St.

Albert the Great

Albert was eldest son of the Count of Bollstdt.[3] It seems likely that Albertus
was born sometime before 1200, given well-attested evidence that he was
aged over 80 on his death in 1280; more than one source says that Albert was
87 on his death, which has led 1193 to be commonly given as the date of
Albertus's birth.[4] Albertus was probably born in Lauingen in Bavaria, since he
called himself 'Albert of Lauingen', but this might simply be a family name.[4]
Albertus was probably educated principally at the University of Padua, where
he received instruction inAristotle's writings. A late account by Rudolph de
Novamagia refers to Albertus' encounter with theBlessed Virgin Mary, who
convinced him to enter Holy Orders. In 1223 (or 1229)[5] he became a
member of the Dominican Order, against the wishes of his family, and
studied theology at Bologna and elsewhere. Selected to fill the position of
lecturer at Cologne, Germany, where the Dominicans had a house, he taught
for several years there, and at Regensburg, Freiburg, Strasbourg,
and Hildesheim. During his first tenure as lecturer at Cologne, Albert wrote
his Summa de bono after discussion with Philip the Chancellorconcerning the
transcendental properties of being.[6] In 1245, Albert became master of
theology under Gueric of Saint-Quentin, the first German Dominican to
achieve this distinction. Following this huge turn of events, Albert was able
to teach theology at the University of Paris as a full-time professor, holding
the seat of the Chair of Theology at the College of St. James.[6][7] During
this time Thomas Aquinas began to study under Albertus.[3]
Albertus was the first to comment on virtually all of the writings of Aristotle,
thus making them accessible to wider academic debate. The study of Aristotle
brought him to study and comment on the teachings of Muslim academics,
notablyAvicenna and Averroes, and this would bring him into the heart of
academic debate.
In 1254 Albertus was made provincial of the Dominican Order,[3]and fulfilled
the duties of the office with great care and efficiency. During his tenure he
publicly defended the Dominicans against attacks by the secular and regular
faculty of the University of Paris, commented on St. John, and answered what
he perceived as errors of the Islamic philosopher Averroes.
In 1259 Albert took part in the General Chapter of the Dominicans
at Valenciennes together with Thomas Aquinas, masters Bonushomo Britto,
[8] Florentius,[9] and Peter (later Pope Innocent V) establishing a ratio
studiorum or program of studies for the Dominicans[10] that featured the
study of philosophy as an innovation for those not sufficiently trained to study
theology. This innovation initiated the tradition of Dominican scholastic
philosophy put into practice, for example, in 1265 at the Order's studium
provincialeat the convent of Santa Sabina in Rome, out of which would
develop the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum[11]

In 1260 Pope Alexander IV made him Bishop of Regensburg, an office from

which he resigned after three years. During the exercise of his duties he
enhanced his reputation for humility by refusing to ride a horse, in accord with
the dictates of the Order, instead traversing his huge diocese on foot. This
earned him the affectionate sobriquet "boots the bishop" from his
parishioners. After his time as Bishop, he spent the remainder of his life partly
in retirement in the various houses of his order and often preaching
throughout southern Germany. In 1270 he preached the eighth
Crusade in Austria. After this, he was especially known for acting as a
mediator between conflicting parties. In Cologne he is not only known for
being the founder of Germany's oldest university there, but also for "the big
verdict" (der Groe Schied) of 1258, which brought an end to the conflict
between the citizens of Cologne and the Archbishop. Among the last of his
labors was the defense of the orthodoxy of his former pupil, Thomas Aquinas,
whose death in 1274 grieved Albertus (the story that he travelled to Paris in
person to defend the teachings of Aquinas can not be confirmed).
After suffering a collapse of health in 1278, he died on November 15, 1280, in
the Dominican convent in Cologne,Germany. Since November 15, 1954, his
relics are in a Roman sarcophagus in the crypt of the Dominican
St. Andreas Church in Cologne.[12]
Albertus is frequently mentioned by Dante, who made his doctrine of free
will the basis of his ethical system. In his Divine Comedy, Dante places
Albertus with his pupil Thomas Aquinasamong the great lovers of wisdom
(Spiriti Sapienti) in the Heaven of the Sun. Albertus is also mentioned, along
withAgrippa and Paracelsus, in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, in which his
writings influence a young Victor Frankenstein.
Albertus was beatified in 1622. He was canonized and proclaimed a Doctor of
the Church on December 16, 1931 by Pope Pius XI and the patron saint of
natural scientists in 1941. St. Albert's feast day is November 15. According to
Joan Carroll Cruz, his body isincorrupt.

