Did Paul teach Sacramental Confession and Mortal Sin?

Click here for the podcast and more details.
27 minutes.

Join us as we tread through the passages in Paul that everyone loves to avoid.

Evangelicals and other kinds of Protestants in their commendable zeal often distill the writings of Saint Paul to such an extent that they miss the complexities and nuances of the Apostle. This is especially the case when it comes to Saint Paul’s doctrine of salvation. As a result, the Evangelical doctrine of “once saved always saved” misses the nuances of Paul’s doctrine. Paul does in fact teach that “nothing can separate us from the love of God” (Rom 8:39). However, he also clearly states that certain Christians have “fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). What does the Apostle mean when he says that certain Christians have fallen from grace?

Subscribe to the “PaulCast” via iTunes | Subscribe to RSS feed

Download the mp3 file directly by right clicking

Why does the Pope give the pallium to certain Archbishops?

The word pallium is Latin for a traditional Roman cloak made from wool. It is a garment that only the Pope can confer and signifies the jurisdiction of a metropolitan archbishop and also the special communion that the recipient shares with the Pope and the Church of Rome. The earliest reference to the pallium derives from the reign of Pope Marcus (died 336) who conferred the pallium on the bishop of Ostia.

The pallium is still made from lamb's wool. In fact, the lambs come from Trappist monks. The wool is then given to the nuns of the convent of Saint Agnes who weave the wool into the pallia. The connection to sheep also recalls "Christ the Good Shepherd" who carries the wandering sheep upon His shoulders. Similarly, the pallium is a reminder to the archbishop that he too should be a good shepherd ever mindful of the straying sheep.

The pallium has an organic connection with the Eastern Orthodox omophorion and it looks similar to the Pope's pallium. (See pic below.)

Pope Benedict XVI has returned to an ancient form of the pallium, which closely resembles the Orthodox pattern. The papal pallium is wider than the standard pallium. However, he has been seen recently wearing a version closer to the standard design. If any knows the significance of this, please share.

Does infallibility entail divine inspiration? No

Lane Keister over at Green Baggins has written:

First of all, the difference between the words “inspired” and “infallible” is not relevant to my argument in the slightest. If they claim infallibility, then they are setting up the words of men as on a par with Scripture, regardless of whether or not they regard the human words as inspired or not.

Infallibility is not "on par" with divinely inspired Scripture. From a Protestant point-of-view, I can see Lane’s point, but generally speaking infallibility does not entail inspiration. To use an example, God could have granted the gift of infallibility to the Apostle Paul as he preached one Sunday morning in the city of Corinth. This does not require that the words of Paul’s sermon that day were therefore the inspired Word of God.

The gift of infallibility does not entail that the message spoken is divine revelation (the Word of God). God could technically give a mathematician the gift of infallibility with regard to his doctoral dissertation about a geometric proof. There would be no error in the dissertation, yet the dissertation would not be the “Word of God” simply because the brilliant treatise was infallible and contained no error.

According to Lane's logic, the infallible geometric proof would be "on par" with Scripture since it is infallible. This conclusion is incorrect. Hence, infallibility does not entail inspiration.

Would Saint Paul Twitter?

Today (June 29, 2009) is the last day of the Jubilee year of Saint Paul. To commemorate the year, I wrote a book entitled The Catholic Perspective on Paul and put up a website also called The Catholic Perspective on Paul (pauliscatholic.com) with a series of podcasts. (The manuscript is still under editorial review at Ignatius Press - Saint Paul pray for us.)

I'd like to close up the year with a question: Would Saint Paul twitter? For those not yet acquainted with Twitter, it's a social networking site similar to Facebook but with just a simple status update. What's so great about it? Well it is open source so a number of applications can be synced with it. By updating Twitter one can send links, information, updates to a number of places instantaneously. For example, when I send a tweet, it immediately posts at Twitter, Facebook, and my blog.

So that leads us back to the question: Would Saint Paul use Twitter?

I'm not sure that Peter would use twitter. Maybe John. However, I am convinced that Saint Paul would use Twitter for four reasons:

First Reason: Paul quotes pagan authors and is willing to engage his audience at their level whether they be Epicurean or Stoics or whatever. Full story in Acts 17. If Paul appropriated cultural language, he would also appropriate the means of cultural engagement through technology.

Second Reason: Paul was a mass communicator, always writing and sending letters. Over half the New Testament was written Paul and much of it is occasional correspondence about contemporary issues facing the Church.

Third Reason: Paul wrote several things that are similar to the short "bursts" that we find on twitter. The book of Philemon is one example. 2 Timothy is another.

Fourth Reason: Paul felt the need to be heard not only by church leaders but also by the laity. This is why he addresses his letters to the whole church and not just to leaders. He asks for his letters to be read aloud in church gatherings. He wants everyone to hear what he says: bishops, presbyters, deacons, laity.

Does anyone disagree with my conclusion that Saint Paul would use twitter? If so, leave some feedback and I'll counter.

If you're on twitter, please tweet this post and get the conversation going on Twitter. It could become interesting.

If you're interested in finding fellow Catholics on Twitter, visit Matthew Warner's brilliant site Tweet Catholic for a list of popular Catholic tweeple (people who tweet), and while you're there sign up for flockNote - a Catholic networking community.

If Protestant documents are fallible...

Jason Stellman, at his provocative blog De Regnis Duobus (Concerning the Two Kingdoms) recently composed a fascinating reflection on Protestant confessionalism entitled "The Complexiities of Confessionalism".

Stellman writes:

The options, as I see them, are as follows: confessional denominations like the PCA [Presbyterian Church in America] ]can either (1) broaden our theological parameters to make room for someone who can make a case that his theology is biblically plausible, or (2) we can insist that our ministers at times must avoid speaking the Bible's language for fear of muddying the systematic waters.

And I must say, I'm not completely thrilled about either of those choices (but then, who ever said being confessional would be easy?).

I find this fascinating. Would it be accurate say that there is a built-in tension in magisterial Protestant traditions since the magisterial documents (WCF, Belgic Conf, 39 Articles, etc.) are considered fallible interpretations of the infallible Scriptures?

It's almost like multiplying a positive number times a negative number - you always get a negative product. No matter how big your positive number, the negative number always yields a negative product. If you have a fallible document interpreting an infallible document, the produce will always be fallible. Hence, the built-in tension of magisterial Protestantism.

With Catholicism you get an infallible interpretation of an infallible document. It's like multiplying a positive number by positive number. The answer is always positive. As Hannibal from the A-Team says: "I love it when a plan comes together!"

Flannery O'Conner once remarked at a dinner party concerning the Holy Eucharist:

"Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it."

Perhaps we might say the same about any magisterial tradition without the claim of infallibility:

"Well, if a Protestant confessional document relies on a fallible magisterium, to hell with it."

Calvinism vs. Catholicism: A Response to the Lane Keister at Green Baggins blog

Lane Keister at Green Baggins recently wrote an "An Examination of Roman Catholicism".

His "format is first the Roman Catholic teaching, then the Reformed teaching, then the Scriptural teaching."

As a former Calvinist and graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), I read Lane's post with great interest. I hope he doesn't mind if I respond to his points.

First he looks at the different doctrines of Scripture and authority held by Catholics on one hand and Calvinist/Reformed Christians on the other. Lane Keister writes:

I. On Scripture: while Scripture is inspired by God, tradition and the pope have equal authority. See 891 of the Catechism.

Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and practice. See BC, article 7, WCF 1.

2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 John 5:9

Here Lane fuses the terms "infallible" and "inspired". The Catholic Church does not teach the Pope or Councils are "inspired" but we do believe that the Popes and Councils are "infallible" when declaring matters touching faith and morals. If Lane is going to challenge the Church, he needs to present things a bit more clearly.

Moreover, the three verses that he cites for the "Reformed position" say nothing of "Scripture alone". They just don't. This is because the Bible itself never teaches that the Bible alone is the sole authority--how could it, the canon was not proclaimed until A.D. 382 (See "The Catholic Challenge to Protestants: Is Esther is the Canon of Scripture").

Next Lane focuses on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord:

II. On Mary: She is Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix (Cat. 969). She continues to intercede for us in heaven.

Jesus is our one and only High Priest. We need no other Mediatrix save Christ. (BC 21, HC 18, WCF 8, LC 36)

Phil. 3:1-9, 1 Cor. 2:1-2, Heb. 7:26-8:6, 9:11-14, 9:25-10:14

Mary is a pretty difficult topic for non-Catholics to understand. I may be wrong, but Lane seems to misunderstand the term "mediatrix". I can't blame him. This doctrine centers on whether any saint in Heaven can or will pray for anyone on earth. If the answer is affirmative, then all the saints are advocates since they pray for us in and through Christ. They gain their duty of prayer from their baptismal dignity and their general priestly status as Christians, which does not cease at death. It also entails that the saints in heaven are "helpers". They are advocates and helpers in the relative sense and not absolutely. Only God is an "advocate" and "helper" in the absolute sense.

The same applies to the other two terms listed: benefactors and mediators. The Catholic Church does not teach that Peter, Paul, or Mary can sidestep Christ and intercede directly to the Father. All the prayers of the saints are made in and through Christ. Mary in particular is the holiest of all the saints and is also the natural mother of the Messiah. Thus, (in a relative sense) she is an advocate, helper, benefactress, and mediatrix. Again, she is not a mediatrix absolutely (like Christ), she is one relatively.

It is essential to Catholicism that Christ is the sole mediator between God and men. Mary is not a parallel route. Her mediation is strictly "sub-mediation". She can't go to the Father without going through Christ. As she says in John's Gospel: "Do whatever He tells you to do."

Next Lane focuses on the topic of justification:

III. On justification: happens at baptism (1987, 1992), involves sanctification (1989, 1995), can be lost (1446).

Justification happens at time-point of faith, does not involve sanctification, and cannot be lost (BC 22-24, HC 60, WCF 11, LC 70-73)

1 Peter 3:21, Romans 3-4, 8

His depiction of Catholic justification isn't quite correct - justification does not just "happen at baptism". Justification is in fact repeatable. For example, Abraham was justified in Gen 12, Gen 15, and Gen 17. The same sort of thing happens for Catholic Christians. It doesn't just happen at baptism - though it usually begins there as Saint Paul teaches:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11).

