Peter the Roman, will suggest that three places of
worship be built in Jerusalem: for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but it doesn't happen. In chapter one of
my book The Bible and the Future of the World, in the section called “The Three Booths of the
Transfiguration,” I say that it would probably be Peter the Roman who suggests the Three Booths (or three
places for the three religions), but it could be the Pope just before him. Now I have changed my mind on that
point. I now think that it will most probably be the Pope of Peace, Pope Benedict XVI, who will make this
180
The Future and the Popes
suggestion. This act seems to fit the Pontificate of the Pope of Peace more than that of Peter the Roman
(because this is a type of peace-making between religions).
Pope Benedict XVI will be like Saint Benedict, who lived in the fifth and sixth centuries. He will be a man
dedicated to Peace and holiness. But this Pope will also be like Saint Benedict the Black, il moro santo, who
lived in the sixteenth century. I am not certain, but I think that Pope Benedict XVI will be black.
Summary of Dates:
• John Paul II - dies most likely in 2003.300
• Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope of Peace - elected most likely in 2003, dies before the end of the same
decade (the first decade of the 21st century, 2001 to 2010), most likely in 2009.
• Peter the Roman (the second Pope after John Paul II) - elected in the latter part of the first decade of the
21st century, most likely in 2009. His Pontificate sees the beginning of the tribulation, including the
beginning of the third World War.
• A small war - among the Arab nations - begins in 2009 or 2010 - unites the Arab nations as one.
• A large war (the third World War) - begins in 2010 or 2011 - the Arab nations attack and conquer
Europe and large portions of Africa.
• In 2012, Peter the Roman will be captured by the Arabs and imprisoned in Iraq. He will die a martyr,
blind and imprisoned.
• Rome and Vatican City will be destroyed in July of 2013.
• But this is not the end. The Church and the world continue for many centuries.
For more about the future, read my book: The Bible and the Future of the World. This book is available as a free
ebook (or you can buy a printed copy). Some of the predictions in the article above are found in the book, and
some are newer predictions not found in the book.
This article was written by Ronald L. Conte Jr. in August and September of 2002, and updated in October of
2002. Copyright 2002.
181
End Notes:
1
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, (May 24,
1990), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_
theologian-vocation_en.html, n. 5 - 6.
2
From the inscription on the miraculous medal. Our Lady showed the Medal to Saint Catherine Laboure on
November 27, 1830, in the mother-house of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, in Paris. Catherine
saw our Lady standing on a globe, with dazzling rays of light streaming from her outstretched hands. Framing
the figure was an inscription: “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” Then
Mary spoke to Catherine: "Have a medal struck upon this model. Those who wear it will receive great graces,
especially if they wear it around the neck." (The Association of the Miraculous Medal),
http://www.amm.org/medal.htm
3
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and
Publishers, Inc., 1970), p. 40-41. I had been referring to Anne Catherine Emmerich as “Blessed” for some
length of time, when I was informed that she is only “Venerable” and has not yet received beatification. I
continue to call her “Blessed” because her cause for beatification is complete and has been submitted to the
Vatican. And I believe that she will eventually be canonized a Saint.
4
This symbolism is mentioned by Pope Pius IX, in the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, (Dec. 8, 1854),
p. 13. This document makes reference to the Song of Solomon 4:4, with its symbolism of a tower, interpreted
as referring to the Virgin Mary. This very same document infallibly defines the teaching of the Church about
the Immaculate Conception.
5
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, (Rockford, Illinois: TAN
Books and Publishers, Inc., 1986), Vol. 1, p. 137-138.
6
Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 39-40.
7
Cf. Emmerich, The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, Vol. 1, p. 135.
8
Ineffabilis Deus, p. 17.
9
Ineffabilis Deus, p. 17-18.
10
Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1, 1950), n. 40.
11
Ineffabilis Deus, p. 17-18.
12
The least in the kingdom of Heaven are greater than John, even though such persons are among those
conceived and born in the usual way, because once one enters into Heaven, original sin and every effect of
original sin is completely removed. John the Baptist had original sin, but the souls in Heaven have had their
original sin and every effect of every kind of sin wiped clean.
13
Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 57.
14
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, (Rockford, Illinois: TAN
Books and Publishers, Inc., 1983), Meditation III, p. 68.
15
Saint Bridget of Sweden, Revelations of St. Bridget, (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.,
1984), p. 14.
16
Saint Bridget of Sweden, Revelations of St. Bridget, p. 14-15.
17
Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Mater, (March 25, 1987), p. 5-6, n. 1: “In the liturgy
the Church salutes Mary of Nazareth as the Church’s own beginning, for in the event of the Immaculate
Conception the Church sees projected, and anticipated in her most noble member, the saving grace of Easter.”
18
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 29-30, 32. Joachim and Ann were
separated for at least several months before the Immaculate Conception.
19
20
The Gospel of John refers to the Virgin Mary’s sister as “his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas” (John
19:25). Blessed Anne Catherine calls her “Maria,” “Maria Heli,” and also “Mary Heli,” and calls her husband
“Cleophas.” Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 22-24, 74, 384.
21
A true virgin conception must necessarily be accomplished without sexual relations. This condition is
necessary, but not sufficient. A true virgin conception must also meet other conditions, especially that the
conception be accomplished solely by a miracle of God, and not by any means which could be duplicated by
nature, science, or human intervention. A true virgin conception is not conception in the usual way
182
accompanied or assisted by a miracle. A true virgin conception does not miraculously bring together a man’s
seed and a woman’s egg, so that conception would proceed, from that point forward, in the usual way. But
rather, a true virgin conception must occur solely and completely by a miracle from God. A true virgin
conception is conception solely and entirely by means of a miracle—fully miraculous and fully virginal.
22
Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 29-30, 32.
23
24
For details on the timing of the Immaculate Conception and the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem, see
my book, Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary. The Immaculate Conception occurred at the time of a
holy feast celebrating the completion of the rebuilding of the Sanctuary of the Temple (the holiest part of the
Temple, where only the priests were permitted to go). The 46 years is counted from the completion of the
Sanctuary itself. The Sanctuary was completed 1½ years after the rebuilding began; but the rebuilding of the
remainder of the Temple buildings took several more years to complete. And some work related to the Temple
buildings also continued, even up to and beyond the time of Christ. Cf. Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the
Jews, 15.420-423; 20.219.
25
Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 75. The burning bush of Moses is a biblical symbol of the
Virgin Mary, just as Pope Pius IX teaches: Ineffabilis Deus, p. 13.
26
27
New Saint Joseph Sunday Missal and Hymnal, (New York, NY: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1974),
Eucharistic Prayer I, In Communion with the Saints, p. 27.
28
From the point of view of Heaven, in Eternity, the lives of Jesus and Mary are ever present-tense.
29
Saint Bridget of Sweden, Revelations of St. Bridget, p. 23.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
A true virgin birth must necessarily exclude any use of the birth canal whatsoever. This condition is
necessary, but not sufficient. A true virgin birth must also meet other conditions, especially that the birth be
accomplished solely by a miracle of God, and not by means of nature, science, or human intervention. A true
virgin birth is not birth in the usual way accompanied or assisted by a miracle. But rather, a true virgin birth
must occur solely and completely by a miracle from God. A true virgin birth is birth solely and entirely by
means of a miracle—fully miraculous and fully virginal.
40
41
42
New Saint Joseph Sunday Missal and Hymnal, Eucharistic Prayer I, Communicantes for Christmas, p. 68.
43
The poet Daniel J. Maley suggested this idea that Mary’s virgin conception was like the virgin conception of
the Church from the side of Christ.
44
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Anne,” from the online version of 1908 edition, (www.NewAdvent.org,
Kevin Knight, 1908), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm.
45
Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 22-27.
46
Reverend William G. Most, Mary in Our Life, Appendix VI: The Brown Scapular, (www.PetersNet.net, Trinity
Communications, 2002), http://www.petersnet.net/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=213&ChapNum=31,
footnote 22 reads as follows: “Pope Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, vi, 10 (IX, 271). This was written as a private
theologian, not as Pope.”
47
Reverend William G. Most, Mary in Our Life, Appendix V: St. Dominic as Author of the Rosary,
(www.PetersNet.net, Trinity Communications, 2002),
http://www.petersnet.net/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=213&ChapNum=30.
183
48
Reverend William G. Most, Mary in Our Life, Appendix V: St. Dominic as Author of the Rosary,
(www.PetersNet.net, Trinity Communications, 2002), footnote 14,
http://www.petersnet.net/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=213&ChapNum=30.
49
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Pope Benedict XIV,” from the online version of 1908 edition,
(www.NewAdvent.org, Kevin Knight, 1908), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02432a.htm.
50
The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, Selected Passages, trans. and ed. Philip R. Amidon, S.J., (New
York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1990), p. 354, n. 79.5.5 and 79.7.1. The editors marks < > and
< ?> indicate “editorial restoration inserted in the text itself” and “editorial restoration or emendation included