November 15 is the 319th day of the year (320th in leap years) in

the Gregorian calendar. There are 46 days remaining until the end of the year.
Date: 15 November 1280 > Death of Dominican Friar and Bishop Albertus
Magnus
Death of Dominican Friar and Bishop Albertus Magnus
Albertus Magnus dies in Cologne,Germany. A Dominican friar and a bishop
who was later made a saintin the Catholic Church, Albert the Great was so
admired by his contemporaries that even scholars like Roger Bacon gave him
the title "Magnus."
In addition to making him a saint, the Catholic Church also made him a
Doctor of the Church, an honor granted to only 33 people in history.

Albertus' writings tended to focus more on philosophy than on theology, but

his knowledge of the natural sciences of his time was probably unmatched.
One of his goals seems to have been the promotion of harmony
betweenscience and religion.
Date: 15 November 1397 > Birth of Pope Nicholas V
Birth of Pope Nicholas V
Italy
Pope Nicholas V is born Tommaso Parentucelli in Sarzana. The first of the
Renaissance popes, he will become known as a Humanist Pope because of
the resources he devotes to scholarship and learning. He will create the
Vatican Library and invests considerable amounts of money into the
translation of Greek literature.
Pope Nicholas V will be more politically astute that many of his predecessors
and he will make peace with many political rivals. One, Frederick III, will be
crowned emperor in St. Peter's in 1451, the last time such a coronation
occurs there.
15 November 1621 > Pope Gregory XV Issues Regulations for Papal Elections
Pope Gregory XV Issues Regulations for Papal Elections
Pope Gregory XV issues the papalbull Aeterni Patris to regulate papal
elections. According to Gregory's orders, popes should be elected by secret
written ballot and within at most three months of deliberation.

1791 The first U.S. Catholic college, Georgetown University, opens its
doors.
: 15 November 1952 > U.S. Catholic Bishops Condemn Secularism, Blaming it
for All of America's Problems
U.S. Catholic Bishops Condemn Secularism, Blaming it for All of America's
Problems
Following their annual meeting, the U.S. Catholic bishops issue a statement
condemning secularism in American society and blaming it for all the
problems they see around them.
The bishops' statement says:
"The real danger to our country comes not from any division likely to
result from religious education or profession. It comes rather from the
threatening disintegration of our social life due to the weakening
of religion as a constructive force.
With the decline of religious belief, the increase of divorce and family
disintegration has become a national scandal. With the break-up of the
family juvenile delinquency has shown an alarming increase. Consequent
upon the weakening of religion there has been a lowering of moral
standards which has resulted in public corruption and this in turn
threatens all respect for law and public authority.

The immanent threat to our country comes not from divisiveness but
from irreligious social decay. The truly religious man is certain to be one
who treasures all those ideals which religion helped to build into this
nation. To the man who is lacking in religious belief nothing in the end is
likely to be sacred, nothing worth preserving. In that direction lies the
real danger to our country."
LECTIO DIVINA: LUKE 18,1-8
Lectio:
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Ordinary Time
1) Opening prayer
God of power and mercy,
protect us from all harm.
Give us freedom of spirit
and health in mind and body
to do your work on earth.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
2) Gospel reading - Luke 18,1-8
Jesus said to his disciples a parable about the need to pray continually and
never lose heart. 'There was a judge in a certain town,' he said, 'who had
neither fear of God nor respect for anyone. In the same town there was also a
widow who kept on coming to him and saying, "I want justice from you against
my enemy!" For a long time he refused, but at last he said to himself, "Even
though I have neither fear of God nor respect for any human person, I must
give this widow her just rights since she keeps pestering me, or she will come
and slap me in the face." '
And the Lord said, 'You notice what the unjust judge has to say? Now, will not
God see justice done to his elect if they keep calling to him day and night even
though he still delays to help them?
I promise you, he will see justice done to them, and done speedily. But when
the Son of man comes, will he find any faith on earth?'
3) Reflection
Todays Gospel presents an element which is very dear to Luke: Prayer. This
is the second time that Luke gives us the words of Jesus to teach us to pray.
The first time (Lk 11, 1-13), he taught us the Our Father and, by means of
comparisons and parables, he taught that we have to pray insistently, without
getting tired. Now, this second time, (Lk 18,1-8), again he has recourse to a

parable taken from life so as to teach us insistence in prayer. It is the parable