Note how Saint Paul refutes two positions stated by Lane. Firstly, for Saint Paul justification is associated with "washing", i.e. baptism. Second, justification is connected to sanctification. Saint Paul even places "sanctification" before "justification". And can justification be lost? Yes. Saint Augustine teaches this because Saint Paul teaches that it is possible to have "fallen away from grace" (Gal 5:4).

See: Is Paul Catholic - The Catholic Perspective on Paul (articles and podcasts)

See also: Episode #4: "Saint Paul on Justification by Faith or by Faith alone"

Lane's fourth point addresses baptismal regeneration:

IV. Baptism regenerates (1213). Baptism is a sign and seal of salvation, not salvation itself (BC 34, WCF 28). We are saved by the thing signified (Christ’s blood), not by the sign itself. 1 Peter 3:21, Colossians 2:11-13

Here I would simply ask Lane: Can it be that Christ's divinely instituted sacrament be a seal of salvation and yet not transform its recipient? Would Christ administer "sacraments in vain". It smacks of Pelagianism of the worst sort. This is why St. Augustine was an ardent defender of baptismal regeneration. It is at the root of a robust doctrine of grace. The New Testament only mentions being "born again" or "regeneration" twice in reference to individuals. The first is found in John 3:5 which connects regeneration to the waters of baptism. The other is Titus 3:5 where Saint Paul speaks of "the washing of regeneration" - yet another baptismal passage. Thus, if we were to go by "Scripture alone" the balance falls toward a baptismal interpretation of the term "regeneration". Moreover, every single Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration.

See: Episode 5: "Paul on Baptism and being Born Again"

Next, Lane turns to the subject of the Eucharist:

V. The Lord’s Supper: transubstantiation (1373-1378), which results in the worship of the bread and wine.

The Lord is present spiritually only (HC 78-80, WCF 29)

Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22ff., Luke 22:19ff, 1 Cor. 11:24ff.

Here is where I think Lane has the weakest argument. I mean, seriously you're citing the words of institution to prove that Christ is "present spiritually only"?

If Christ says, "my body is true food and blood is true drink" (Jn 6:55), then you better believe Him. If on the night before He died for you, He institute a sacrament and said that it is His body and blood, then you better believe Him. If all of the Church Fathers devotedly beheld the mystery and took care not only of the Eucharist, but also the vessels that touched the Eucharist, then think again. We are walking on sacred ground.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the Reformation was essentially a controversy about the Eucharist. If you can undermine the Catholic Church's doctrine of the Eucharist, you successfully undermine her doctrine of salvation, priesthood, celibacy, saints, sacraments, etc. It becomes a different religion.

Lastly, Lane turns to that ecumenical pinata of Purgatory:

VI. Purgatory: further purification might be needed after death (1030-1032)

Only two places for souls separated from the body (WCF 32.1)

Luke 23:39-43, 1 Cor. 3:10-15

Saint Paul teaches Purgatory and for this reason the Catholic Church believes in Purgatory. In 1 Cor 3:15, Paul describes how some people after death can and will be saved "as through fire". So ask yourself this: After I die, is it possible for me to be saved and yet also pass through fire? If I do pass through fire, what is it? Hell?

If it is not the fires of Hell, it must be something else. Saint Paul's Greek word for "fire" in 1 Cor 3:15 is puros. As you can probably see, this is the basis for our word for Purgatory. Catholics would agree with Protestants that Heaven and Hell are the only two final destinations. Purgatory isn't a destination - it's a preparation for Heaven.

Another classic text for Purgatory is Mt 5:26, but I'll save that for another day.

I hope that Lane and other Protestants see that Catholic Christianity is rather sophisticated and most of all, biblical. The true Bible Christians are the Catholics. We've been reading, studying, and translating the Bible for 1,500 years more than the Protestants.

I look forward to Lane Keister's repsonse over at Green Baggins blog.

Jewish Afterlife, Catholic Afterlife

Learn about Jewish understandings of the afterlife as they relate to the Catholic doctrines of the resurrection of the body, prayers for the dead, purgatory, and heaven and hell.

Go to "Jewish Afterlife, Catholic Afterlife" from the Catholic Information Center

Do you know why John the Baptist couldn't drink beer?

When I was studying the Synoptic Gospels, I became particularly intersted in the "aramaisms" (Aramaic phrases transliterated in Greek) found in the Gospels.

I came across this interesting Aramaic word in Luke:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink [σικερα]; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:15)

In Aramaic sikera or שכרא means "beer" and it derives from the Akkadian shikaru meaning fermented barley water, i.e. beer.

This means that Saint John the Baptist never enjoyed a glass of wine or even a beer. A small price to pay for being the greatest man "born of women" (cf. Luke 7:28).

So if you start up a micro-brewery, don't name it after this holy prophet, he has little experience in the craft or pleasure of beer.

St. John the Baptist, pray for us.

The Levitical status of John the Baptist

We learn in Luke that John the Baptist's father was a priest and therefore a Levite. Why does this matter? Luke captures the Davidic aspect of Christ by highlighting the fact that Christ was baptized (i.e. anointed) by a Levite.

King David and all of his successors were anointed King and Messiah by Levites. John the Baptist does the honor for Christ who is the Davidic King of all Israel. Christ is anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit through the instrumental action of the Levite John the Baptist.

This transferal from a Levite to a Judahite is the transferal of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

Redefining Theological Symbolism (St. Maximus the Confessor)

Our contemporary use of the word "symbol" in theology is rather weak. My guess is that this goes back to the 11th century Eucharistic controversy between the erroneous "symbolic Eucharist" belief of Berengarius and the orthodox "substantial presence" articulation of Lanfranc of Canterbury.

For the heretic Berengarius, the term "symbol" entailed "not real". Berengarius' usage raised red flags and he was rightly corrected of his mistake. However, I would like to suggest that there is another way of using the word symbol that is boldly Catholic and quite helpful.

Saint Maximus the Confessor stated that the body of Christ on the cross was a "symbol" of our bodies (Maximus, Ambiguities 54, PG 91:1376). Does this entail that Christ's body on the cross is "not real"? Absolutely not. Maximus was a stalwart defender of the Incarnation. Instead, Maximus' usage doesn't make any distinction between what is more or less real. What might be odd for us in the West is that for St. Maximus, the greater "symbolizes" the lesser - it's a downward motion. Christ symbolizes us.

So when someone says, "the Communion bread symbolizes Christ," he is not only denying the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, but he is actually using the word "symbolizes" incorrectly. If we follow the pattern of the great St. Maximus, it would be more accurate to say that Christ symbolizes the Eucharistic species. Christ does this not by giving it a new name ("body" and "blood") but by changing them essentially into another substance (His true Body and true Blood, Jn 6:55). Consequently, there is no tension over which is more "real": Christ or the Eucharist. They are the same!

President Nixon for and against Abortion

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.

With all respect, it seems from these quotes (if they are not taken out context) that President Nixon did not understand the issue of abortion. Yes, it leads to permissiveness - BUT THAT IS NOT THE GRAVEST ERROR. It's a matter of murder. It is not merely about permissiveness or "inter-racial" pregnancy.

Thomas Aquinas: Whether spanking children is lawful

In the last few years, there have been several spoof versions of scholastic arguments in the manner of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae. Here's another spoof:

Summa theologiae, Supplementum Supplementi q. 54

Article. 1 Whether spanking children is lawful.

Objection 1. It seems that spanking children is not lawful because the Apostle states, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged” (Col 3:21) and again, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4). Now physical injury is a provocation. Hence spanking children is not lawful.

Objection 2. Besides, the Psalmist sings, “thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me” (Ps 23:4). Now striking a child with the rod is not comforting. Hence, it is not lawful to spank a child.

Objection 3. Furthermore, God prevented Moses from entering the Promised Land because he angrily struck the rock of salvation with a rod (cf. Num 20:11). By this signification we learn that the rod denotes the species of anger that forfeits the divine promises on account of malice. Hence, it is not lawful to use the rod on children about which Christ spoke: “For to such belongs the kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 19:14) for in these words Christ speaks of a promise.

On the contrary, It is written: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” (Prov 12:24) and again, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him” (Prov 22:15). Now the dutiful parent disciplines his child and drives away folly. Therefore, it is lawful to spank a child with the rod.

I answer that, striking a child may be accomplished in two ways. A parent may spank a child in wrath so as to injure the child, or a parent may spank a child in a spirit of charity and patience so as to fulfill the words: “he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” Consequently, spankings administered in charity are virtuous and meritorious.

Reply to the First Objection. Here the Apostle speaks of wrathful provocation whereby the child is wounded. Now the correction of vice in a child is not a wound, but a cure. Hence, the Apostle does not denounce corporeal punishments.

Reply to the Second Objection. The rod comforts the Psalmist spiritually. As stated above, the removal of vice is comforting. Hence, corporeal punishment that seeks to mitigate vice is licit since it leads to spiritual comfort.

Reply to the Third Objection. Moses forfeited his right to the Promise Land by angrily bearing the rod of the Lord. Previously, the Lord also said to Moses: “And you shall take in your hand this rod, with which you shall do the signs” (Ex 4:17). Now rods can be used in two ways. Relatively speaking, rods are neutral in that they can be used for a good or a bad purpose. The rod of discipline, simply speaking, drives away folly, as stated above, and for this reason the Lord says, “with which you shall do the signs.” Hence the term “rod” need not denote wrathful indignation on the part of the one who bears the rod.

Carnivores are awesome (All apologies to the Vegan readership)

My father was in the meat business. He has a Ph.D. in Meat Science from Texas A&M.

Every household has its off-limit conversations. For our family it was the topic of vegetarianism. In our home the term "vegetarian" carried the negative connotation that "atheist" or "philanderer" carries in other households. My father always uttered the word "vegetarian" with a sneer. To this day any mention of vegetarianism elicits from him a brief lesson on how the vegetarian diet cannot provide the necessary nutrients needed for prolonged human life. His lesson typically concludes with this statement: "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat."

God bless him, especially on this day after Fathers' Day. He is a great man and a great father. I raise my kielbasa to him. (Yes, I actually did have kielbasa for dinner.) The photo above is a tribute to his "carnal" wisdom.

Saint Paul on Baptism and being Born Again

“Are you a born again Christian?”