in the critical apparatus,” respectively.
51
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, Wesley Center Online, Non-canonical Homepage, (Northwest Nazarene
University: Wesley Center for Applied Theology, 1996),
http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/natmary.htm, chapter 4.
52
Ineffabilis Deus.
53
The word “flaw” is used here in a narrow sense, as defined above.
54
Ineffabilis Deus.
55
Prayer Over The Gifts, (Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 9, 2002), Today’s Missal, Advent-
Lent, Dec. 1, 2002 to April 12, 2003, (Portland, Oregon: Oregon Catholic Press, 2002), p. 103.
56
Council of Orange, http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html.
57
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Q. 94, Article 4, “Whether man in his first state could be deceived?”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109404.htm
58
Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 41.
59
General Relativity theory states that any point in the Universe can be taken as stationary. Thus, the motion
of objects in space are relative to one another and not absolute. See Albert Einstein, Relativity, The Special and
General Theories.
60
Council of Orange, http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html.
61
Council of Trent, Fifth Session, http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html.
62
63
The word “rased” is not a misspelling. It is the variant spelling and Archaic meaning of “razed,” and, in this
context, is best defined as “scraped off.” The word “rased” or “razed” is derived from the Middle English
word “rasen,” meaning “to scrape.” (American Heritage Dictionary).
64
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part of the second part, question 81, article 5.
65
Unfortunately, science provides means for conception to occur other than by natural marital relations.
Conceptions brought about by science still take place under the laws of nature, in the sense that the conceived
body is created from human parent(s). Thus, original sin is still transmitted in such cases. Science cannot
perform the supernatural, but can only manipulate the things of nature.
66
Council of Trent, Canon XXIII, Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth, (London: Dolman, 1848), Hanover
Historical Texts Project, (scanned by Hanover College students in 1995),
http://history.hanover.edu/project.html.
67
68
Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.
69
Council of Trent, Decree Concerning Original Sin.
70
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 510. The Catechism here quotes Saint Augustine.
71
See chapter 1 for details on this point.
72
73
The term ‘virgin birth’ means born solely by a miracle of God, without any part of the usual process of
delivery. First the child is inside the womb, next the child is outside the womb, without having traveled
through any place in-between, and the transfer from in-the-womb to out-of-the-womb is accomplished solely
by a miracle. In view of the perfect Virginity of Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother, no other definition
of the term virgin birth would be sufficient or acceptable.
74
See chapter 1 for more on the virgin conceptions and virgin births of Jesus and Mary.
75
184
76
77
You can only love someone in so far as you know them.
78
Emmerich, The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, Vol. 1, p. 138.
79
80
Notice that Jesus uses this expression, “The sons of this age,” to refer to both men and women, for the
subsequent expression, “are given in marriage,” must refer to women (Lk 20:34). Men marry, but women are
given in marriage. Therefore, when Jesus next says “sons of God” and “sons of the resurrection,” He includes
both men and women. The expression is “sons of God,” rather than “sons and daughters of God,” because
God wills that humanity be lead by men. In the same way, the community of Christians should be addressed
as “brethren,” not as “brothers and sisters.” The latter expression lacks the understanding that the community
of believers must always be led by men. The latter expression divides the community by gender.
81
82
83
Saint Catherine of Siena, Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena, A Treatise of Prayer,
84
The expression ‘kingdom of God’ may also refer to the ‘new earth’ mentioned in the Book of Revelation
(Rev 21:1-7).
85
From the poem “Favor in My Sight” by Doug Tanoury, http://www.funkydogpublishing.com, 2001.
86
Saint Augustine, De Trin. iv, 6,7 As quoted by Saint Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 3,
Article 7.
87
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Questions 1-26. Although Saint Thomas does not use the same
wording, he expresses the same basic idea, that God Is One in His Being and all His Acts. The Roman
Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft taught me this interpretation of Aquinas.
88
St. Therese of Lisieux, The Story of the Springtime of a Little White Flower, (New York: P. J Kenedy & Sons,
1922), chapter 7, p. 115.
89
Thomas Merton, Seeds of Contemplation. Merton describes the timelessness of a contemplative experience.
90
Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 17 April 2003, Vatican web site,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html, n.11; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1085.
91
Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 11; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1085.
92
Ineffabilis Deus.
93
Teilhard de Chardin, Le Milieu Divin, p. 124
94
Is everyone who ever will go to the second Heaven already there? I don’t know.
95
St. Bridget of Sweden, Revelations of St. Bridget, p. 69. The Virgin Mary said to St. Bridget: “Know, too, that
there is no human body in heaven but the glorious body of my Son and mine.”
96
Cf. Conte, the Virginity of Jesus and Mary, p. 6, describing the Virgin Mary’s perfect virginity. The booklet, the
Virginity of Jesus and Mary, is reprinted, with additions, in chapter 1 of this book.
97
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, (Nov. 18,
1965), n. 2.
98
Dei Verbum, n. 4.
99
Dei Verbum, n. 11.
100
Originally, I had numbered the charisms such that Papal Infallibility was called the third charism. But now
I understand that the three charisms of the Sacred Magisterium are a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity and
that the charism of Papal Infallibility is a reflection of the Father. Therefore, the charism of Papal Infallibility
should be called the first charism. This current edition has the correct numbering of the charisms.
101
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, (Nov. 21,
1964), n. 25, paragraph 2.
102
A non-geographical communication-gathering of Bishops in an Ecumenical Council is possible and would
be entirely valid, with the approval of the Pope.
103
The first form of the third charism is the work-horse of the Sacred Magisterium, daily expressing the
infallible teaching found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
104
Lumen Gentium, n. 25, paragraph 3.
185
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
The Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, intro. by Douglas G. Bushman, S.T. L., (Boston, Massachusetts: Pauline
Books & Media, 1999), “General Introduction,” p. xix.
112
Lumen Gentium, n. 25.
113
Apostolic Constitution of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, (Dec. 8, 1854).
114
Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1, 1950).
115
Dei Verbum, n. 11.
116
Encyclical Letter of John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, (March 25, 1987), n. 3.
117
Conte, Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary, chapter 9.
118
Redemptoris Mater, n. 3.
119
First Vatican Ecumenical Council, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor Aeternus,
(July 18, 1870), chap. 4.
120
Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.
121
122
123
Lumen Gentium, n. 25, paragraphs 1, 3.
124
125
126
127
Ineffabilis Deus, “The Definition.”
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
Apostolic Letter of John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, On Reserving Priestly Ordination To Men Alone,
(May 22, 1994), n. 4.
137
138
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 1.
139
140
141
Furthermore, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, released an official Response to Doubt:
“On Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Responsum ad Dubium,” October 28, 1995, which also stated that this teaching is
part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. This Responsum ad Dubium was approved by Pope John Paul II.
“Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination
on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be
understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.”
142
143
144
145
186
146
In this context, Christ’s Return refers to His First Return (often called “the Second Coming,”) at the end of
the Antichrist’s reign. Christ’s Second Return (which some have called “the Third Coming,”) will occur at the
end of the Millennium of peace and holiness, at the time of the Resurrection of the dead on Judgment day.
147
Concerning the claim that a woman was once elected Pope centuries ago, such an election could not
possibly have been valid, because Episcopal ordination is a necessary condition for the valid election of a Pope
and women cannot be validly ordained to the Episcopate. A person who falsely claims to be Pope is called an
antipope.
148
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter of October
28, 1995, “Regarding the SCDF Responsum on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” paragraph 11.
149
Ratzinger, “Regarding the SCDF Responsum on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” paragraph 11.
150
151
Responsum ad Dubium, commentary.
152
153
154
155
156
157
Address of the Holy Father to the German Bishops on the Occasion of Their Ad Limina Visit,
(November 20, 1999), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1999/documents/hf_jp-
ii_spe_20111999_ad-limina-german_en.html, n. 10.
158
159
“If anyone, God forbid, should presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.” First
Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.
160
161
162
163
164
165
Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctum, (November 18, 1302),
http://www.shrine.com/Unam.htm.
166
Evangelium Vitae, n. 57.
167
Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, (March 25, 1995), n. 5.
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
Dei Verbum, n. 11, Vatican web site,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-
verbum_en.html
180
181
182
183
In the present day, the election of the Pope occurs by a vote of the Cardinals. However, the election of the
Roman Pontiff does not necessarily have to occur by voting. To elect means to choose. Though the most
187
common form of election today is by voting, other means of choosing the Pope are possible and valid. For
example, the Apostle Peter, who was the first Pope, was elected (that is, chosen) by Christ.
184
Apostolic Constitution of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, (Feb. 22, 1996), n. 34.
185
Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 34.
186
Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 34.
187
As a sheer possibility, an Ecumenical Council led by the reigning Pope could choose the Pope’s successor
before his death or valid resignation.
188
First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, (July 18, 1870), chapter 3.
189
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n. 62. Auxiliatrix means
“Helper,” Adjutrix means “Benefactress.” In other languages, the titles are expressed in the following way: in
Italian: Avvocata, Ausiliatrice, Soccorritrice, Mediatrice; in Spanish: Abogada, Auxiliadora, Socorro,
Mediadora; in French: d’Avocate, d’Auxiliatrice, d’Aide et de Médiatrice.
190
Pope John Paul II, Angelus, Sunday, 23 June 2002, (Vatican web site, www.vatican.va),
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/2002/documents/hf_jp-
ii_ang_20020623_en.html.
191
Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Mater, 25 March 1987, (Boston: Pauline Books & Media,
1987), n. 41.
192
Redemptoris Mater, n. 21.
193
Pope John Paul II, Angelus, Jerusalem, Sunday, 26 March 2000, (Vatican web site, www.vatican.va),
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-
ii_ang_20000326_jerusalem_en.html.
194
Pope John Paul II, Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, Angelus, 8 December 2000, (Vatican web site,
www.vatican.va),
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_20001208_en.html.
195
196
Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 103.
197
Pope Paul VI, Marialis Cultus, Apostolic Exhortation, For the Right Ordering and Development of Devotion
To the Blessed Virgin Mary, 2 February 1974, (newadvent.org),
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06mc.htm, n. 22.
198
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter, Ad Caeli Reginam, 11 October 1954, n. 51.
199
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Caritate Christi Compulsi, 3 May 1932, n. 31.
200
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 8 May 1928,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_08051928_miserentissimus-
redemptor_en.html, n. 21.
201
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 8 May 1928,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_08051928_miserentissimus-
redemptor_en.html, “Prayer of Reparation.”
202
Pope Pius X, Encyclical Letter, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 2 February 1904, n. 13.
203
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Adiutricem Populi, 5 September 1895, n. 8.
204
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Iucunda Semper Expectatione, 8 September 1894, n. 2.
205
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Fidentem Piumque Animum, 20 September 1896, n. 3.
206
Pope Leo XIII, Dall'alto dell'Apostolico Seggio, 15 October 1890, n. 19.
207
Pope John Paul II, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, n. 15, “This role of Mary, totally grounded in that of Christ
and radically subordinated to it….”
208
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Caritate Christi Compulsi , 3 May 1932, n. 31.
209
Catechism of the Catholic Church, (New York: Doubleday, 1994), n. 88.
210
Ineffabilis Deus; Munificentissimus Deus.
211
For example, Pope John Paul II quoted Saint Grignion de Montfort calling Mary the “most faithful spouse
of the Holy Spirit….” Address Of The Holy Father To The Participants In The 8th Mariological Colloquium,
(Friday, 13 October 2000), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/oct-
dec/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20001013_8-colloquio-mariologia_en.html
188
212
Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 963.
213
Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, Vox Populi web site, “Petition,” http://www.voxpopuli.org/petition.php.
214
Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, Vox Populi web site, “Petition,” http://www.voxpopuli.org/petition.php
215
Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, Vox Populi web site, “About Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici,”
http://www.voxpopuli.org/info.php. As of May of 2003, they claim nearly 7 million persons have signed the
petition.
216
Contemporary Insights, p. 8-9.
217
Contemporary Insights, p. 10.
218
Contemporary Insights On A Fifth Marian Dogma, ed. Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., Forward by Ernesto
Cardinal Corripio Ahumada, (Goleta, California: Queenship Publishing, 2000), p. xiii.
219
Contemporary Insights, “The Proposed Marian Dogma” p. 24.
220
Contemporary Insights, p. 94; cites Pope Benedict XV Apostolic Letter “Inter Sodalica” (1918). I was unable
to find a copy of this Apostolic Letter.
221
Most of the theological statements in papal documents fall under the fallible Ordinary Magisterium.
222
223
224
Contemporary Insights, “In Battle Array”, p. 42.
225
226
227
Contemporary Insights, “In Battle Array”, p. 48. Italics are from the original text, written and edited by Dr.
Miravalle.
228
Pope Leo XIII,Encyclical Letter, Fidentem Piumque Animum, (20 September 1896), n. 3.
229
The false apparitions and false messages of Ida Peerdeman of Amsterdam use the expression “The Lady of
All Nations.”
230
231
For example, the Spanish “abogada” is correctly translated as “advocate,” but the word is also used to refer
to lawyers. The English language tends to call attorneys “counselor,” so that the term “advocate” has a
different connotation in Spanish than in English. Use of the Latin “Advocatrix” avoids the problem of varying
connotations in different languages.
232
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 34, Article 2.
233
As Aquinas claimed in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 42, Article 4, Reply to Objection 1.
234
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 37, Articles 1 and 2.
235
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 37, Articles 1 and 2.
236
See chapter 4, “Time and Eternity.”
237
See chapter 5, “The Three Charisms of the Sacred Magisterium.”
238
Cf. Conte, the Virginity of Jesus and Mary, p. 6, describing the Virgin Mary’s perfect virginity. The booklet, the
Virginity of Jesus and Mary, is reprinted, with additions, in chapter 1 of this book.
239
See chapter 2, “Original Sin.”
240
Conte, The Bible and the Future of the World, available as a free ebook at: www.CatholicPlanet.com
241
Conte, The Bible and the Future of the World, chapter 11, Melanie’s secrets, number 9.
242
243
244
Conte, The Bible and the Future of the World, chapter 11, Melanie’s secrets, number 11 and 18.
245
Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, n. 233.
246
Conte, Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary, ebook edition, chapter 16, p. 249-250.
247
Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 676.
248
Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 77, Article 1, Reply to Objection 4.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/507701.htm
249
Saint Bridget of Sweden, Revelations to St. Bridget, p. 69.
250
See Conte, “The Future and the Popes,” CatholicPlanet.com, Oct. 2002,
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article41.htm.
189
251
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1, 1950).
252
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1, 1950), n. 44.
253
254
255
256
Saint Bridget of Sweden, Revelations of St. Bridget, (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.,
1984), p. 68.
257
258
259
260
Ronald L. Conte Jr., Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary, (Grafton, Massachusetts: Catholic Planet,
2002), p. 142, 279.
261
Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 365, 378.
262
Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 363-375. In The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, (p. 364-365),
she mistakenly says that James the Greater was present and that he went to his martyrdom shortly after the
Virgin Mary’s death. However, in The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, (Vol. 4, p. 450), she says that
James the Greater was not present, but that a relative attended in his place. Since the date for James the
Greater’s death, at the hands of Herod Agrippa I, occurred years earlier, he could not have been present at
Mary’s Dormition. See my book, Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary.
263
264
265
266
267
268
Blessed Faustina Kowalska of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Diary: Divine Mercy in My Soul, (Stockbridge,
Massachusetts: Marians of the Immaculate Conception, 1996), margin number: 1320.
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p.376.
277
278
279
280
281
282
Saint Ann suffered not in the conception and birth of Mary.
283
Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, 16 Oct 2002, (Vatican web site),
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-
virginis-mariae_en.html, n. 19.
284
Pope John Paul II, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, n. 21.
285
Society of Christian Doctrine, M.U.S.E.U.M., “Mysteries of Light,” Official Web site, Malta,
http://www.sdcpreca.org/mysteries_of_light.htm. The site references an article from the organization's
newsletter: Angelo Xuereb, “Blessed George Preca and The Virgin Mary,” Preca Calling, Issue 51, no. 3,
(November 2001), Article: http://users.onvol.net/112718/pc51html/spirituality51.html, Issue 51 index:
http://users.onvol.net/112718/index51.html, Newsletter index: http://users.onvol.net/112718/index.htm.
286
287
288
289
190
290
291
Saint Therese of Lisieux, The Autobiography of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, entitled by herself: “The Story of the
Springtime of a Little White Flower,” a Catholic Planet ebook based on the 1912 edition of Soeur Therese of
Lisieux, An Autobiography, http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/ThereseAutobiography.pdf, p. 88.
292
Edward Connor, Prophecy for Today, (TAN Books, 1984). See this book for a list of the 112 Popes and some
background on Saint Malachy's prophesy.
293
Edward Connor, Prophecy for Today, (TAN Books, 1984).
294
In 1978, the relevant dates/times for last quarter moons were: Aug. 25, 12:17 U.T. and Sep. 24, 05:07 U.T.
The moon appears as a half moon during first and last quarter. The four phases of the moon (new moon, first
quarter, full moon, last quarter) are often said to last about a week each.
295
296
297
298
First Vatican Council, Profession of Faith.
299
Conte, The Bible and the Future of the World.
300
The article, “The Future and the Popes,” and the statement, “John Paul II - dies most likely in 2003,” were
written in the autumn of 2002. As I write this footnote on September 15th of 2003, about a year later, Pope
John Paul II has recently completed his trip to Slovakia, during which the deterioration of his health was
apparent. I still think that the Pope will die in 2003, but I cannot be certain. I am fallible.
191

