Manage Account

Here is a question a reader asked me recently:
<blockquote>I have a friend who says the Catholic Church has never actually condemned the idea of final apokatastasis, or the final salvation of all at the end of time, as taught by Origen in the second century. He claims there are only the alleged “anti-Origenist” canons from II Constantinople, in 553, that condemn this teaching, but they have been demonstrated to be interposed and not authentic. Is that true?</blockquote>
This is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To start with, there are plenty of <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic.com%2Fmagazine%2Fonline-edition%2Fare-there-souls-in-hell-right-now&amp;data=05%7C02%7Cdbelsky%40catholic.com%7C24fd83a66f9e4817e2bf08dc550bf1d1%7Cdd9faf74765b495cac09cabd182c95a7%7C0%7C0%7C638478757024545272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=v4O8tnuXgsTv12FPgsxvBrXS4Q4c03Uo3joIby1QudE%3D&amp;reserved=0">other magisterial reasons</a> for Catholics to know that hell is eternal. But to answer the question at hand, the claim of “anti-Origenist” interpolation regarding II Constantinople and what it teaches is false, at least in part.
Granted, at least some of these canons, alleged to be from the council, were later interposed—that is, added in after the fact—and included wrongly as part of the canons of II Constantinople. But that does not mean they are not authentic and authoritative. The truth is, at least nine of these canons were licitly promulgated at a validly convened synod at Constantinople in 343, about ten years before the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II. And very importantly, these canons, too, were confirmed by Pope Vigilius.
As we will see below, the Church cites nine of the famous anti-Origenist canons as authoritative. (There are fifteen others that are generally not considered authoritative.) The error people commonly make is to go to an excellent work like Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman Tanner, S.J., and there discover that these canons were not original to II Constantinople. That is not the error, because it is true that these canons were not original to Constantinople. But some conclude from this that the canons themselves are bogus, or at least not magisterial.
But a work like Tanner’s is not where you want to go for this kind of information. He is only dealing with what documents constitute the actual documents of ecumenical councils. And it is correct to say, as the above inquirer’s friend does, that these anti-Origenist canons were not original to the council.
But if you want the whole story, you have to go to Heinrich Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, which I recommend for your normal go-to source even with regard to ecumenical councils. The Church cites Denzinger as its general go-to in its magisterial documents. (At least when considering sections of the councils, you can use Denzinger. Because the councils are not exhaustively cited there, you’ll have to supplement with Tanner or Flannery.)
At any rate, here are four points to consider:
First, In paragraph 1035 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, footnote 617, we find anathemas #7 and #9, from the Synod of Constantinople, as authoritative (DS 409, 411), which explicitly condemn Origenism with regard to final apokatastasis:
<blockquote>If anyone says or holds that the Lord Christ in the future age will be crucified in behalf of the demons, just as [he was] for the sake of men, let him be anathema.
If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.</blockquote>
Second, according to Denzinger, we have evidence from Cassidorus’s Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning indicating that Pope Vigilius did indeed confirm the Synod of Constantinople (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, p. 114). And so
(a) the condemnation of Origen’s position of final apokatastasis has papal, magisterial authority, and
(b) in its “Index of Citations,” the Catechism, under the heading “Particular Councils and Synods,” cites and acknowledges “the Synod of Constantinople” (543) to be magisterial.
As far as the magisterial authority of this teaching is concerned, it is not because of this declaration from the Synod of Constantinople alone. Rather, this teaching represents the universal and ordinary teaching of the Church and is infallible. That is, the teaching of the final salvation of all angels, including the demons, and all men, including the impious, is infallibly condemned.

Yes, Hell Is Still Eternal

It stands out that sola scriptura, one of the core doctrines of Protestantism, did not exist prior to the fourteenth century (with John Wycliffe), and it did not become prevalent until the sixteenth century (with Martin Luther). To put it bluntly, sola scriptura simply did not exist before about 1,200 years after the last of the apostles had died.
Protestants claim that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and that the doctrine goes back to Jesus. This claim amounts to an attempt to introduce the belief back into the pages of Scripture, in the process jumping over fourteen centuries of Church practice and belief. A review of historical continuity—or lack thereof—shows whether or not a belief originated with Jesus and the apostles or if it appeared later in time.
Let’s look at some of the more popular passages that Protestants cite to establish sola scriptura’s ancient pedigree. It is beyond the scope of this article to conduct a systematic refutation of sola scriptura from a biblical perspective, but this list—and a Catholic response to the items in it—can get us to a working understanding of Protestant proof texts and how they fall flat.
1) Matthew 4:1-11: “It is written . . .”
Jesus is here being tempted in the desert by the devil. He responds to the devil three times by saying, “It is written . . .” and then quotes Scripture.
But Jesus is not quoting just any Scripture. In all three instances, he is quoting from Deuteronomy (8:3, 6:16, and 6:13), and these passages are specifically about the Israelites’ experience in the desert when they were unfaithful to God and failed to trust him. Jesus was recalling the Israelites’ failures so that he could demonstrate absolute trust in and fidelity to God where they did not.
In other words, in a decisive and particularly relevant blow to the devil, Jesus was redeeming and transforming the Israelites’ failure. The underlying issue has nothing at all to do with sola scriptura, but rather with man’s relationship to God. Jesus was demonstrating that he is the perfectly obedient Son, as the Israelites should have been, and when the devil realizes he can’t get Jesus to fail God, he departs.
2) Acts 17:10-11: “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
It might look as though “Scripture alone” is the sole rule of faith for the Bereans. But it is important here to understand the broader context.
Paul was preaching in Thessalonica for three weeks and gaining converts in the process. But because some of those converts were coming from the synagogue where Paul was preaching, the Jews there were not pleased about losing members of their congregation and hence stirred up a commotion. They attempted to bring Paul and Silas before an assembly to accuse them of causing problems, but when they couldn’t find these two at Jason’s house, where they were staying, they instead dragged Jason and some other Christians before the city’s magistrates. Word was sent to Paul and Silas that they were in danger, and so the Christians in Thessalonica had them leave the
city under the cover of darkness and go to Berea. There, Paul went to another synagogue and preached about Jesus. But, as a counter to the aggressive response Paul experienced in Thessalonica, the Bereans received his message “with all eagerness.”
So the Bereans were “more noble” not because they searched the scriptures, but because they did not treat Paul and Silas harshly, as the Thessalonians had. They were truly open-minded in the sense of being willing to consider what Paul was telling them. That is hardly a matter of supporting the idea that Scripture is the only infallible authority.
Furthermore, there are absolutely no Old Testament passages (“the scriptures” to which Paul was referring) that clearly state that “the Messiah had to suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day.” It is Paul’s authoritative, apostolic teaching that “connected these dots” for the Bereans. But if sola scriptura were true, no examination and searching of the scriptures would have been necessary, because the teaching in question is the central teaching of the Christian faith.
But Acts 17 shows that this teaching was not sufficiently clear to the Thessalonians or the Bereans, who came to understand it only after Paul expounded on the Old Testament. If anything, this passage supports the Catholic position that Scripture is always coupled with official magisterial teaching.
3) 1 Corinthians 4:6: “I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”
Protestants are quick to emphasize the “not going beyond what is written” part, as Catholics allegedly do when they employ Sacred Tradition. A lot could be said about this verse, but consider at least the following.
The first Protestant leaders did not see this verse as helpful to their sola scriptura cause. None of them used this verse to establish the doctrine. John Calvin even <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xi.ii.html">said</a>,
<blockquote>The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways—either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.</blockquote>
If Calvin felt that this verse was “of small moment,” whose interpretation was left to the reader’s personal preference, clearly he did not intend it as a proof text for sola scriptura.
In this same letter, Paul explicitly affirms the believers in Corinth for having adhered to Sacred Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (11:2). He is not going to advance one principle to the Corinthians in chapter four only to flatly contradict it in chapter eleven.
Bible scholars readily admit that the meaning of “what is written” is obscure, so how useful can this verse be in support of a central Protestant belief? If anything, Protestants would be guilty of eisegesis—reading something into the passage—instead of exegesis, pulling something out of the passage.
To give the reader some idea of the difficulties inherent in this verse, apologist Karlo Broussard <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/meeting-the-protestant-challenge/">offers the following possibilities</a> as to what is meant by “what is written” (60-61):
<ul>
<li>the scriptures in general concerning conduct for preachers;</li>
<li>the Old Testament passages Paul already quoted in 1 Corinthians 1:19, 31; 2:16; 3:19-20;</li>
<li>the metaphors of planting and building used in 1 Corinthians 3:15-17, the implication being that we should avoid false teachers who add to the gospel;</li>
<li>more generally, to everything Paul himself wrote in the preceding chapters of the same epistle concerning Christian conduct;</li>
<li>a Christian slogan or proverb used to address those causing discord in the community, a slogan that meant something akin to “keep within the rules”; or</li>
<li>a public document for the Corinthian church that Paul modeled on cultic bylaws in order to lay out guidelines and principles necessary to preserve peace and prosperity.</li>
</ul>
The only clear thing seems to be that not going “beyond what is written” cannot possibly refer to sola scriptura.
There are many other proof texts we could discuss, but these suffice for our purposes. That is to say, if sola scriptura cannot be found until over a thousand years after Jesus’ earthly life, then the doctrine must lack the historical continuity intrinsic to apostolic teaching. Worse, in practice, we see that it initiated a radical break with the Christian past.