In this online episode we examine what Paul taught about being “born again” in the context of the sacrament of baptism - as the Apostle calls it “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). We also find in Paul the doctrine of original sin, the custom of infant baptism, and also the relationship of the sacrament of baptism to the sacrament of confirmation. Join us as we plow through about 25 Scriptural passages in the works of Saint Paul as they touch upon the sacraments of baptism and confirmation.

Subscribe to “PaulCast” via iTunes | Subscribe to RSS feed

Download the mp3 file directly

Great site for St. Thomas More

Happy feast day of Saint Thomas More!

A good friend of mine named Matthew Mehan works with Dr. Gerry Wegemer at the Center for Saint Thomas More Studies. If you're interested in some recent scholarship on Thomas More, I'd encourage you to visit their website (Center for Saint Thomas More site), but especially their latest Proceedings link with several great articles.

Enjoy!

St. Thomas More, pray for us. St. John Fisher, pray for us.

St. Mark the Ascetic's "Against Justification through Works"

Does anyone know of a digital version of St. Mark the Ascetic's work: "Concerning those who think to be justified through works"? I'm looking for either a pdf or html version. I'd be much obliged.

Aquinas, Palamas, and the Pope Benedict XII regarding "Seeing God"

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." The Catholic Church has always held that we shall "see" God. There is, however, controversy over what it means to "see God".

First, let it be said that from a Catholic point of view, God is incomprehensible. We are finite and He is infinite. We shall never fully comprehend or understand God. However, the Scriptures do affirm that we shall "see" God. Saint Thomas Aquinas drew a sharp line between "seeing the divine essence" and "comprehending the divine essence" (STh I, q. 12, a. 1, 7). The former (seeing) does not entail the latter (comprehending).

Thomas' distinction between seeing and comprehending has been contested, particularly by voices in the East inspired by Gregory Palamas. Palamas stated unequivocally that the blessed do not and will not see the divine essence, because God's incomprehensibility excludes "seeing" the divine essence. Instead, the Palamites propose the concept of "divine energies", which are described as a glorious light - the same light, they say, that was revealed at Christ's Transfiguration. For Palamites, seeing God must only refer to seeing the "divine energies" since the "divine essence" is closed off to us as incomprehensible.

It would not be honest to cite every Patristic quotation referring to "theosis" or "energeia" as evidence for the Palamite position. It is important to recognize that the Palamite position began first as a defense of Hesychism and then later became codified in the terminology of divine energies. Usage of "energeia" in the Fathers does not necessarily mean that the Fathers employed the term with the fully loaded distinctions that some Palamites infer.

I will grant that there are some pretty hairy passages in the Fathers with respect to divine incomprehensibility and "seeing". Thomas Aquinas is aware of them. Here are two "problem passages" that Thomas identifies.

For Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. in Joan.) commenting on John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time," says: "Not prophets only, but neither angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable?"

This turns out to be a rhetorical question since Saint John Chrysostom goes on to say that he is speaking of a mode of comprehension as regards the way in which the Persons of the Trinity know and see one another. Obviously, created agents do not comprehend or see in this way because we are created and finite, whereas the Divine Persons are not.

A second problem passage:

Dionysius also says (Div. Nom. i), speaking of God: "Neither is there sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor knowledge of Him."

Thomas appeals to the context of this statement in Divine Names. Prior to the statement of above, the Areopagite says: "He is universally to all incomprehensible," so that this statement does not refer to the blessed in particular. As Thomas states, this is a reference to the "vision of comprehension" which is in fact impossible.

Critics of Aquinas assume that he believes that the human intellect is capable of comprehending the divine essence. This is clearly false given the passages above. Instead, Thomas states that the blessed angels and humans are made "deiform" so that they can see the divine essence (see Summa theologia I, q. 12, a. 5). Thomas also repeatedly refers to this as the created "light of glory" which is the means by which the blessed are elevated to this beatific vision.

Some have said that Aquinas and Palamas may be reconciled, but I don't see how we can reconcile Thomas' conviction that "we see the divine essence with Palamas' conviction that we don't see the divine essence, only the energies. Certainly, both believe that we "see God". In this sense they can be reconciled. However, Palamas' denial of the magisterial teaching that the blessed shall "see the divine essence" is contrary to the Catholic Faith.

The real kicker is that an Ecumenical Council has made a declaration on the matter. The Council of Vienne in 1311-2 decreed that the blessed to "see the divine essence". Thus, the Palamite position is not strictly acceptable for the magisterial Catholic since Palamas assumes the opposite.

The Council of Vienne condemned eight propositions - one of which highlights the magisterial weight of the idea that we see God by the light of glory: "Fifthly, that any intellectual nature in itself is naturally blessed, and that the soul does not need the light of glory to elevate it to see God and enjoy him blissfully."

The best magisterial source, though, is the constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 Benedictus Deus, which sets the record straight once and for all:

Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essence 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.

[Again, I'm not contesting the sanctity of Gregory Palamas. He was a holy man. Thomas Aquinas is a saint and a doctor of the Church and yet he was wrong about the Immaculate Conception and the proper matter of Holy Orders. I'm only saying that Palamas' denial of the vision of God's essence is contrary to Papal and Conciliar decrees.]

Who Twitters?

Are any Canterbury Tales readers on twitter? If so, let me know who you are so I can follow you.

