Dear Michael:

I don't know when the feast for St. Lazarus was created and named. It is possible in times past that the word "resuscitation" meant to be raised from the dead. But, that is not what the word means today. Thus, to use the word resuscitation as refers to Lazarus or the many other people who were resurrected in and both New and Old Testaments would be to confuse the modern mind and lead perhaps even to theological error.

The word resuscitate means: "Revive (someone) from unconsciousness or apparent death" (Oxford English Dictionary).

The word resurrect means: "Restore (a dead person) to life" (Oxford English Dictionary).

As I mentioned in my previous post there comes a time in which resuscitation is no longer possible. When the heart and breathing stop there's only a few minutes when resuscitation can bring the person back. But, at some point the person remains dead and cannot be resuscitated. It is at this point in which the person coming back from the dead can only happen by a miracle, the miracle of resurrection.

It seems from these postings about the subject is that there is a desire to reserve the word "resurrection", to consider the word protected. What that means is that there seems to be a desire to use this word as if there's something special about the word itself, that it can refer only to Christ, and also to the resurrection of all people at the end of the age. But there is no theological or biblical justification to reserve that word to those two historical events.

I realize that people may be wanting to use a different word than resurrection in order to differentiate the resurrection of Christ as opposed to the resurrection of Lazarus and the other people in the Bible who were brought back from the dead. But, if we are to be consistent with that notion then we should not be using the word resurrection concerning the raising of the dead of all human beings at the end of time.

The reason for that is at the resurrection of all human beings at the end of time is ontologically different than the resurrection of Christ. Christ resurrected himself, that is, he was raised from the dead by his own power. Human beings do not resurrect themselves. Thus, the resurrection at the end of time is profoundly and ontologically different than the resurrection of Christ.

In addition, the point that you made that resurrection would lead to a glorified body is actually contrary to Church teaching. At the end of time all human beings who've ever lived are resurrected, both those who are saved and going body and soul into heaven, and also those who are condemned and are going body and soul into hell. They are all resurrected. Thus, resurrection does not equal a glorified body as those people who are condemned at the resurrection at the end of time do not receive a glorified body. Only those who go to heaven receive a glorified body. The Church affirms this in the Catechism:

1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15), will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment" (Jn 5:28-29). Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Mt 25:31,32,46).

1042 "After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul."

This resurrection at the end of time is qualitatively and ontologically completely different than the resurrection of Christ, yet the Church Fathers, the Apostles, use the term "resurrection" to refer to the raising even the condemned at the end of time.

There is additional biblical evidence to use the word resurrection for anyone who is raised from the dead.

In Scriptures not only is the word "resurrection" used for Christ on Easter morning, but also used is the phrase "raised from the dead" in reference to Christ. For example:

Acts 4:10  Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole.

This exact same phrasing is also used with Lazarus:

John 12:9  A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that he was there; and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

The Greek word for "raised" in both of these instances referring to Christ and referring to Lazarus is ἐγείρω (egeirō).

Thus, in Scripture, the event that happened to Jesus, and the event that happened to Lazarus, is described by the exact same Greek word, which we render in English as being "raised" from the dead. There is no distinction.

There is nothing special about the word resurrection. The word simply means to be "raised from the dead."

What is special is the character of the resurrection of Christ as opposed to the resurrection of any other person. It is this character of resurrection, the character of being raised from the dead, that distinguishes between Christ and all others.

Thus, there is no need to make a distinction in language, because the Bible makes no distinction in language.

I would suggest that this is a misplaced devotional notion, well-intentioned, but not biblically or theologically supported.

I should say that the Latin for resurrection, and the Latin for resuscitation are similar. The Latin for resurrection is resurrectio, from the verb resurgere meaning to 'rise again'.

The Latin for resuscitation is resuscitat, meaning to be  'raised again', from the verb resuscitare, from re- 'back' + suscitare 'raise'. But, the Latin resuscitatus, the past participle of resuscitare means to "reawaken," from re- + suscitare to "rouse," from sus- "up" + citare to "put in motion, stir." This has the connotation of the modern day definition of  "Revive (someone) from unconsciousness or apparent death".

In any event, the word 'resuscitation' by it's modern definition cannot apply to the raising of the dead of people who are truly dead. Jesus delayed coming to Lazarus to make this very point — that Lazarus was truly dead and not in an apparent death or unconsciousness, but truly dead and rotting in his grave.

The bottom line is that the term resurrection can apply and does apply to all the people in the Bible where raised from the dead. It's the very definition of the word.

Thus, Lazarus (John 11:43-44), the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:13-15), Jairus' daughter (Matthew 9:25), the many people who were raised from the dead when Christ died on the cross (Matthew 27:52-53), plus in the Old Testament, the son of Zarephath's widow (1 Kings 17:17-24), the son of the great Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:35 ), and the dead man who came back to life when his dead body touched Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21), were all raised from the dead – resurrected.

In final analysis, I agree with St. Escrivá in the Navarre Bible Commentary he commissioned, which refers to the raising Lazarus from the dead as a resurrection, and also with the Apostles who refer to resurrection as being "raised from the dead," a phrase that they used both for Christ and for the others recorded in Scripture who where brought back to life.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary