Against prayers to the saints in the Early Church (Jerome vs. Vigilantius)

Painting of Saint Jerome - Djordje Ozbolt
From the comments box:

Hi Taylor,

As always, love the blog. Question: did anyone in the early church write AGAINST seeking the intercession of (dead) saints?

Yes, there were folks in the early Church who protested against the invocation of the saints. The most notable defenders of invoking the saints were Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine. The most well known exchange was the rather polemical response of Saint Jerome (pro-praying to saints) to a certain Vigilantius (anti-praying to saints), who had once been a friend of Jerome and had even lived with the saint for a time.

Saint Jerome turned his gifted (yet abrasive) quill against Vigilantius for holding the following errors:

1. Vigilantius questioned the veneration of relics.
2. Vigilantius questioned prayers offered to departed (dead) saints
3. Vigilantius questioned shrines to saints and the miracles attributed to them
4. Vigilantius questioned the vow of poverty
5. Vigilantius questioned the idea that holy virginity held a higher place that holy matrimony
   

You can read Saint Jerome's work Against Vigilantius by clicking here. Let me warn you - Saint Jerome's tone in this work is at its worst. In my opinion he lacks charity. His words are almost acidic. The work Against Vigilantius opens with these words:

All at once Vigilantius (Wakeful-One), or, more correctly, Dormitantius (Sleepy-One), has arisen, animated by an unclean spirit, to fight against the Spirit of Christ, and to deny that religious reverence is to be paid to the tombs of the martyrs. Vigils, he says, are to be condemned; Alleluia must never be sung except at Easter; continence is a heresy; chastity a hot-bed of lust.

And as Euphorbus is said to have been born again in the person of Pythagoras, so in this fellow the corrupt mind of Jovinianus has arisen; so that in him, no less than in his predecessor, we are bound to meet the snares of the devil. The words may be justly applied to him: "Seed of evil-doers, prepare your children for the slaughter because of the sins of your father."

Read the rest of Saint Jerome's Against Vigilantiuis at New Advent.

Implicit Baptism of Desire in Thomas Aquinas (Salvation without Sacramental Water Baptism)

I'm taking a fantastic grad course at the University of Dallas with the theologian Dr. Bruce Marshall. It's a text seminar examining passages from the Summa theologiae. Last Monday I was fascinated to learn that Saint Thomas Aquinas had articulated a doctrine of implicit baptism of desire.

As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly [there are the key words]; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment."

STh III, q. 69, a. 4.

The perplexing thing is that Saint Thomas Aquinas believes that baptism by desire only remits eternal punishment and not the temporal punishment due to sins. In other words, the believer without sacramental baptism would still endure the "salvation through fire" of 1 Corinthians 3:15, i.e. purgatory. We find more information about this in Summa theologiae III 68 a. 2 ad 2:

No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Saint Thomas Aquinas further describes the distinction between in explicit and implicit faith in his Treatise on Faith found in II-II:

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."

STh II-II q. 2 a. 7 ad 3 - emphasis mine.

I probably shouldn't be amazed, but I'm rather shocked that Saint Thomas Aquinas had explored these regions of soteriology. Especially in the last quote (from II-II), one can see that this sort of reasoning is the basis of Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 16 which reads:

Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Savior wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation.

Special thanks to Dr. Bruce Marshall at SMU for bringing this to our attention.

Gift of Tears and Baptism by Tears

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus said that besides water baptism and baptism by blood, there is a "baptism of tears" (Penance):

Yes, and I know of a Fifth [Baptism] also, which is that of tears, and is much more laborious, received by him who washes his bed every night and his couch with tears; whose bruises stink through his wickedness; and who goes mourning and of a sad countenance; who imitates the repentance of Manasseh (2 Chronicles 38:12) and the humiliation of the Ninevites (Jonah 3:7-10) upon which God had mercy; who utters the words of the Publican in the Temple, and is justified rather than the stiff-necked Pharisee; (Luke 18:13) who like the Canaanite woman bends down and asks for mercy and crumbs, the food of a dog that is very hungry.

St. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 39, XVII.

Saint Ignatius of Loyola similarly had the "gift of tears":

He sometimes cried so much at Mass that he could not go on, nor even talk for some time, and he was afraid that his gift of tears might cause him to lose his eyesight. Goncalves de Camara said, "When he did not weep three times during Mass, he considered himself deprived of consolation." We regard a number of saints as great mystics but never think of Ignatius as one of them. We have recounted a few of the many visions and mystical experiences in his life. His holiness, however, did not consist in such, but in the great love that directed his life to do everything A.M.D.G., for the greater glory of God.