Godspeed,

Taylor
@TaylorRMarshall

Sacred Heart Meditation - The Bodily Organ for Blood

Today is the feast of the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I wasn't raised Catholic, so devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is new to me, and I must admit, a bit odd. It always seemed rather strange that Catholics would adore a "body part" of Christ.

When Baz Luhrmann's film Romeo and Juliet came out in the theaters (the one with Leonardo DiCaprio), I thought the film's imagery of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary was especially interesting - but I didn't know what it signified. It simply "looked cool".

I also remember a Rolling Stones song that mentioned the "Heart of Jesus" (does anyone remember which song it is? I apologize if it's blasphemous - i don't remember the words). So a Leonard DiCaprio movie and a Rolling Stones song basically sum up my pre-Catholic exposure to the Sacred Heart of our Lord.

This morning in Holy Mass I came to realize that the Heart of Christ is both a vivid sign of our Lord's sacrifice and also reminder of His resurrection. It is also very Eucharistic devotion. At Holy Mass I realized that the heart belongs to the body, but it is the bodily organ most proper to the substance of blood. The heart pumps the blood. The heart is the intersection of the body and blood. It is truly the "core" of the human body (from the Latin: cor meaning heart) with respect to the blood.

When Christ died, his Sacred Heart pumped out all of His Precious Blood...and then it stopped. When Christ rose again, His Blood was reunited to His Body and His Heart began to beat once again. Today, for the first time, I realized that devotion to the Sacred Heart isn't simply a sentimental "syrupy" devotion but an intimate appreciation for the intersection of the Body and Blood of Christ is as it relates to His death and resurrection. Moreover, the Holy Eucharist signifies the union of the resurrected Body and Blood of Christ, and thus the Sacred Heart is Eucharistic, as well.

I apologize for rambling and realize that this is probably old-hat for most of you. Anyway, for a fellow behind the curve, I've realized once again how beautifully rich our Catholic faith is!

Vatican Warns SSPX: Don't ordain priests!

This where the rubber meets the road, folks. Will the SSPX obey the Holy Father in this directive? You just don't administer the holy Sacraments against the explicit command of the Vicar of Christ.

From Reuters:

It cited a letter by Pope Benedict in March in which he explained his decision to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops and start a dialogue aimed at full re-integration of the rebels.

But the statement said disciplinary questions regarding the SSPX "remained open," a clear warning that if the ordinations were ahead they would have repercussions on negotiations to bring the traditionalists fully back into the Church.

The SSPX plans to hold the ordination of the traditionalist priests in Germany, Switzerland and the United States.

Father Yves Le Roux, rector of the SSPX's St Thomas Aquinas seminary in Winona, Minnesota, said the ordination of 13 new priests would go ahead despite the Vatican warning.

Full story here.

Christopher West criticism and a response

This is a little late as I am just examining the controversy surrounding Christopher West's infamous comment on Nightline about John Paul II of blessed memory and Hugh Hefner of not-so-blessed memory.

Below is a link to a criticism by Dr. David L. Schindler, Provost at the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington DC. Schinlder identifies a faulty doctrine of concupiscence (a topic in which I am currently very interested) within West's theology:

Christopher West's Theology of the Body by David L. Schindler

Here is a response by Dr. Janet Smith in Christopher West's defense:

"Moral Theologian Says Christopher West's Work is 'Completely Sound'" by Janet Smith

Hat tip to Matthew Warner at FallibleBlogma.com

Meet Matt Warner and flockNote

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of having lunch with Matt Warner, founder of flockNote. He's doing some great stuff on the internet for Catholics, including TweetCatholic for all of you Catholic Tweeters out there.

Matt's flockNote.com is an innovative Catholic website that helps parish leaders share notes with their flock. All you have to do is join (free), choose the groups that you’re interested in hearing from, and receive messages directly to your email inbox, have them text messaged to your phone, or check them all in one place on flockNote.com. They've already added all parishes to flockNote.com – they’re just waiting for you to join!

When you do sign up, make sure you sign up for the Canterbury Tales feed while you're at it.

Sign up a flockNote and spread the word!

Anglican Nuns to become Catholic Nuns - Exciting News!

Last week at the Anglican Use conference I saw these sisters gracing the hallways, and also heard the muffled whispers that they were about to enter the Catholic Church. This has been progressing for a number of years and I remember once talking to their superior Mother Christina on the phone after I came into the Catholic Church from Anglicanism.

They will enter the Catholic Church on September 3, 2009. Please pray for them.

From the LivingChurch.com:

The All Saints Sisters of the Poor are the American Branch of a society founded in England, according to information on a website maintained by the order. They were invited to Baltimore in 1872 by the rector of Mount Calvary Church, Baltimore, a congregation which has continued to maintain strong ties to the sisters. The Rev. Jason Catania, rector of Mount Calvary, said he was aware of the impending move, and that the congregation would “continue to consider them part of the extended church family.”

The order describes itself “a traditional religious community, living under the evangelical vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.” In recent years, Mother Christina said many of the sisters felt that they were no longer in the right place.

“We tried to be faithful in The Episcopal Church as we understand scriptures, but we seem to be drifting farther and farther apart,” she said. “For the past two years in particular we felt as if we were no longer making a difference in this church. We felt as if we no longer belong.”