of the widow who pestered the judge who was unscrupulous. The way in which
he presents the parable is very didactic. In the first place, Luke presents a
brief introduction which serves as the key for the reading. Then he narrates
the parable. At the end, Jesus himself explains it:
Luke 18, 1: The introduction. Luke presents the parable with the following
phrase: Then he told them a parable about the need to pray continually and
never lose heart". The recommendation to pray without losing heart appears
many times in the New Testament (1 Th 5, 17; Rm 12, 12; Ep 6, 18; etc). And it
is a characteristic of the spirituality of the first Christian communities.
Luke 18, 2-5: The parable. Then Jesus presents two personages of real life: a
judge who had no consideration for God and no consideration for others, and a
widow who struggles to obtain her rights from the judge. The simple fact of
indicating these two personages reveals the critical conscience which he had
regarding the society of his time. The parable presents the poor people who
struggle in the tribunal to obtain their rights. The judge decides to pay
attention to the widow and to do justice. The reason is the following: in order
to free himself from the widow who is pestering him and to get rid of her. This
is a quite interesting reason. But the widow obtained what she wanted! This is
a fact of daily life, which Jesus uses to teach to pray.
Luke 18, 6-8: the application. Jesus applies the parable: You notice what the
unjust judge has said. Now, will not God see justice done to his elect if they
keep calling to him day and night even though he still delays to help them?
Will he make them wait long? I tell you he will see justice done to them, and
done speedily. If it had not been Jesus we would not have had the courage to
compare Jesus to an unjust judge! And at the end Jesus expresses a doubt:
When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? Or rather, will we
have the courage to wait, to have patience, even if God delays in doing what
we ask him?
Jesus in prayer. The first Christians had an image of Jesus in prayer, in
permanent contact with the Father. In fact, the breathing of the life of Jesus
was to do the Will of the Father (Jn 5, 19). Jesus prayed very much and
insisted, in order that people and his disciples also pray. And this because it is
in confronting oneself with God that truth emerges and the person finds
himself/herself in his/her whole reality and humility. Luke is the Evangelist who
gives us more information on the life of prayer of Jesus. He presents Jesus in
constant prayer. The following are some moments in which Jesus appears
praying. You, all of you can complete the list:
- When he was twelve years old and goes to the Temple, to the House of the
Father (Lk 2, 46-50).
- He prays when he is baptized and in assuming his mission (Lk 3, 21).
- At the beginning of the mission, he spends forty days in the desert (Lk 4, 12).
- At the hour of temptation, he faces the devil with the texts from Scripture (Lk
4, 3-12).
- Jesus used to participate in the celebration in the Synagogue on Saturday (Lk
4, 16)
- He seeks solitude in the desert to pray (Lk 5, 16; 9, 18).
- Before choosing the twelve Apostles, he spends the night in prayer (Lk 6,
12).

- He prays before meals (Lk 9, 16; 24, 30).

- He prays before the Passion and when facing reality (Lk 9, 18).
- In time of crises, he goes up to the mountain and is transfigured when he
prays (Lk 9, 28).
- When he revealed the Gospel to the little ones he says: Father, I thank you!
(Lk 10, 21)
- In praying, he arouses in the Apostles the desire to pray (Lk 11, 1).
- He prays for Peter so that he does not lose his faith (Lk 22, 32).
- He celebrates the Paschal Supper with his disciples (Lk 22, 7-14).
- In the Garden of Olives, he prays, even when sweating blood (Lk 22, 41-42).
- In the anguish of the agony, he asks his friends to pray with him (Lk 22,
40.46).
- At the moment when he was being nailed to the Cross, he asks pardon for
the murderers (Lk 23, 34).
- At the hour of death he says: Into your hands I commend my spirit! (Lk 23,
46; Ps 31, 6)
- Jesus dies crying out with the cry of the poor (Lk 23, 46).
This long list indicates everything which follows. For Jesus prayer is
intimately linked to life, to concrete facts, to the decisions which he had to
take. In order to be able to be faithful to the project of the Father, he sought to
remain alone with Him. He listened to Him. In difficult and decisive moments
in his life, Jesus recited Psalms. Just as any devout Jew, he knew them by
heart. The recitation of the Psalms did not take away his creativity. Rather,
Jesus himself created a Psalm which he transmitted to us: the Our Father. His
life is a permanent prayer: I always seek the will of the one who sent me! (Jn
5, 19.30) To him is applied what the Psalm says: I am prayer! (Ps 109, 4)
4) Personal questions
There are people who say that they do not know how to pray, but they speak
with God the whole day! Do you know any such persons? Tell us. There are
many ways in which today people express their devotion and pray. Which are
they?
What do these two parables teach us on prayer? What do they teach me
regarding the way of seeing life and persons?
5) Concluding prayer
How blessed is anyone who fears Yahweh,
who delights in his commandments!
His descendants shall be powerful on earth,
the race of the honest shall receive blessings. (Ps 112,1-2)