New Insights Into The Deposit of Faith (By Ronald L Conte, JR)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New Insights Into The Deposit of Faith (By Ronald L Conte, JR)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New Insights

into the Deposit of Faith

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

I believe that the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church

Copyright © 2003 by Ronald L. Conte Jr.

This book is copyrighted in both its electronic and printed versions.

Written by: Ronald L. Conte Jr.

May the most holy,

and unutterable Name of God

and under the earth,

by all the creatures of God,

and by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ

in the most holy Sacrament of the altar.

Author’s Forward ............ ..................................... 5

1. the Virginity of Jesus and Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. John the Baptist Never Sinned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4. Time and Eternity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5. The Three Charisms of the Sacred Magisterium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6. co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

7. Procession within the Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

8. The End Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

9. Dormition, Resurrection, Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Appendix: previously-published articles

A. The Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

B. Stewardship is not Time, Talent, Treasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

C. The Future and the Popes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Third Theology Book

The Visions of Blessed Anne Catherine

The Perfect Virginity of Jesus Christ

The Teaching of Sacred Scripture

The Immaculate Virgin Conception of the Virgin Mary

The Lineage of Jesus and Mary

The Virgin Mary’s Own Words

The Virgin Mary described her Immaculate Conception to Saint Bridget.

The Virgin Mary also said to Saint Bridget:

The Teaching of the Church

Saint Joachim and Saint Ann

The Immaculate Conception in Sacred Scripture

The Place and Time of the Immaculate Conception

The Sinless Virgin Mary

because through Mary came Jesus,

The Virgin Birth of Mary

The Virgin Life of the Virgin Mary

The Virgin Marriage of Joseph and Mary

A True Virgin Marriage

The Promise Fulfilled Through Joseph

The Promise Fulfilled Through Mary

The Virgin Conception of Jesus Christ

The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

Arguments and Objections

The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

Objections and Replies

PRAISE BE TO GOD ALMIGHTY FOR ALL ETERNITY

What is Original Sin?

Adam and Eve

Original Sin and the Trinity

Procession within the Trinity

Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception

Mary and Eve

Sexual Relations and Original Sin

Secondary Effects of Original Sin on the Individual

Secondary Effects of Original Sin on Groups