Hat tip to Matthew Mehan.

Salvation without Baptism (as explained by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas)

Saint Augustine says that, "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit" (Super Levit. lxxxiv).

Saint Thomas Aquinas says: "Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification."

Quoted in Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae III q. 68, a. 2, s.c.

Thus, even for these two doctors, there was an "invisible sanctification" (sanctificatio invisibilis).

Today's Canterbury Tales!

Visual Tale: Saint Jude prepares for desperate situation.
Today's Canterbury Tales:

• Humorous Tale: Notre Dame gets desperate
• Papal Tale: Pope visits earthquake region
• World Tale: Roman artifact found in London...
• US Tale: Obama's 100 mistakes in 100 days!

Why does the Resurrected Body of Christ have scars?

A friend of mine recently asked a great question: Why does Jesus still have the wounds from the cross? He has his perfected body, why keep the wounds? Will martyrs keep their wounds they received in Christ's name upon the resurrection of the dead and the final glorification?

Saint Thomas Aquinas answered this question in Summa theologiae IIIa q. 54, a. 4: "Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?" He gives five reasons for why Christ rose with the scars of His passion:

I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory."Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body."

Secondly, to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His Resurrection" (Bede, on Luke 24:40).

Thirdly, "that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us" (Bede, on Luke 24:40).

Fourthly, "that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on Luke 24:40).

Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying: 'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter.'"

Saint Fidelis - A martyr murdered by Calvinists

On re-entering the country of the Grisons he was met everywhere with the cry: "Death to the Capuchins!" On 24 April, being then at Grusch, he made his confession and afterwards celebrated Mass and preached. Then he set out for Sevis. On the way his companions noticed that he was particularly cheerful. At Sevis he entered the church and began to preach, but was interrupted by a sudden tumult both within and without the church. Several Austrian soldiers who were guarding the doors of the church were killed and Fidelis himself was struck. A Calvinist present offered to lead him to a place of security. Fidelis thanked the man but said his life was in the hands of God. Outside the church he was surrounded by a crowd led by the preachers who offered to save his life if he would apostatize. Fidelis replied: "I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it", whereupon he was struck down. He was the first martyr of the Congregation of Propaganda. His body was afterwards taken to Feldkirch and buried in the church of his order, except his head and left arm, which were placed in the cathedral at Coire.

He was beatified in 1729, and canonized in 1745.

St. Fidelis is usually represented in art with a crucifix and with a wound in the head; his emblem is a bludgeon. His feast is kept on 24 April.

From NewAdvent.org.

Donatism and Saint Thomas Aquinas

In Summa theologiae III, q. 63, Thomas Aquinas addresses several topics pertaining to the fourth century Donatist heresy. The Donatists held that efficacy of the Christian sacraments depend on the worthiness of the minister. Thomas takes up this topic directly in Article 5 in which he asks whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers. He answers that an instrument (for this is what a minister is, cf. q 62, aa. 1, 4) acts not from its own form (formal cause), but by the power of the one who moves it (efficient cause). Consequently, the virtue or vice of the minister as an instrument does not amplify or impede the efficacy of the sacrament since the effect derives from the efficient cause, i.e. Christ Himself.

In Article 8, Thomas focuses on the intent of the minister. He asks whether the minister of the sacrament must intend to confer a sacrament in question. The answer is affirmative because for Thomas an action without intention is merely an “act of a human” and not a “human act” (Summa theologiae I, a. 6). Unintentional acts occur by chance and sacraments are not conferred by chance – otherwise if a priest ever mistakenly uttered the words “this is my body” with bread in his hand, he would transubstantiate the bread!

In Article 9, Thomas asks whether the minister needs faith. The answer is negative for the same reason given in a. 5 above. Virtue and vice (faith is a virtue) do not amplify or impede the instrumental nature of the sacrament since they are accidental to it.