Q: My parish priest made a regulation that anyone who arrives in Mass after
the Gospel is not allowed to take Communion. According to him, the reason is
that Jesus is "the Word made flesh." Therefore we must recognize Jesus in the
Word before we recognize him in holy Communion. Another priest, who is a
professor of liturgy, has another opinion. He said that people who arrive late in

Mass with a valid reason (for example, an unusual traffic jam, attending sick
children, etc.) should not be denied Communion. Could you please give a
clarification on this matter? B.E., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Answer:
The controlling legal document governing who can receive Communion and
when is the Code of Canon Law. It provides the following:
Can. 843 1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who
seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited
by law from receiving them.
This provision lists three criteria that, if they are fulfilled, prevent the sacred
ministers from denying the sacramentsincluding Holy Communionto the
faithful.
The first condition is that the faithful "seek them at appropriate times." This is
to prevent the faithful from seeking the sacraments at bizarre times without a
sufficient reason. For example, the faithful do not have a right to demand the
sacraments at any time of the day or night, irrespective of what the priest is
doing, unless they have a counterbalancing reason. You cannot, for example,
demand that a priest hear your confession right this minute if its 3 a.m. in the
morning and hes asleep and youre not in danger of dying or about to ship out
to Afghanistan and wont have the opportunity of confession for months, for
example.
But receiving Communion during Masswhen Communion is already being
offeredis plainly an appropriate time to seek it within the meaning of this
canon.
The second condition is that the faithul are properly disposed. This means
things like they arent in an unconfessed state of mortal sin, theyve observed
the Eucharistic fast, etc. The Code doesnt go the needed dispositions in
detail, but the Catechism does, saying:
1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the
sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and
so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever,
therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine
himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats
and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon
himself." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of
Reconciliation before coming to communion.
1386 Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with
ardent faith the words of the Centurion: "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres
sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea" ("Lord, I
am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and

my soul will be healed."). and in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the
faithful pray in the same spirit:
O Son of God, bring me into communion today with your mystical supper. I
shall not tell your enemies the secret, nor kiss you with Judas kiss. But like the
good thief I cry, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should
observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing)
ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ
becomes our guest.
Youll notice that theres nothing in there about having to attend a certain
portion of Massor even being in Mass at all (since one can receive
Communion outside of Mass). So if someone has the proper dispositions (listed
above), this condition is fulfilled.
The third condition is that the faithful not be prohibited by law from receiving
Communion. If, therefore, one were to find a way to deny them Communion
based on how late they arrived at Mass, it would have to be in this category.
But one cant do that, because there simply is no legal prohibition on people
receiving Communion if they have come to Mass late.
It is desirable, of course, that people have a substantial participation in the rite
within which Communion is being distributed, butand this is the pointit is not
required.
Now, perhaps one would want to say that it is kinda crypto-required, that its
understood but not stated expressly anywhere that you have to attend a
certain part of Mass, or even all of it if you dont have an excuse, to go to
Communion. Perhaps we could fudge that in under the "appropriate times" or
"properly disposed" requirementscontrary to the obvious purpose of these
provisions in the canon.
Nope.
The Code further provides:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be
admitted to Holy Communion.
Even though the Code has already said that sacred ministers cannot deny the
sacraments to those who seek them under the above three conditions, just to
make sure that we understand the point in the case of Holy Communion, it
singles this sacrament out specially to stress that, if youre baptized, you
cannot be denied Communion unless you are prohibited by law.
And theres no prohibition in the law regarding how much of a Mass (or
Communion service) you must attend.

But what if we really, really want to shoehorn such a requirement into the law
at this point? Is there any way to do that?
No, sorry.
The Code also provides:
Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of
rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict
interpretation.
And it provides:
Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from
the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the
word of God and the sacraments.
If you want to restrict someones right to receive the sacraments then youre
going to have to have a law allowing you to do that and youre going to have
to subject it to strict interpretation.
This is particularly the case with Holy Communion, which uniquely among all
the sacraments has its own canon singling out the fact that it cant be denied
unless there is a prohibition by law.
And there just is no law requiring the faithful to attend all or any of a Mass in
order to receive Communion. You can be literally walking through a church at
Communion time and, if you are properly disposed, you can receive.
Now, if you do that and its a Sunday or a holy day of obligation then youll
need to attend a different Mass in order to fulfill your obligation to attend
Mass, but thats a separate question from whether you can receive
Communion.

Can Protestants Go to Confession?