3 of Protestants’ Favorite Bible Verses

How Does Islam and Christianity Differ on Jesus?

If God could have forgiven humanity without the cross, what makes the cross a more fitting means of salvation than simply forgiving sinners?

What do you think of the idea that Muhummad had the strength of 30 men?

Are there Messianic Muslims — Muslims who believe in Jesus?

It is in the Koran that Jesus said he was going to send a messenger.

Does Islam teach that Christians must be destroyed?

Isn’t it disingenuous to dismiss all of Islam culturally? It seems like people try to trash the whole religion when we could build bridges instead.

How do you explain the Catechism’s teaching that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, when Islam is so different than Christianity? Also, early church fathers used the quick spread of the faith around the world as an argument for its truth. But...

&#8220;How Does Islam and Christianity Differ on Jesus?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the distinct perspectives each faith holds about Christ. Additionally, the conversation touches on whether God could have forgiven humanity without the cross, the concept of Messianic Muslims, and the implications of the Koran&#8217;s teachings regarding Jesus and messengers.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

How Does Islam and Christianity Differ on Jesus? Salvation and God

Get the JOE NOTES, sources for this episode, and more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp

How do you know which books belong in the Bible?

<div>Would it have been a sin for Mary to say no at the Annunciation?</div><div>Theoretically, a no from Mary at the Annunciation could have been sinful, though it’s also possible that she could have said no without sinning.
More to the point, in actuality, we know that Mary didn’t sin. Still, it’s theoretically possible Mary could have said no at the Annunciation, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLUOuVKJ4No">Jimmy Akin addresses this issue in a radio response</a>, as do I in an online answer regarding <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-mary-forced-to-be-the-mother-of-god">whether Mary was forced to be the Mother of God</a>.
</div>

Would Mary Have Sinned by Saying No to God?

Full disclosure: I am not a fan of AI.
But not everything that I dislike is demonic. Though I detest hot dogs (haven’t eaten one in decades) and am suspicious of how they are made, I doubt that their origin or use is demonic.
Can we say the same of AI? Or is AI demonic?
The short answer to the latter question is no. It is similar to asking if electricity is demonic. But electricity is a process that exists in the physical world, and therefore, it is not inherently demonic. AI is exponentially more complex, but it is also a process that exists in the physical world.
Fears of the dangers and potential evil uses of AI are legitimate—self-driving cars that crash, students and academics plagiarizing papers, and individuals being all the more absorbed in their computers. Electricity can also be used for sinful purposes: fifty years ago, mass media used electricity, not computers, to blaspheme, spread lies, and promote immorality. Computers and the internet made these evils even more pervasive, and AI may well be another leap forward.
If we grant that AI itself is not demonic, what, nonetheless, can demons do with it? Consider that good angels have the ability to move physical objects and to manipulate physical processes like electricity, and a guardian angel may do so on occasion to protect a person. But we do not count on our guardian angels to do this every time we are in harm’s way. Demons also have the inherent ability to move physical objects and manipulate physical processes, and apparently, they really do exercise this ability, as in moving the plastic pointer when a person is using a Ouija board or even interfering with the physical process of speaking when controlling a possessed person.
But clearly, demons do not wreak physical havoc on every human being every minute of every day. On the contrary, it is extremely rare to see an example of some harmful happening that can be explained only by demonic activity. God’s providence, including the protection of good angels, constrains them. God’s laws regarding physical processes such as disease, natural disasters, and human choices explain almost all physical harm. So there is no reason to think that with the invention of AI, demons are suddenly going to be permitted to use their inherent spiritual power to increase their physical attacks and manipulation.
So is it possible for a demon to use AI, as a physical process, to lead a person astray? Let’s admit that it is possible. But is this something for us to be especially afraid of? No more than we should fear demonic control of electricity, or the human voice, or any other physical process. There is nothing new under the sun.
AI does not create new sins outside the Ten Commandments. Rather, like any technology, it may give us new ways to commit the same categories of sins. Our concerns about AI should consist of being aware of these and, with God’s help, avoiding them.
This is where we can be much more productive in our apprehensiveness—not looking under computer terminals for demons, but rather being watchful for new traps in which our own sins can ensnare us.
Here is a short list of three concerns I have regarding the use of AI.
First is the illusion of AI knowing and caring about us. We want and expect children to outgrow the idea of a real relationship with a stuffed doll. AI may allow adults on computers to fool themselves into believing that they have a relationship, even a friendship, with something as inanimate as a doll, but much more complex. This illusion of real relationship will only get worse if AI and computers are combined with a lifelike appearance in the form of robots.
A second concern is a consequence of the first: mental and emotional well-being. I predict a future correlation between time spent engaging with AI and mental and emotional struggles. Our human relationships are one of God’s ways of expressing and giving to us his love and peace and joy. It is true that human relationships typically cause many struggles, but working through them gives us the ability to improve. AI does not: it is not a person and does not have free will or actual intelligence. Rather than challenging us, as human relationships do, its purpose is to adapt itself to our desires and behaviors.
Third and most important is the spiritual concern. AI, like other inventions, may give us a little momentary happiness as a distraction. Nothing wrong with that in moderation, but the temptation to spend more and more time with AI may deprive us of time with God and practicing the virtues that come with human relationships. I believe that this temptation already increased with the inventions of television and the computer: it can be easier to sit in front of a screen than to set aside time for prayer and for corporal and spiritual works of mercy. With the growth of AI, we should be all the more vigilant in having prayer time and works of mercy embedded in our lives.
Demons have no winning strategy for the long term. They know that in the end, they will be in hell for eternity. In their envy and spite, they want us to spend eternity in hell with them. Demons are great opportunists, and they will use just about anything to tempt us to sin and keep us sinning. Satan used a piece of fruit to tempt Eve, and he tried to use stones in the desert to tempt the Son of God himself, Jesus Christ.
No matter how amazing or frightening the latest technology may be, our means of resisting temptation do not change. Receive the sacraments and make use of sacramentals, keep to our prayers and fasting, and avoid the unnecessary occasions of sin. And do not be afraid.