Apparently they will also be able to keep their property and convent. This is great news. Let us rejoice with Mother Christina and the sisters!

Did Paul believe in the Catholic Church?

I just put another podcast on "The Catholic Perspective on Paul" entitled:

Episode #3 Did Paul believe in the Catholic Church? (click to listen)

This podcast examines Saint Paul’s insistence “that there be no divisions” in the Church. Paul could not conceive of Christians naming themselves after human church leaders. Paul exhorted the Corinthians not to tolerate those who claimed to be “Pauline” Christians. Nor should there be any “Apollonian” or “Petrine” Christians. Given Paul’s insistence against name-bearing sects, we safely conclude that he would fiercely condemn the practice of certain Christians who identify themselves as “Lutherans” or “Calvinists”. Even the word “denomination” comes from the Latin de nomine meaning “of a name”. This denominational arrangement is completely foreign to the teachings of Paul. For this reason, the Catholic Church never accepted a “denominational” understanding of Church.

Subscribe to “PaulCast” via iTunes | Subscribe to RSS feed

The Assumption of Mary and Saint Joseph

Several questions from Hercules in the comments box:

"So in other words [the Assumption of Mary] a dogma based on theological reasons by a few distinguish men in the Catholic church?"

Not quite. The majority of Christians in history and most Christians today believe in the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. It's not the opinion of a few distinguished men in the Catholic Church.

"With that same aspect, was Joseph assumed into heaven as well? It would make sense since he was the step father, nonetheless a father, chosen by God to take care and protect Jesus and Mary, worked hard to take care of the family, was obedient to Gabriel's request, and a practicing Jew."

There is not a dogma stating that Saint Joseph's body was assumed into Heaven (however, Francisco Suarez, St. Bernardino of Siena, Gerson, and St. Vincent Ferrer and others have taught it). There is a very strong tradition that he died in the arms of Mary and Jesus and was buried according to Jewish law. For this reason, Saint Joseph is the patron of the dying. See painting below:

"My last question, why did Polycarp, Ignatius, Ireneus, and Justin Martyr write everything about Mary but leave the coronation and assumption out of the picture?"

If I remember correctly, St. Polycarp never mentioned the Blessed Mother. St. Ignatius mentions her virginity. St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr certainly have more to say. We should be careful not make the first and second century the only eras of canonical dogma. One might ask in a similar way, "Why did Paul, John, Peter, and James write so much about Christ, but never expound the Nicene articulation of the Trinity (or define the canon of Scripture)?"

The Catholic Church is just as apostolic as she was in the first century. Dogma doesn't fade and certain centuries are not preferred to others. It matters not to the Catholic Christian as to whether Pope Pius I (died ca. 154) or Pope Pius XII declared that the Blessed Mother of the Christ was bodily assumed into Heaven by the power of her divine Son.

Photo with Cardinal DiNardo of Houston

Photo: Taylor Marshall & His Eminence Daniel Cardinal DiNardio

I had a great time at the Catholic Anglican Use Conference in Houston.

I've been to the last four conferences and this was one of the best. Great presentations. Mary Moorman's presentation and especially Fr. John Saward's presentation about the patrimony of Anglicanism were incredible. The icing on the cake was the stunning address by Houston's archbishop, Cardinal DiNardo. I was blessed to briefly discuss natural law with His Eminence and snag a photo, as you can see above.

New Podcasts! The Catholic Perspective on Paul

The Jubilee Year of Saint Paul ends June 29, 2009. Finish strong with the Catholic Perspective on Paul!

Check out the new site and all new podcasts (free): The Catholic Perspective on Paul! at www.PaulIsCatholic.com.

Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther claimed that Paul taught a version of Christianity contrary to the Catholic Faith. Was he right? The Catholic Perspective on Paul demonstrates that Paul was in fact the Catholic Apostle par excellence. He was proudly celibate, described his ministry as "priestly" (Rom 15:16), and taught a robustly sacramental and ecclesiastical gospel of salvation. Join us as we unearth the Catholic themes in Paul's epistles.

The mp3s should be up on iTunes by next week. Sorry for the delay. We'll let you know when they are up.

Dr. Spock and Captain Kirk as a Mirror of the Human Soul

This new “Star Trek” film recounts the origin of Captain Kirk’s career aboard the U.S.S. Starship Enterprise along with the origin of Spock, Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, Nyota Uhura, Scotty, and other familiar characters from the original Star Trek series.
I've never been a Trekkie, but my immediate reaction to the film was that it demonstrated what it means to be truly human. To be honest, I didn't like elder Spock's advice to younger Spock that he should not be so rational but instead do what "what feels right". Yet if we look at the wider context, I think that this scene does present a proper image of what it means to be human, especially as described St. Thomas Aquinas when we realize that elder Spock is catechizing younger Spock in how he completes Kirk and vice versa. Spock and Kirk together create the potential for success. They need one another. Similarly, the human soul has higher faculties such as the intellect and will, but it also has the concupiscible (desires) and irascible (strength/courage) powers associated to our animality. Spock represents human rationality at its best. Kirk represents the need for emotive response.