The most complex question comes last in Article 10: Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister? By good intention, Thomas means that the minister intends to confer a sacrament for a right end. Even here, Thomas holds that evil intent on the part of the minister does not inhibit the effect of the sacrament. For example, if a priest should baptize a woman in order to fondle her, or if he should confect the Holy Eucharist so as to employ the consecrated elements in magical rites. Of course, if the priest’s wicked intention is simply to not confect the sacrament, then it obstructs the effect since intention to confer the sacrament is necessary. However, the same is not true for wicked acts posterior to the conferral of sacraments since the former (intention to baptize a person) does not depend on the latter (fondling the woman). All of these questions look back to the first article - that God alone works the interior sacramental effect.

Circumcision as a Symbol of the Resurrection (Saint Augustine)

The octave or "eighth day" of Easter is Divine Mercy Sunday. It is sometimes called "Low Sunday" since is the lower of the two Sundays in the Easter octave. As the eighth day of Easter, it carries a special meaning.

Saint Augustine wrote that this eighth day of Easter is a sign of new birth and faith as it was prefigured by Old Covenant Circumcision:

This is the octave day of your new birth. Today is fulfilled in you the sign of faith that was prefigured in the Old Testament by the circumcision of the flesh on the eighth day after birth. When the Lord rose from the dead, he put off the mortality of the flesh; his risen body was still the same body, but it was no longer subject to death. By his resurrection he consecrated Sunday, or the Lord’s day. Though the third after his passion, this day is the eighth after the Sabbath, and thus also the first day of the week.[1]

There is a lot to unpack in this Augustine quote. The connection between circumcision and resurrection is an interesting one. Augustine interprets both as a removal of the mortality of the flesh. Note that it is not a removal of the body. Rather, it is a transformation of the body - a glorification.

Does anyone know of any other related texts?

[1] Office of Readings for Divine Mercy Sunday.

Catholic Unity and Protestant Unity

Bryan Cross has a good post on "Settling for Division as thought it were Unity".

Excerpt:

One of the most common conversations I have with Protestants has to do with unity. I am asked why Protestants are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and why the Catholic Church does not allow Catholics to receive communion in Protestant services. I explain that the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and so because from the point of view of the Catholic Church, Protestants are in schism from the Church, therefore for Protestants to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, or for Catholics to receive communion with Protestants, would be a lie. In response, the Protestant usually says that Protestants do not see themselves as being in schism or divided from Catholics, but that we are all united in Christ; we all love Jesus and share belief in the essentials of Christianity.

Read the whole post.

St. John Damascene on the Most Proper Name of God: He-Who-Is

A few days ago, we noted that St. Thomas Aquinas identified the name most proper (i.e. unique) name of God as Qui Est or "He-Who-Is" (see post: ‘Qui Est’ as God’s Most Proper Name in Thomas Aquinas). Turns out that St. Thomas Aquinas is merely repeating the insight of St. John Damascene:

It appears then that the most proper of all the names given to God is "He that is," as He Himself said in answer to Moses on the mountain, Say to the sons of Israel, "He that is" has sent me (Exodus 3:14). For He keeps all being in His own embrace , like a sea of essence infinite and unseen. Or as the holy Dionysius says, "He that is good ." For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second.

St. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith 1, 9

St. Gregory Nazianzus against the Pagan Philosophers

I was reading through some of the orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus and came across a great passage where St. Gregory exhorts Christians to "take every thought captive" (2 Cor 10:5) by declaring war on the vain doctrines of the Pagan Philosophers. It's a great example of how early Christians were not afraid to interact with philosophy.

To these turn this disease of thine with some advantage. Attack the silence of Pythagoras, and the Orphic beans, and the novel brag about "The Master said."

Attack the ideas of Plato, and the transmigrations and courses of our souls, and the reminiscences, and the unlovely loves of the soul for lovely bodies.

Attack the atheism of Epicurus, and his atoms, and his unphilosophic pleasure; or Aristotle's petty Providence, and his artificial system, and his discourses about the mortality of the soul, and the humanitarianism of his doctrine.

Attack the superciliousness of the Stoa, or the greed and vulgarity of the Cynic.

Attack the "Void and Full" (what nonsense), and all the details about the gods and the sacrifices and the idols and demons, whether beneficent or malignant, and all the tricks that people play with divination, evoking of gods, or of souls, and the power of the stars. And if these things seem to you unworthy of discussion as petty and already often confuted, and you will keep to your line, and seek the satisfaction of your ambition in it; then here too I will provide you with broad paths.