Q: Can a non-Catholic go to Confession?
A: Yes, under specified conditions. Confession is one of three sacraments
which canon 844 allows non-Catholics to receive in specified circumstances:
844:3 Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance,
Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which
do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they ask on their own
for the sacraments are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other
churches which, in the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same
condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.
844:4 If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the
judgment of the diocesan bishop or the national conference of bishops,
Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians
who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot
approach a minister of their own community, and on their own ask for it,

provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly
disposed.
The first paragraph applies principally to Eastern Christians (those in the
Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Coptic Church, the Abyssinian Church, the
Armenian Church, etc.) and states that they can receive confession, anointing,
and the Eucharist if they ask for them and have the proper dispositions (which
is also required of Catholics). Other communions may also share this if they
are judged by the Vatican to have the same status concerning these
sacraments as the Eastern churches.
The second paragraph applies principally to Protestants and adds several
additional conditions because these churches do not have the same
sacramental status as the Eastern ones. Most notably, they [must] manifest
Catholic faith in these sacraments, meaning they must believe about them
what Catholics do e.g., that they are sacraments, that confession forgives
sins, that anointing conveys spiritual and (if it is conducive to salvation)
physical grace to the recipient, that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist,
etc.
A point has to be made about this because most Protestant denominations
(virtually all, in fact) do not teach these things, whereas the Eastern Churches
do and so belief in these things can be presumed for Eastern Christians
(though, of course, if an Eastern Christian denied any of these things to a
Catholic priest, the priest would need to refuse the sacrament to prevent them
from profaning it).
Regarding the sacrament of confession, a Protestant who believes in it could
receive it in a grave situation since virtually none of the Protestant churches
have the sacrament of confession, making it impossible for him to approach
one of his own ministers for it.
There is also another situation (in the United States, at least) in which a nonCatholic Christian can go to confession, and that is when he or she is in the
process of converting to the Catholic faith. The National Statutes for
Catechumenate (passed by the U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops
November 11, 1986) states:
36. The celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation with candidates for
reception into full communion is to be carried out at a time prior to and
distinct from the celebration of the rite of reception.
Non-Christians and those who share the Christian faith but who have not been
baptized cannot receive confession since baptism is the door to the rest of the
sacraments. In fact, the function of confession is to restore the grace which
was originally conferred on a person in baptism but which has sense been lost
through (mortal or venial) sin. The early Church Fathers thus called confession
the second plank after the shipwreck, the shipwreck being the sin in which
we are born, baptism being the first plank which we may grab hold, and
confession being the second plank we may grab hold if we let go of the grace

of the first. Thus only baptized people can go to confession. If a person isnt
baptized, his first job is to get that sacrament.

The Unforgivable Sin

by James Akin

[A] blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that
the dumb man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Can
this be the Son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it they said, It is only
by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.
Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, Every kingdom divided against
itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if
Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom
stand?
And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?
Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast
out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Or how can one enter a strong mans house and plunder his goods, unless he
first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me
scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a
word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the
Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come
(Matthew 12:22-32).
The unforgivable sin is a scary thing. It is so scary that in the Summa
Theologiae Aquinas devoted a special question with four articles to this form of
blasphemy alone. Today virtually every Christian counseling manual contains a
chapter on the sin to help counselors deal with patients who are terrified that
they have already or might sometime commit this sin.
Unfortunately, much of the things one reads in Protestant literature on this
subject is way off base. My favorite idiotic reading of Jesus discussion of the
unforgivable sin is one which says that no one today can commit the
unforgivable sin because this sin was to attribute the work of Jesus to demons
and no Christian can do this since Jesus is no longer on earth. Aside from the
fact that Jesus explicitly says in the very same verse that every blasphemy
against him will be forgiven (Matt. 12:32a). However, it is more obviously false
because Jesus does not have to be on earth to attribute his work to demons.

While most interpretations of the passage do not go to the extreme of saying

that nobody today can commit the sin, many American Protestant readings (at
least those written by Calvinists and Baptists) make the mistake of assuming
that no Christian can commit the sin. This is because the authors of these
interpretations are theologically boxed in to saying that no true Christian can
lose his salvation. This is, of course, a grotesquely unbiblical view. However,
this need not detain us because even though they have mistakenly assumed
no Christian can commit the unforgivable sin, they have correctly identified its
nature final impenitence.
The identification of the unforgivable sin as final impenitence dying in a
state of unrepentance can be shown to go back at least to the time of
Augustine. In fact, in the Summa Aquinas gives a nice little catalogue of
Augustines passages dealing with the subject:
Augustine says . . . (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that he who dies in a state of
obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and (De Verb. Dom.,
Serm. lxxi) that impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost, and (De Serm.
Dom. in Monte xxii), that to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy
is to sin against the Holy Ghost, and in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap.
contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that a man who spurns the truth, is either
envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by
Whose inspiration the Church is taught, and therefore, seemingly, sins against
the Holy Ghost (ST 2b:14:2, Sed Contra).
This interpretation of the text is shown by an exegesis of the text in question.
Matthews account of the saying is the longest and most detailed and,
consequently, the one which elaborates this scary doctrine the most and the
one which should be used as the basis for interpretation.
In Matthew 12, Jesus opponents among the Pharisees try to refute the
peoples speculation that Jesus might be the Messiah (v 23) by suggesting he
is casting out demons with Satans permissionthat he is doing pretend
exorcisms in order to play a demonic hoax on the people and lead them to
falsely believe he is the Messiah. Jesus refutes this charge in vv 25-29.
Beelzebul is another form of the name Baal-Zebul (Prince Baal), one of the
names of the ancient pagan god Baal. Earlier, Jews had mocked Baal-Zebul by
referring to him as Baal-Zebub (Baal Fly or, less literally, Lord of the flies).
He is referred to in the Old Testament as the God of the city of Ekron (2Ki
1:6, 16). Here he is presented as the prince of demons. It was a common belief
among Jews and Christians that pagan gods were actually demons
masquerading as divinities.
In response, Jesus makes a series of statements, of which only one deals with
the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. First he says:
Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house
divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided
against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? (12:25-26).

Jesus first argument for why he is not casting out demons by Satan is that it
would pit Satans own forces against himself and tear apart his kingdom of
darkness. Satan and his demons are psychologically incapable of voluntarily
letting go a person they have possessed. Only Gods grace will deliver such a
person. If Satan were to order a demon to strategically remove from a person,
his kingdom would be torn apart by civil war. Jesus critics are therefore
ignorant of the psychology of demons.
For his second statement, Jesus says:
And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?
Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast
out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (12:27-28).
Here Jesus acknowledges that some Jews in his day had the power to exorcise
demons, however Jesus own exorcisms were greater since he was able to cast
out spirits of dumbness, which Jews were not able to do (9:32-33) since part of
the Jewish exorcism involved getting the demons name and using it to drive
him out, and of course a spirit of dumbness would not/could not give its name.
Jesus, however, could do this surprising feat, as this passage indicates (12:22).
Thus if Jesus miracles are greater than those of the Jews and his opponents
reject the greater miracles, they will have to reject the lesser ones also (a
fortiori). Jesus opponents are thus in the dilemma of either having to deny the
validity of their sons exorcisms or acknowledging that in Jesus and his
exorcisms the kingdom of God has arrived. Thus the members of their own
group will condemn them on judgment day for not recognizing the godly
exorcisms performed in their midst.
For Jesus third argument, Jesus states:
Or how can one enter a strong mans house and plunder his goods, unless he
first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house (12:29)
Jesus presents himself as plundering the house of the strong man (Satan) be
delivering those who are in the power of the devil. But in order to plunder
Satans house, it is first necessary to bind Satan in such a way that he cannot
stop people from being delivered from his clutches. Thus, while Satan may still
be active in some ways, he is bound in such a way that he cannot stop Jesus
ministry of exorcism.
Jesus thus shows he cannot be driving out demons by Satans permission,
because Satan would never permit his captives to be stolen from him if he
were able to stop it. He regards them as his property and would use force to
keep them from being taken from him, just as any homeowner would protect
his belongings, but Jesus is too strong for him and is able to powerfully deliver
them from satanic oppression.
The parable of the strong man is also applicable to evangelism, and this is the
theme brought out by Jesus next statement:

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me
scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a
word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the
Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
(12:30-32)
Much of the confusion over the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is caused by
the fact that people do not recognize that this statement is only one in a series
that Jesus makes and because they do not recognize that it begins with the
word therefore, which connects it to the preceding statement. In fact, the
connective force between 12:30 and 12:31 is stronger than therefore. In
Greek, Jesus says, dia touto or through this. This is even more forceful in
relating v. 30 to v. 31. He gives the general statement about the necessity to
ally oneself with him or else be decisively separated from him and then says,
through this I tell you that you wont be forgiven . . .
In the preceding verse, Jesus asserts (v 30) that one must ally with him or be
opposed to him and through this he tells us (v 31) that the blasphemy
against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Blaspheming the Spirit is thus a failure
to repent and ally oneself with Jesus. Since this can always be done during
ones life (cf. 20:1-15), blasphemy against the Holy Spirit must be a final
refusal to repent, or final impenitence.
Thus the official stand of the Catholic Churchs, following Augustine and a
whole host of subsequent moral theologians, is that the blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit is final impenitence. Pope John Paul II writes:
Against the background of what has been said so far, certain other words of
Jesus, shocking and disturbing ones, become easier to understand. . . . They
are reported for us by the Synoptics in connection with a particular sin which is
called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. . . . Why is blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood? Saint
Thomas Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is unforgivable by its
very nature, insofar as it excludes the elements through which the forgiveness
of sin takes place (ST 2b:14:3). According to such an exegesis, blasphemy
does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it
consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man
through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross. If man rejects
the convincing concerning sin which comes from the Holy Spirit and which
has the power to save, he also rejects the coming of the Counsellor . . . If
Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in
this life or in the next, it is because this non-forgiveness is linked, as to its
cause, to non-repentance, in other words to the radical refusal to be
converted. . . . Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed
by the person who claims to have a right to persist in evilin any sin at all . . .
[T]he Church constantly implores with the greatest fervor that there will be no
increase in the world of the sin that the Gospel calls blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit. Rather, she prays that it will decrease in human souls (Encyclical
LetterDominum et Vivificantem ["The Lord and Giver of Life"] 46-47).

With this in mind, let us look at a couple of verses in Hebrews that are often
thought (wrongly) to pertain to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29.
Hebrews 10:26-27 is often translated like this: For if we sin deliberately after
receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no sacrifice for sins, but a
fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the
adversaries.
As is often pointed out, the sin being spoken of in this context is apostasy back
to Judaism, and so long as one continues to sin by remaining in Judaism after
having once accepted the Messiah, there is no sacrifice for ones sins besides
the one Messiah offered. (Though there is also a more general truth here
about apostasy from Christianity in general, such as going back to secularism,
Buddhism, etc., as well as a more general truth about a continuous failure to
repent, a continuous practice of mortal sin.)
However, if this is all the work done with the verse, it leaves the impression
that those who go back to Judaism (or whatever) cannot be saved. This is of
course false.
The verb sin in this verse is present tense (as are the verbs remains and
will consume). Since present tense in Greek typically indicates an ongoing,
continuous action, the passage can better be translated as: For if we
continuously sin deliberately, after having once received the knowledge of the
truth, there continuously remains no further sacrifice for sins, but a fearful
prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will continuously consume the
adversaries.
So if one ceases to continuously sin by remaining apart from the Messiah, then
Messiahs sacrifice for ones sins becomes operative again. It is now available
for one since one has stopped the continuous sin of apostasy and can now be
united with Christ. (Note the parallelism of the continuous sinning with the
continuous remaining of no further sacrifice; when the former vanishes, the
latter does as welland the same is true of a person who continuously fails to
repent of sin in general.) Thus if an apostate (to Judaism or whatever else)
ceases to be an apostate, he can be saved. There is no unforgivable sin taught
in this text.
Hebrews 6:1-6 reads like this:
1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to
maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to
death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of
hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God
permitting, we will do so.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted
the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the
goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall
away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are
crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

The first two verses tell us about the elementary teachings of Christthat is,
the basic truths of the Christian faith. This is important because it will set us
up for the discussion of apostasy.
Note that they walk us through an ordo salutisthe stages of the Christian life:
repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands (i.e., confirmation), resurrection,
and judgment. Two truths preceding Christian initiation (repentance and faith),
two truths at initiation (baptism and confirmation), and two truths at the end
of the Christian life (resurrection and judgment).
The author says he wont go over the basic teachings of Christ again because
it is impossible to renew to repentance those who have fallen away. This is
often a very problematic verse (especially for those who believe it is
impossible to lose ones salvation), and is often thought to pertain to the
unforgivable sin. However, this is not the case.
To see why, we must first eliminate a dodge that is often used to render this
verse a counterfactual hypothetical. As it appears in many English
translations, v. 6 is often opened with the clause if they fall away. However,
this is not an accurate rendering of the Greek text, as even eternal securitists
(such as Kendall) will admit. The Greek is simply kai parapesontas, which of
course means and (kai) have fallen away (parapesontas)
parapesontas being an aoristjust like in the other four clauses in the
preceding two verses, of which this clause is the final link in the chain of
parallel aorist clauses identifying the apostates. The passage, correctly
translated, thus reads:
It is impossible for those who (a) have once been enlightened, (b) have
tasted the heavenly gift, (c) and have been made partakers in the Holy Spirit,
(d) and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the
coming age, (e) and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance,
because to their loss they are re-crucifying the Son of God and subjecting him
to public disgrace.
Or more shortly:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened . . . and have fallen
away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are recrucifying the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace.
The Greek of the passage presents the falling away as an accomplished fact,
not a hypothetical possibility. (Thus an eternal securitist would have to say
that they were never inwardly a Christian to begin with, only outwardly.)
Nevertheless, the passage does not pertain to the unforgivable sin. Many have
misread the passage, being misled by the hypothetical (if . . .) translation of
v 6, and have argued: If a person did fall away then they could not come back
because they would have to re-crucify Christ, and that is impossible since he
died only once!
But this is simply not what the passage says. It does not say that if one tried
to come back one would have to re-crucify Christ. It does not present the recrucifixion as something that would need to happen if someone came back. It
presents the re-crucifixion as a present reality. Just read the text: because to

