The Catholic position can be summed up by the following: "Immediately after death the particular judgment takes place, in which, by a divine sentence of judgment, the eternal fate of the deceased person is decided." (Sent. Fidea proxima).

The Union Councils of Florence and Lyons declared that the souls of the just, free from all sin and punishment, are immediately assumed into Heaven, and that the souls of those who die in mortal or even venial sin immediately descend to hell (cf. D 464, 693). The notion that souls sleep after death or that they reincarnate was dispelled as early as the 5^th and 6^th century in the combating and condemnation of the Nestorians and of late Arians. Origen, who believed in the preexistence of the soul (but not reincarnation) was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in the year 553.

There is no room for reincarnation, soul sleep, or any other heresy that denies the particular and immediate judgment in Catholic doctrine. To claim Catholicism, and thereby orthodoxy, a person must believe that the soul is judged and assigned to an eternal destination immediately after death.

In spite of the evidence for the particular judgment, two main opposing doctrines exist. One is a belief in reincarnation, held by numerous members of the New Age movement as well as by Hindus and Buddhists. A second is the belief in soul sleep, held by almost every Adventist and several other Christian sects. This states that the soul sleeps upon death, until awakened at the Second Coming of Christ. Even the great Reformer John Calvin supported soul sleep (hypnopsychites).

Within the last few decades, the heresy of reincarnation, formerly restricted mainly to eastern mysticism, has become popular and commonly adhered to in the Western world. Worse yet, in a strange syncretism, many advocates of reincarnation have attempted to prove that the Bible itself supports the heresy, and that it is totally compatible with Christianity. The New Age movement is a home to many of these people, including the popular reincarnationist Shirley MacLaine.

Furthermore, New Agers claim that the early Church believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine records being taught: "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an Ecumenical Council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicaea" (Out on a Limb, 234-5).

The above citation shows that Mrs. MacLaine has a genuine ignorance of the facts at hand. There has never been a Council of Nicaea that convened in Constantinople. In fact, there was no Council of Nicaea that convened in 553. Both councils of Nicaea convened in Nicaea (hence there names), and in the years 325 and 787. What did occur in the year 553 in Constantinople was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. But, contrary to the testimony in Mrs. MacLaine’s book, the council never dealt with reincarnation.

Moreover, new age reincarnationists will frequently claim that Origen, the Church Father, believed in reincarnation. The aforementioned Second Council of Constantinople, in one sentence, condemned Origen’s writings and beliefs as heretical. This single sentence, however, would not come close to making the whole Council center around reincarnation, and, as we shall see, the condemnation of Origen had nothing to do with a belief in reincarnation. Therefore, on account of this one sentence, a person cannot say that the Second Council od Constantinople had anything to do with reincarnation. The entire Council focused on the Trinity and the Incarnation—not upon reincarnation in any way.

These so-called "Bible Reincarnationists" rely mainly upon a single verse from the Scriptures. Matthew 11:13-14, the words of Christ concerning John the Baptist, reads: "For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come." It was prophesied by Malachi (Mal 4:5) that God would send Elijah once again. Reading Matthew 11:13-14, reincarnationists will rapidly jump to the conclusion that Elijah had reincarnated as John the Baptist. They’ll say, "Look, even your beloved God Jesus Christ claims that John was actually Elijah reincarnated!"

While at first this argument may seem a little convincing on the part of reincarnation, when studied further, the argument can be reduced to utter nonsense. The particularly relevant passage of John 1:21 is crucial: "And they asked him [John the Baptist], ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not’ " Here we have John the Baptist explicitly denying that he is Elijah reincarnated.

The Biblical reincarnation argument is a rather weak one, for four reasons. First of all, Malachi could very well have been, and in fact probably was, referring to the Transfiguration, when Elijah came in person along with Moses (see Matt 16:28-17:18). Second of all, Malachi had earlier prophesied, in stunning detail, that John the Baptist would come right before Christ (Mal 3:1) and there made absolutely no mention of Elijah. Thirdly, the context of Malachi’s prophesy about Elijah suggests that he is actually referring to an "Elijah" that would come at the end times, "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Mal 4:5b). This prophesy of Malachi’s may be paralleled with Revelation 11:1-7. Fourthly, the referral of John as Elijah by Christ is a "freak incident" in the Bible. Nowhere else in the Bible would a person even appear to a reincarnation of a past person’s soul. To base one’s entire eschatological theology upon one strange and completely unduplicated event is very unconvincing and poorly founded to say the least.