Philosophize about the world or worlds; about matter; about soul; about natures endowed with reason, good or bad; about resurrection, about judgment, about reward, or the Sufferings of Christ. For in these subjects to hit the mark is not useless, and to miss it is not dangerous. But with God we shall have converse, in this life only in a small degree; but a little later, it may be, more perfectly, in the Same, our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Saint Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 27, 9

Here we see that Christian philosophy is both polemical and apologetical.

‘Qui Est’ as God’s Most Proper Name (Thomas Aquinas)

In Summa theologiae Ia, q. 13, a. 11, Saint Thomas identifies the most proper name of God. Thomas invokes God’s revelation to Moses as: “I am who I am”. According to Thomas, He-Who-Is (qui est) is the most proper name for God for three reasons. The first is that the phrase does not signify form, but existence itself (ipsum esse). The esse (existence) of God is the essentia (essence) of God. Since this identity holds only for God (and not for any created thing), then “qui est” is the most fitting name for God. Whereas most things are denominated by their form, God is not. God is named simply as esse ipsum.

This first argument relates to the first objection which objects that “qui est” cannot be the most proper name for God because it is not an incommunicable name. For example, a fish might also be it-who-is or “qui est”. However, in the case of a fish, “qui est” does not denote something that exists in itself, as it does with God. The divine essence is in fact incommunicable and so this name that denotes the essence is the most proper name for God.

The second argument is that “qui est” is the most universal name for God, because the less determinate a name is, the more universal the name is. Other names determine a mode of being, but “qui est” does not determine a mode of being. Thomas rather beautifully describes the name as denominating the “infinite ocean of substance” (pelagus substantiae infinitum). The third argument is that “qui est” denotes only a present existence without past or future. Where esse and essentia are the same, there can be neither past nor future.

Thomas’ argument is sound, but I think that he should have addressed another hypothetical objection: We are baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Our beatitude is found in the Trinitarian framework of redemption, and the New Testament doesn’t seem to invoke God readily as “qui est”.

Christ's Beatific Vision from the moment of His Incarnation

"Petavius (De Incarnatione, I, xii, c. 4) maintains that there is no controversy among theologians, or even among Christians, as to the fact that the soul of Jesus Christ was endowed with the beatific vision from the beginning of its existence."[1]

Catholic teaching holds that Christ our Lord saw the Divine Essence of God in His created soul from the first instant of His Incarnation. As an act of condensation, Christ prevented the glory of this vision from overflowing to His sacred body. He only allowed this to happen once before His resurrection - at the transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Christ also prevented the glory of His beatific vision from overflowing to the lower faculties of His soul so that He might experience sorrow and pain, as in the His dolorous Passion (Summa theologiae III, q. 13, a. 5).

The Catholic belief that the blessed shall enjoy the Beatific Vision follows from the fact that Christ enjoys the Beatific Vision in His soul. By being perfectly conformed to Christ, the blessing of what Saint Paul calls being "in Him", we share in His inheritance.

I'd be interested in whether the Byzantine tradition also holds that Christ saw the Divine Essence of God in His created soul.

[1] Maas, A. (1910). Knowledge of Jesus Christ. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 13, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm

Essence, Deiformitas, Ousia, Energeia: Eastern and Western perspectives on what it means to see God

There have been several long threads on matters surrounding what it means to see God in previous posts. For those new to the debate, please feel free to browse through the following five posts and their comments:

Benedict XII on Seeing the Divine Essence of God in the Beatific Vision

Adrian Fortescue on Gregory Palamas and Hesychasm

The beatific vision and the light of glory

How should we properly understand Adam and Eve before the Fall?

Is happiness in this life or in the vision of the God’s essence?

We are essentially discussing what is the goal or purpose of human life for which God created us? This question requires three other questions:

First, will the blessed see God? The answer is that we do see God, as Scripture says "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

Secondly, does "seeing God" imply comprehending God or fully understanding Him? The answer to this question is unanimous in the Scriptures and in the Church Fathers - No, we cannot fully comprehend or understand God's essence because He is infinite and we are created and limited.

O most mighty, great, and powerful, the Lord of hosts is Thy Name. Great in counsel, and incomprehensible in thought" (Jeremiah 32:18-19).

Here we come to a difficulty. What does it mean to "see" but not "understand"? It has been noted here that there is a tendency in the East to interpret "seeing" as "understanding". Consequently, Eastern theologians say that we neither understand nor see the Divine Essence. My suspicion is that this is because the Greek word "eido" can mean both "I see" and also "I know" or "I understand".