The Artificial Intelligence Demon

Mormons and Catholics believe in two different Gods. Both call God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but each means a totally different thing from the other.
In Catholicism, God is three persons in one divine nature. God is immaterial and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-divine-simplicity">absolutely simple</a>. In Mormonism, the three persons are <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity">distinct in substance and essence</a>. They are made of material and exist in a material world.
There are many issues we could focus on, like the “three gods or one God” issue, or how Christ must be equal to the Father, but if we did, we would simply be talking past Mormons. The differences are not semantic. If we want to break any ground with Mormons, we must look to the roots of reality; Catholicism and Mormonism explain existence in completely different ways.
In Catholicism, God created everything <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/creation-ex-nihilo">ex nihilo</a> (from nothing). He brings everything into existence, and all existence is contingent on him. God is the uncaused cause—the ultimate explanation of all things.
In Mormonism, God does not bring all things into existence from nothing. Instead, he organizes eternally existing matter. This matter has existed forever, and all things, including god, are made by it (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng">Abraham 3</a>). This view, Mormons argue, gives us a more realistic grasp on reality. It is concrete. It avoids the confusing idea of creation from nothing and explains reality in a way we can more easily understand.
Regardless of how concrete an idea is, the question remains: is the Mormon view a sufficient explanation for why anything exists at all? It is not. Eternal matter cannot explain its own reason for existence, let alone existence itself. Only a theology where God is the very act of being can explain reality fully.
<h2>Existence as Act</h2>
This is precisely what the Thomistic framework <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/what-is-god/?searchid=12728832&amp;search_query=what+is+god">describes</a>. It begins with the distinction between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is). A circle has a definable nature—it&#8217;s a circle. A human being has an essence. But neither must exist; their existence does not explain itself.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that whatever does not have existence of itself must receive it from another. Thus, if everything has a finite essence distinct from its existence, then something else must be the cause of its existence (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm">Summa Theologica</a><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm">, Prima Pars Q2</a>). A causal chain cannot regress infinitely while providing any satisfactory answers about existence. There must be a being whose essence is the same as its existence—a being that is existence itself.
This, Aquinas says, is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/actus-purus">actus purus</a>, pure act. This is the trinitarian God, a being without composition, limitation, or dependency. He is the cause of all existence, not merely one being among others. All existence ultimately depends on him.
Thus, creation from nothing is necessary. All things are radically dependent on God for their existence. He didn&#8217;t create us, then forget about us or let things happen. He is the source of all things.
This means, when compared to Mormon theology, something like matter cannot be uncreated. It must receive existence from somewhere.
<h2>Mormon Material</h2>
Mormons disagree. They posit an entirely different system of reality. Matter is eternal and does not depend on anything for its existence (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng">D&amp;C 131</a>). God does not create or sustain matter, but organizes and structures it.
From an Aristotelian standpoint, eternal matter is the material cause, whereas God is the efficient cause, shaping pre-existing matter into the forms we see today.
Mormons tout this as a <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng">far more understandable</a> and realistic explanation for existence. Afterall, Mormons are right to say that creation from nothing and a God without parts or passions is difficult to comprehend. We cannot comprehend a being who exists outside time and has no parts or passions, but we can comprehend a sculptor who forms David out of marble.
But comprehensibility does not mean likelihood. Mormonism&#8217;s explanatory adequacy is dependent on whether organization from eternal material can suffice as the ultimate explanation for existence.
<h2>Insufficient Explanation</h2>
From a Catholic perspective, eternal matter does not explain existence, but postpones the question of why this material exists at all. Mormonism&#8217;s answer is that it is necessary.
But simply declaring something material as necessary does not make it so. Since material cannot explain its own existence, an explanatory demand persists.
This is what&#8217;s known as the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-the-universe-must-have-a-cause">principle of sufficient reason</a>: whatever exists must have a sufficient explanation for its existence. Mormon theology rejects this, and ultimately looks toward brute facts (facts that exist without further explanation) at the foundation of existence.
The problem with allowing brute facts to be the fundamental answer for existence is that explanation itself becomes arbitrary. If reality is at bottom unexplained, why do any explanations matter at all? Why bother looking for answers?
Although brute facts give Mormonism internal consistency, it is an insufficient explanation for existence. It leaves many questions unanswered. It also opens the door for worrying consequences: if God is ultimately not the source of all existence, how can we trust that he will sustain ours?
We can&#8217;t—at least not in the same way we can in Catholic theology. If we accept the brute fact that matter must exist without further explanation, we must blindly trust that existence will continue in that substrate. There is no real explanation for why it must.
<h2>The Trinity Is True</h2>
Catholic theology leaves no such door open. Since God is existence itself—and is all good—we have fully explained reasons to trust him to continue our existence.
Ironically, the lengths to which Mormons go to make God knowable create a less succinct and less understandable existence.
Though we can&#8217;t say Mormonism is impossible, just as many strange ideas aren&#8217;t, we can ask which explanation of reality is more likely: a fully material existence where one must accept the brute fact that that&#8217;s simply how things are, or a God who is the cause of all creation and the ultimate explanation for all things?
The Trinity is far more likely. It requires far fewer assumptions to accept, and it results in a God we can absolutely trust without deferring blindly to brute facts. All existence must be accounted for. If there is to be a complete answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, it can be found only in that which is existence itself.