So, if John wasn’t really Elijah reincarnated, what did Jesus mean when he called John "Elijah who was to come"? Elijah and John had much in common. Throughout their entire lives, both were prophets who pronounced the Lord’s call to repentance, and both prepared for the coming Messiah. Both were chased, one killed, for their prophesying. When Christ referred to John as Elijah, he didn’t mean that the two had shared the same soul or mind. He meant that John was carrying out the same message, purpose, and actions that Elijah had. The two shared the same role, and in this way, and in no other way, John was Elijah to come.

Having refuted the reincarnationists’ Biblical argument, let’s turn to their Church history arguments. Central to their claims is that Origen believed in reincarnation. While Origen may have believed in the preexistence of souls, it may surprise reincarnationists that Origen did not believe in reincarntion—in fact, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation! To prove this point, here are a few quotes from Origen to show that he was indeed against reincarnation:

"[Scripture says] 'And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" [John 1:21] and he said, "I am not."' No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: 'If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come' [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, 'Are you Elijah?'--'I am not'? . . . one might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John's birth, but the Spirit and power of Elijah" (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).

"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts in the . . . doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless" (ibid.).

"In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration ,which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures" (ibid., 13:1).

It should be obvious from the above quotations that Origen did not hold to the doctrine of reincarnation, which is "foreign to the Church of God, not handed down by the apostles, and nowhere set forth in the Scriptures." Here, Origen denies that the Church teaches such a doctrine. He denies that Tradition teaches such a doctrine. And he denies that the Bible teaches such a doctrine. In this three-fold denial of reincarnation, Origen makes it clear that there is absolutely no room in Christianity for a belief in reincarnation.

Soul sleep is perhaps the most believable of the doctrines opposing the Particular Judgment. The advocates of soul sleep constantly refer to those Bible passages that speak of death as a sleep. Numerous passages do so, and even Christ Himself, upon resurrecting Lazarus, tells him to "Awaken." While those who believe in soul sleep (henceforth referred to as Sleepists) enjoy quoting all of the verses concerning a sleep upon death, their arguments can basically be summed up by one verse: "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten." (Ecc 9:5).

In discussing the "sleep of the dead", two things may come into play. First of all, Catholics can appeal to the doctrine of the Limbo of the Fathers (which has not yet been defined infallibly, but is still acceptable in Catholic doctrine). Notice that every single one of the verses that talk about death as a sleep, even Christ’s own words, occur BEFORE the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, it can be said that everyone who died before Christ’s resurrection went to a place of waiting (Limbo of the Fathers) and that certain passages may refer to this Limbo as a sleep. Remember, however, that if one chooses to use this approach, he must still maintain that the souls are conscious in the Limbo, which Sleepists will deny.

Second of all, and the view that will be defended here, is that when the Bible speaks about death as a sleep, it is speaking purely metaphorically, and in no way means to present the souls of the dead as unconscious. Rather, it is speaking about the physical bodies of the deceased, which are completely unconscious and therefore in somewhat of a metaphorical sleep.

The context of Ecclesiastes 9:5 shows that the verse in no way supports soul sleep. Looking at verse 6, we see that verse 5 refers only to things "under the sun." And so, in essence, verse 5 could be interpreted this way: "the dead know nothing under the sun, and they have no more reward under the sun, for the memory of them is forgotten under the sun…" In fact, no other interpretation of this verse makes much sense. For instance, when the verse says that the dead "have no more reward", it does not mean that there is no heaven. To say that would be to deny one of the cardinals of Christianity. Hence, even Sleepists are forced to admit that at least part of this verse refers only to things "under the sun", or on Earth.