We make the same connection between seeing and knowing in English. When I say, "Do you see what I'm saying?" I mean, "Do you understand what I'm saying?" When someone says, "Aha, now I see it," what he means is that he finally understands something.

Third, we must now ask, "How can we use the biblical language of 'seeing God' if God is 'incomprehensible'"? By the fourteenth century, the East and the West had codified two rather ingenious ways of handling this problem.

In the West, vision and comprehension were strictly distinguished. Grace perfects the nature of the blessed human. The blessed human becomes deiform (deiformis, Summa theologiae I, q. 12, a. 5) and capable of seeing God's essence (essentia), though he does not fully comprehend God's essence (essentia). The human's vision of God is greater or lesser depending on his level of charity. For example, the Blessed Virgin Mary has a greater vision of God's essence than that of the deathbed convert.

In the East, it had been firmly established that God's essence (oὐσία) is incomprehensible, unknowable, and invisible. This would seem to contradict the biblical promise that the blessed "shall see God". Yet this does not trouble the Eastern theologians since God's essence (oὐσία) can be distinguished from his activities or energies (ἐνέργεια). Since God's ἐνέργεια are truly God Himself, the blessed can see God's ἐνέργεια. Problem solved: The faithful see God's ἐνέργεια but not His oὐσία.

What have we learned so far?

On one hand, the Catholic tradition is naturally perplexed by the Orthodox distinction between oὐσία and ἐνέργεια for two reasons:

1. It seems to undermine divine simplicity - that is, it seems to imply that God is undivided. If God is both His essence and His energies and then how is He undivided?

2. In Latin, essence is understood as "what it is to be" something. If the energies of God are not the essence of God, then it appears that the energies are not "what it is to be God". Consequently, the energies are not really divine.

On the other hand, the Orthodox tradition is naturally perplexed by the Catholic position for three reasons:

1. The distinction between "seeing" and "understanding" seems artificial, so that the human apprehension of God's essence in Catholicism seems to be overly intellectual.

2. The Catholic insistence on divine simplicity seems to lead to an abstraction of the three Divine Persons of the Trinity, i.e. it leads to modalism.

3. The absence (or denial) of divine energies in Catholic theology entails a reliance on "created grace" and "created light" which the Eastern theologian finds superfluous.

I don't mean to make judgments in this post or any conclusions. Perhaps those who have been following this discussion so far would comment as to whether I have rightly or wrongly laid out the issues and problems for this debate.

Thanks and God's blessings. Christ is risen! Alleluia!

The difference between Resurrection and Resuscitation

Happy Easter! Christ is risen, Alleluia!

The Catholic Faith holds that Christ did not merely come back to life after being dead. If this were the case, Christ's body would be subject to yet another death. Rather, the resurrection of Christ transformed his body rendering it perfect and immortal. The beatific vision enjoyed by Christ soul redounded to his body so that he manifested the bodily gifts of impassibility, subtlety, agility, and clarity.

Thomas Aquinas explains how Christ's resurrection differed from other biblical miracles in which the dead were raised to life:

Resurrection is a restoring from death to life. Now a man is snatched from death in two ways: first of all, from actual death, so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually dead: in another way, so that he is not only rescued from death, but from the necessity, nay more, from the possibility of dying again. Such is a true and perfect resurrection, because so long as a man lives, subject to the necessity of dying, death has dominion over him in a measure, according to Romans 8:10: "The body indeed is dead because of sin." Furthermore, what has the possibility of existence, is said to exist in some respect, that is, in potentiality. Thus it is evident that the resurrection, whereby one is rescued from actual death only, is but an imperfect one.

Consequently, speaking of perfect resurrection, Christ is the first of them who rise, because by rising He was the first to attain life utterly immortal, according to Romans 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more." But by an imperfect resurrection, some others have risen before Christ, so as to be a kind of figure of His Resurrection.

And thus the answer to the first objection is clear: because both those raised from the dead in the Old Testament, and those raised by Christ, so returned to life that they had to die again.

Summa theologiae III, q. 53, a. 3

Three Hour Darkness of the Crucifixion - Was it an eclipse?

"Crucifixion in the darkness of the Eclipse"
from the Trés Riches Heures du Duc de Berry.
Before 1416. Musée Condé, Chantilly, France.
The three synoptic Gospels record a three hour period of darkness from 12 pm till 3 pm at which time Christ our Lord died on the cross.