their loss they are re-crucifying [present tense, active voice in both Greek and
English] the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace. The text says
that the apostates are re-crucifying Christ now, not that they would need to if
they came back.
This is where understanding the Jewish context (and content) of the letter is so
important. By returning to Judaism, the apostates are declaring that Jesus was
a false Messiah (else they would not leave faith in him as the true Messiah).
But by declaring Jesus to be a false Messiah, they are declaring that he
deserved what he got when he was crucifiedbecause it is axiomatic that
every false Messiah deserves death and public humiliation. They, like the fox
in Aesops fable The fox and the grapes, are having an attack of sour grapes
and were running around saying: Well, he wasnt the real Messiah.
He deserved what he got. He deserved to be crucified and put to public
humiliation. As it says in the Torah, Cursed is every man who is hung upon a
tree!
Thus the re-crucifixion and humiliation of Christ was something the apostates
were doing while they were maintaining their rebellion against the Messiah
they had once accepted. This indicates an enormous hardness of heart, which
is why the author tells us, It is impossible for those . . . to be brought back to
repentance. The hardness of their hearts prevents it.
This is, of course, a practical rule rather than a dogmatic (absolute) rule.
Because of the hardness of heart the Jewish apostates are displaying by
publicly denouncing Jesus, declaring that he deserved crucifixion and
humiliation, it is as a practical matter impossible to renew them to repentance
and faith in Christ. This does not in any way mean it is
an absolute impossibility to renew them to repentance, for With men it is
impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God (Mark.
10:27).
One must be aware in Scripture of the difference between practical and
dogmatic statements. Failure to recognize this is often what generates cults. A
cult will pick a statement and absolutize it, when in reality it may only be
expressing a practical truth. For example, some absolutize Jesus statements
in Matthew 6 about not doing ones righteous acts in front of men, and ignore
his statements in Matthew 5 about the need to let our light shine before men
so they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven. The fact is
that neither the Matthew 5 or the Matthew 6 statements are absolute rules,
but practical rules to be observed on different occasions (i.e., bearing in mind
whether doing a good deed publicly would lead people to glorify or curse God
or whether I would be doing it just to gain praise for myself).
In the same way, the statement It is impossible for those . . . to be renewed
to repentance is simply a practical rule. It is only because of their hardness of
their hearts that it is a waste of time to argue with them. It is more prudent, as
a matter of evangelism, to talk to people who arent that hostile toward Christ
and who are more likely to give you a hearing.
This special animus against the person of Christ would not be present in those
who were not Jews and who thus would not resent him as much as a false
Messiah upon returning to their former religions. Thus a person today who
went back to secularism, for example, would not hate Jesus as a Messianic
pretender and would not say, He deserved what he got! the way a first

century Jew would. In fact, an apostate to secularism might still even admire
Jesus in a kind of nebulous way as a good and wise teacher.
Thus modern apostates are much easier to reclaim from there repudiation of
the faith than first century Jewish apostates were. In fact, this has been the
case throughout history. For example, those who had denied the faith during
the persecutions of the early centuries often came back to the Church and
were received back into membership (after a period of penance) once the
persecution stopped. The practical rule that it is impossible to renew an
apostate to repentance is thus a general rule only for the early Jewish
apostates the book of Hebrews was discussing, not later ones (though of
course an individual later apostate may be so hard of heart he will never come
back, but this does not apply to later apostates as a group).
Apostasy, contrary to some interpretations, is not the unforgivable sin. Like
the parallel sins against faith infidelity, schism, and heresy it only
becomes an unforgivable sin if one dies in it. Until death it is always possible,
God willing, for an infidel to convert, for a schismatic to return from his schism,
for a heretic to renounce his heresy, and for an apostate to re-embrace the
faith of Christ.