Furthermore, it is quite clear that the writer of Ecclesiastes did not believe in soul sleep. He writes: "Then [at death] shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return to God who gave it." (Ecc 12:7). This verse tells us that upon death the body of the deceased returns to the earth, but the soul of the deceased returns "to God who gave it." It is impossible for a person to maintain his belief in soul sleep while claiming that the soul returns to God upon death. Hence, Ecclesiastes 12:7 shows rather clearly that the doctrine of soul sleep is not orthodox.

One more verse that Sleepists invoke to support their beliefs is Acts 2:34, which quotes Peter’s sermon on Pentecost: "For David did not yet ascend into the heavens, but he says himself…". Sleepists claim that David had not yet ascended to heaven because his soul was in a state of sleep. This (very weak) argument can be refuted in several ways: 1) by a belief in the Limbo of the Fathers. 2) Perhaps David was in Purgatory at the time of which Peter speaks. 3) by the most convincing counter-argument, which states that Peter was speaking of a time in which David was still living. David had not yet ascended into Heaven because he was still alive on Earth. This approach is supported by the fact that Peter goes on to quote David, perhaps indicating that David was still speaking (and therefore alive) during the time period of which Peter speaks. In fact, in the very same sentence that Peter speaks of David as not yet in Heaven, he adds, "but he [David] says himself…" followed by, as previously noted, several Davidic quotations.

Any one of the three listed approaches is capable of totally refuting the Sleepist interpretation of Acts 2:34.

Two more Biblical texts can be used specifically to defeat the claims of soul sleep. Luke 23:43 reads: "And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Addressing the thief on the cross, Christ promises him paradise. Moreover, this paradise is to come before the Second Coming—even before the resurrection. Hence, the thief’s soul could not have slept or waited as Sleepists would like to claim.

Secondly, we have the story of the Transfiguration (Mat 17:1,3-4), in which Moses’ soul appears on Earth to the disciples and to Christ. Notice that the soul of Moses is not sleeping, even though Moses had long since died (Deut 34:5). Therefore, it is excessively unconvincing to claim that Moses, upon death, went into a soul sleep.

Much other minor opposition to the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgment exist. Some opposing doctrines may have been partially refuted in the above sections. Others may remain completely plausible. While I cannot take the time to refute every one of these views here, they may be refuted in the sections to come, which supplies the proof, Biblical and Patristic, for the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgment.

Explicit Scriptural proof for the Particular Judgment is very limited, if even existent. However, even if no explicit Scriptural proof exists, there remains an abundance of implicit proof that suffices to prove the Particular Judgment beyond any significant doubt.

Revelation 6:9-10
When he broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of all the people who had been killed on account of the word of God, for witnessing to it. They shouted aloud, "Holy, faithful Master, how much longer will you wait before you pass sentence and take vengeance for our death on the inhabitants of the earth?"

Antoine Valentim comments: "The Bible is saying that martyrs go to heaven before the Judgment. Note that this takes place before the resurrection, before the end of the world, before the Judgment, while life is going on as usual on the earth. Also, the martyrs, despite being "dead", have their own memories, and remember that they have been martyred. So to say that these martyrs "know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) in the sense of being unconscious, or something like that, would be incorrect." (The Bible Disproves Soul Sleep) Indeed, the above verse does show that people will be in the afterlife before the Second Coming. Not only does this work against soul sleep, but it offers a good deal of evidence for the Particular Judgment (i.e. these martyrs were judged before the Second Coming—directly after their deaths).

Luke 16:19-31
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." But Abraham said, "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Then he said, "I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment." Abraham saith unto him, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." And he said, "Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent." And he said unto him, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

The above passage is one of the most powerful reinforcements of the doctrine of the Particular Judgment. Here we see that Lazarus, immediately upon death, entered the realm of Abraham (this realm has been interpreted as the Limbo of the Fathers, Purgatory, or Heaven by individual scholars). Two things are for certain: 1) Lazarus was judged immediately upon death, and 2) Lazarus was in a conscious state directly after Judgment took place. These two premises constitute the reality of the Particular Judgment. In the same way, the rich man in this passage is judged immediately upon death, and enters the fires of hell. Some scholars have gone so far as to label this text explicit proof of the Particular Judgment, but either way, the passage must be considered at least potent implicit evidence.

1 Peter 3:18-19
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

This particular passage does little to proof the Particular Judgment as a whole, but it does succeed in throwing great doubt upon soul sleep and reincarnation. First, the souls are in prison (which means that they are NOT in a physical body), and second, if the souls were asleep or unconscious, why on earth would Christ be preaching to them?

2 Corinthians 5:6,8-9
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.... We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

This classic text has always been the primary support for the doctrine of the Particular Judgment. Addressing Christians, Paul tells us that to be home in the body is to absent from Christ, but to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ. This passage’s meaning is extremely clear. Here, Paul is referring to people as souls. For a Christian soul to be absent from the body means that it is present with Christ. In other words: Dead = with Christ. When we die, and our soul leaves our body, it will immediately return to Christ. The passage can be understood in no other way without heavily straining an interpretation.

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Notice here that the members of Sodom and Gomorrha, haven given themselves over to fornication, are currently suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, or hell. This means, of course, that God has already judged the members of these evil cities, and that these members have already received the eternal punishment due to them. Hence, we have more strong implicit proof of the Particular Judgment.

Sirach 1:13, 11:28

Those who fear the Lord will have a happy end; on the day of their death they will be blessed…Call no one happy before his death; by how he ends, a person becomes known.

Take special note of verse 1:13, which tells us rather unmistakably that on the very day of a just man’s death, he will be blessed. The most probably meaning of "blessed" is God’s blessing—Heaven. Hence, a person, on the very day of his death, is judged. Furthermore, we can confer without much doubt from the above passage that if a just man dies, he will receive his reward directly upon death—this is the Particular Judgment.

Certain verses or Biblical texts also hint at the Particular Judgment. For instance, "God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living" (Mat 22:32), as well as the parallel reference of John 11:26, would seem to indicate that all souls, on earth or in the afterlife, are indeed alive. Genesis 35:18 tells us that Rachel’s soul, upon death "was departing." This naturally leads a person to wonder where it was going. Coupled with 2 Corinthians 5:8-9, one is compelled to conclude that the soul was departing "to be present with Christ", thereby proving the Particular Judgment. We have previously cited Luke 23:43, which is Christ’s promise of salvation to the thief on the cross. Not only does this verse work against soul sleep, but it also shows that the thief was to receive a swift and prompt judgment, without sleep or waiting of any kind, and most probably immediately upon death. This, again, supports the doctrine of the Particular Judgment.

The views of the Early Church Fathers on the issue at hand can be both obscure and confusing. However, it can be said that the Fathers had a general conviction that the good receive their reward and the evil receive their punishment immediately upon death. It is from this consensus that the doctrine of the Particular Judgment can be founded.

As to the nature and condition of bliss or punishment in the afterlife there was much uncertainty. "Many of the older Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Hilary, and Ambrose) assume a state of waiting between death and resurrection, in which the just indeed receive reward and the evil punishment, but do not yet achieve the final blessedness of Heaven or the final condemnation of hell." (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 476).

Tertullian was an exception to the older fathers. In Tertuliian’s view, the martyrs received somewhat of a "special judgment" which allowed them to, unlike others, ascend straight to heaven upon death. Cyprian, however, insists that not only the martyrs, but all of the just will enter into eternal bliss.

Despite the confusion involved in the views of the Fathers, the renowned Saints John Chrysostom (In. Matth. Hom 14:14), Jerome (In Joel, 2:11), Augustine (De Anima et eius origine II 4:8) and Caesarius of Arles (Sermo 5:5) directly attest to a belief in a Particular Judgment,

The testimony of the Fathers is unanimous in declaring a judgment immediately after death. Furthermore, it is unanimously in disagreement with both soul sleep and reincarnation.

When one considers the faults of the opposing views, the immense Scriptural evidence, and the consensus of Tradition, it must be admitted that the doctrine of the Particular Judgment is a well founded one, to say the very least.