Now from the sixth hour (12 pm) there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour (3 pm). And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent...Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. (Mt 27:45-54).

And when the sixth hour was come (12 pm), there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour (3 pm) (Mark 15:33).

And it was about the sixth hour (12 pm), and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour (3 pm). And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. (Luke 23:44-45).

This miraculous darkness appears to fulfill a prophecy of Amos: "On that day, says the Lord God, I will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight" (Amos 8:9). Also, the prophet Joel foretells the miracle: "And I will work wonders in the heavens and on the earth...the sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, at the coming of the day of the Lord, the great and terrible day" (Joel 3:3-4).

Eusebius of Caesarea and other early Christians attributed the phenomenon to a total solar eclipse. There is one problem with this theory. The Jewish Passover always occurs with a full moon (Lev. 23:5), and it is astronomically impossible to have a solar eclipse at such a time. Even if it were a solar eclipse, solar eclipses don't last for more than half an hour, and the crucifixion darkness lasted for three hours. Consequently, the three hours of darkness must have been something other than a natural solar eclipse.

The full moon associated with the Passover is ideal for a lunar eclipse, but this would not have blocked out the sun or brought about complete darkness. It would however fulfill Joel's prediction of "the moon turning to blood" since lunar eclipses are often red.

So what caused the three hours of darkness? I've read several articles and there aren't any good answers. It should probably be reckoned as a miracle local to Jerusalem.

As an aside, I thought the artistic representation above was a pretty nifty depiction of the three hours darkness. I don't often think of Christ hanging on the cross in complete darkness.

Good Friday typology from St. Melito of Sardis

This is a beautiful account by St. Melito of Sardis regarding how Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets through His passion. Note especially how he identifies the persecutions of Christ with the persecutions of David - an often neglected topic in New Testament studies.

It is he who endured every kind of suffering in all those who foreshadowed him. In Abel he was slain, in Isaac bound, in Jacob exiled, in Joseph sold, in Moses exposed to die. He was sacrificed in the Passover lamb, persecuted in David, dishonoured in the prophets.

It is he who was made man of the Virgin, he who was hung on the tree; it is he who was buried in the earth, raised from the dead, and taken up to the heights of heaven. He is the mute lamb, the slain lamb, the lamb born of Mary, the fair ewe. He was seized from the flock, dragged off to be slaughtered, sacrificed in the evening, and buried at night. On the tree no bone of his was broken; in the earth his body knew no decay He is the One who rose from the dead, and who raised man from the depths of the tomb.

St. Melito of Sardis, Easter Homily

Christ's blood over the doors of our mouths (from St. Chrysostom)

From Saint John Chrysostom on how the blood of Christ sanctifies our lips, just as the blood of the passover lamb sanctified and protected the homes of the Hebrews:

If we wish to understand the power of Christ’s blood, we should go back to the ancient account of its prefiguration in Egypt.

“Sacrifice a lamb without blemish,” commanded Moses, “and sprinkle its blood on your doors.”

If we were to ask him what he meant, and how the blood of an irrational beast could possibly save men endowed with reason, his answer would be that the saving power lies not in the blood itself, but in the fact that it is a sign of the Lord’s blood. In those days, when the destroying angel saw the blood on the doors he did not dare to enter, so how much less will the devil approach now when he sees, not that figurative blood on the doors, but the true blood on the lips of believers, the doors of the temple of Christ.

-Saint John Chrysostom, Catecheses

Interested in learning more? Listen to Jewish Passover, Catholic Mass Podcast (Give it a few seconds depending on the breadth of your internet connection.)

Does the word 'Easter' have pagan origins? (from Venerable Bede)

Basing their hypothesis on a passage of the Venerable St. Bede, some claim that the Anglo-Christians adopted the name Easter from the name of a pagan goddess: Eastre in Anglo-Saxon; Eostre in Northumbrian. The name comes from the proto Indo-European root "aus" meaning "to shine" and "the east" (since the sun shines from the east). She is the infamous Ashtorah of the Old Testament, the one for whom poles were erected as signs of fertility. The kingdom of Austria comes from the same root since it is the kingdom of the east or the "austra".

The Catholic Church does not formally call the feast "Easter" but rather "Pascha" - a word derived from the Aramaic word for "Passover". Only English and Germanic lands use the term related to "Easter".

Some apologist claim that Easter comes from the Anglo-Saxon word "oster", meaning "to rise". This would be a convenient etymology since it avoids the pagan connotations.

I favor a third explanation. The Anglo-Saxons called the Spring equinox "Eostre". It was a astronomical description. Since pagans ceremoniously celebrate astronomical events as holy days, the natural phenomenon (the spring equinox as a "shining") and the religious feast (the goddess of fertility and light, Ashtorah) were indistinguishable.

Anglo-Saxons didn't borrow the name of a goddess for the feast of Christ's resurrection. They simply denoted it by the name of the natural phenomenon (the spring equinox), since the festival is calculated by using marking the equinox. It just happens that the name of the goddess and the name of the feast are etymologically connected. This would confirm the exact context of Bede's words:

"Eostur-month, which is now interpreted as the paschal month, was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, and has given its name to the festival."

Benedict XII on Seeing the Divine Essence of God in the Beatific Vision

There has been some discussion over what is the magisterial teaching of the final end of the human person. The Catholic Faith holds that the beatific vision or "seeing the Divine Essence" is the final end for which we were created.

Pope Benedict XII in 1336 Benedictus Deus set the record straight on this matter once and for all:

Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence. Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.

If you follow Palamas this paragraph is difficult because it states that we see the "divine essence" - a proposition denied by Gregory Palamas.

Seven reasons why Christ died on a wooden cross (from the Church Fathers)

First, Augustine observed that crucifixion is not only painful, it is painful and public. The public nature of Christ's death inspires me to face death heroically.

Second, Augustine observed that since Adam brought death through a tree, it was fitting that the New Adam destroy death by hanging on a tree.

Third, John Chrysostom and Theophylact observed that by being lifted up on the cross, Christ sanctified the air.

Fourth, Athanasius observed that by being lifted up on the cross, Christ shows that He has prepared the ascent into Heaven.

Fifth, Gregory of Nyssa observed that the shape of the cross was fitting for because it extends in the four directions and is therefore universal. Also, Athanasius wrote that the one outstretched arm sanctified the those in the past and the other arm as outstretched to the future. So we have both a spacial and temporal universality signified in the crucifixion.

Sixth, Augustine says the parts of the cross signifies the following:

• Breadth – This pertains to Christ’s hands and thus "good works"
• Length – This pertains to the upright nature of a tree and thus "longanimity".
• Height – This pertains to the top and Christ’s head and “the good hope” of the faithful.
• Base – The base is the root and it is hidden, thus it signifies “grace”.

Seventh, Augustine observes that wood is salutary in the Old Covenant. Wood saved Noah in the Flood. Moses divided the sea with a wooden rod; purified water with wood, and brought forth water with his wooden rod. Also, the Ark of the Covenant was made of wood.

I adapted these seven reasons for the wooden cross of Christ from Saint Thomas Aquinas III q. 46, a. 4.

What Bible translation do you use?

What Bible translation do you use?

I use the RSV-CE (Ignatius Bible) and the Oxford RSV with Apocrypha.

Sometimes I'll also consult the King James or Douay-Rheims.

Oh, and the Latin Vulgate - it's a translation after all...

Why did Jesus Christ ride a donkey on Palm Sunday?

Prior to entering Jerusalem, Christ instructed his disciples to acquire for him a donkey (in Matthew's Gospel a donkey and a colt).

Why did Jesus ride an ass? There are four reasons.

First, the prophet Zechariah wrote: "Behold, your king comes to you, triumphant and victorious. He is humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass." (Zech 9:9)

The messianic sign was at once perceived by the crowds who hailed Jesus as their king shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" (Mt 21:9) Catholics still shout this Davidic salutation every time the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated. It is an acknowledgment that Jesus is the true Davidic Messiah and king.

Secondly, an ass is integral to the story of Abraham's offering of Isaac, a type of the oblation of the First Born Son as a sign of obedience.

The third reason is that King Solomon Solomon rode to his messianic coronation on a mule that had once belonged to David (1 Kgs 1:33-44).

Fourth, King Jehu rode into Samaria (a kind of false Jerusalem) over the garments of his adherents in order to destroy the temple of the false god Baal (2 Kgs 9:11-10:28). One of the first things Christ does upon entering Jerusalem is bring judgment to the Temple which has become a den of thieves. The typology in this account is rather startling as 2 Kgs chapter nine contains strong messianic language. Like King Jehu, Christ the King comes as a judge over ceremonial regulations.

Let our souls take the place of palm branches, says Andrew of Crete

Happy Palm Sunday!

Saint Andrew of Crete exhorts us to lay down our very selves, not merely "soulless branches" before the triumphant Christ as we enter into Holy Week

From this morning's Office of Readings:

So let us spread before his feet, not garments or soulless olive branches, which delight the eye for a few hours and then wither, but ourselves, clothed in his grace, or rather, clothed completely in him. We who have been baptised into Christ must ourselves be the garments that we spread before him. Now that the crimson stains of our sins have been washed away in the saving waters of baptism and we have become white as pure wool, let us present the conqueror of death, not with mere branches of palms but with the real rewards of his victory. Let our souls take the place of the welcoming branches as we join today in the children’s holy song: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed is the king of Israel.

From a sermon by Saint Andrew of Crete, bishop

Twittering

You have noticed the new Twitter entries in the sidebar. If not, follow me on twitter at TaylorRMarshall. I'll follow you as I like to get to know readers of "Canterbury Tales".

I post new blog posts from the three blogs I write for: Canterbury Tales, Christian and American, and Called to Communion.

Also, Msgr. Bill Stetson asked me to make everyone aware of his daily twitter "homilettes". You can follow them on Twitter at "frbills".

Is justification instantanious?

New post at the Called to Communion blog: Is justification instantanious?

Being entertained by atheists

An interesting article at Christianity Today by Mark Galli: "Where to Find the Real Atheists".

Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge

The Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge has elected the pro-abortion Dr. Katherine Ragsdale as their new dean. Midwest Conservative Journal had this quote from her:

And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God's good gift of sexuality without compromising one's education, life's work, or ability to put to use God's gifts and call is simply blessing. These are the two things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing - who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes -- in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You're engaged in holy work.

Abortion a blessing?! Reason #5,941 (or rather new reason #1) to leave the Episcopal Church now!!!

Hat tip to Walker Dollahon and Amy Welborn.

Adrian Fortescue on Gregory Palamas and Hesychasm

From Adrian Fortescue's article "Hesychasm" in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The other element of fourteenth-century Hesychasm [spearheaded by Gregory Palamas 1296 - 1359] was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute -- energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system, had also been prepared by Eastern Fathers and theologians. Remotely it may be traced back to neo-Platonism. The Platonists had conceived God as something in every way unapproachable, remote from all categories of being known to us. God Himself could not even touch or act upon matter. Divine action was carried into effect by demiurges, intermediaries between God and creatures. The Greek Fathers (after Clement of Alexandria mostly Platonists) had a tendency in the same way to distinguish between God's unapproachable essence and His action, energy, operation on creatures [This is a real philosophical problem]. God Himself transcends all things. He is absolute, unknown, infinite above everything; no eye can see, no mind conceive Him. What we can know and attain is His action [The famous dictum - You can't see the wind, but you can see the effects of wind].

The foundation of a real distinction between the unapproachable essence (ousia) and the approachable energy (energeia) is thus laid. For this system, too, the quotations made by Hesychasts from Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, especially from Pseudo-Dionysius, supply enough examples. The Hesychasts were fond of illustrating their distinction between God's essence and energy (light) by comparing them to the sun, whose rays are really distinct from its globe, although there is only one sun. It is to be noted that the philosophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen [Amen to that!]. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in an actus purus. This distinct energy [as described by the Palamites], uncreated light that is not the essence of God, would be a kind of demiurge, something neither God nor creature; or there would be two Gods, an essence and an energy. From one point of view, then, the Hesychast controversy may be conceived as an issue between Greek Platonist philosophy and Latin rationalist Aristoteleanism. It is significant that the Hesychasts were all vehemently Byzantine and bitter opponents of the West, while their opponents were all Latinizers, eager for reunion.

Here are a few questions:

1. Why has Palamas become fashionable in the West?
2. Why do people feel the need to reconcile Thomas Aquinas to Gregory Palamas?
3. If we aren't trying to justifying Hesychast sprituality, why buy into the Palamite distinctions?
4. Why not look to Thomas' beautiful and illuminating account of the Transfiguration instead of Palamas' appeal to the "divine energies".