Spock is half Vulcan, half human. Vulcans do not feel, they rationalize. Spock's curse (from the Vulcan point of view) is that Spock possesses the capacity for feelings - a fact that Vulcans exploit early in the film. Spock responds by checking his latent emotions and makes decisions with his calculating mind.

Captain James Kirk is similar to Spock but in an opposite fashion. Kirk is intelligent but he is guided by his passions. Kirk is lusty, ambitious, funny, and brave. Without Spock, Kirk would be out of control. Spock tempers Kirk, but Kirk provides the emotive power to face down the Romulans, go on dangerous missions where his life and the lives of his crew are in danger.

If you haven't seen the new Star Trek yet, definitely don't miss it in the theatres. It is action-packed, funny, witty, interesting, and the special effects are incredible. I've always been a Star Wars fan, but after returning to Star Trek, I now see that Star Trek possesses themes that are much more profound than anything in Star Wars (I know, them's fighting words). That's not a knock against Star Wars. I simply think that Star Trek's connection to earth and the human race as it engages other "rational creatures" makes for more interesting possibilities.

For those of you that have seen the new Star Trek film, what did you think?

Romans 6 vs. Romans 7 Part II - Original Sin and Concupiscence in Catholicism

[Visit the new site: The Catholic Perspective on Paul]

Yesterday we looked at the debate surrounding Romans chapter six and Romans chapter seven (click here to read Part I of Romans 6 vs. Romans 7). We looked at how in chapter six Paul teaches that we are "no longer slaves to sin", but that in chapter seven he says that he is "sold under sin". This is the so-called Pauline Aporia of Romans (or at least one of them).

We also looked at how contemporary scholars, especially in light of the New Perspective on Paul, have sought to show that Romans chapter seven is a description of "pre-Christian Paul" despite the Apostle's use of the present tense: "I am carnal, sold under sin."

Martin Luther attempted to reformulate the traditional Catholic interpretation (which we'll get to in just a moment) by postulating that the justified Christian is simul iustus and peccator -- simultaneously righteous and a sinner.

So what is the Catholic position on Romans chapter six and chapter seven?

In a nutshell, the Catholic position holds that Romans five is about Original Sin. Romans six is about Baptism, and Romans seven is about Concupiscence:

• Romans 5 is about Original Sin
• Romans 6 is about Baptism as the remedy of Original Sin
• Romans 7 is about Concupiscence/Flesh (i.e. the inclination to sin that remains in the baptized even though original sin has been washed away in baptism)

Catholic theology, going back to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, has identified Saint Paul's "law of sin" [Greek νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας] or "flesh" [Greek σὰρξ] with the concupiscence or inordinate desire that remains in Christians. Concupiscence is of itself not sinful and it is not a "sin nature" (contrary to the NIV translation of Romans 7). The process of sanctification is the battle against concupiscence.

{Side note: Concupiscence is the result of the human passions (Aquinas says there are 11 passions) overtaking human reason so that man becomes disordered, that is, man becomes inclined to sin. Baptism doesn't reconstitute man's rational dominion over the passions, but it does confer sanctifying grace, justification, and the presence of the Holy Trinity.}

For the Catholic, Romans 6 is talking about our redemption from sin via baptism (Rom 6:4-6) and Romans 7 is the inward struggle that we still fight on account of concupiscence.

Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected this Catholic understanding because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of original sin as it relates to concupiscence. Consequently, most Reformed Christians have never even heard of doctrine of concupiscence. For the Protestant tradition in general, "original sin = concupiscence" and "concupiscence = original sin". The doctrine of concupiscence is also the reason why Reformed Christians hold to "total depravity" while Catholics reject it. By equating original sin with concupiscence, the magisterial Protestant tradition emptied justification and baptism of their transformative power. Clearly, baptized believing Christians still struggle with inordinate desires. If this desire is identified as original sin per se, then the justified Christian is still inwardly devoid of righteousness - instead he must acquire Luther's imputed alien righteousness. Yet if we take the Catholic doctrine of concupiscence that states that concupiscence is not original sin, then we can have an inward transformation that makes us righteous. The interior desire to sin which remains is not sinful in itself and so the justified Christian can be inwardly righteous. Sin is neither a desire nor a temptation. For the Catholic, sin is an act of will. To say it another way, Saint Francis had concupiscence but this didn't make him sinful. Sin is only present if and when he submitted to the inordinate desire of concupiscence. He is a great saint because he fought bravely against the inward law of sin--against concupiscence.

Saint Paul writes in Romans chapter seven (vv. 22-23):

"For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members."

Here the Apostle explains that in his inmost self, he is righteous (delighting in the law of God) and yet the law of sin (concupiscence) in the lower region of his soul makes war against the higher region of the "law of my mind". Here the Apostle is describing the the disordered passions at war with the human intellect in the state of grace. Paul's soul is not bifurcated, nor does he have a "sin nature". Instead, Paul is describing the inordinate passions that the Christian must fight in this life. This then solves the riddle or difficulty of the supposed contradiction between Romans chapter six and Romans chapter seven.

For Protestant readers: Have you heard of the Catholic doctrine of concupiscence and does this Catholic solution seem plausible to you?

For Catholic and Protestant readers: Do you relate to Saint Paul's desciption of the two "laws" battling within you as you mortify the flesh and pursue sanctification?

Saint Athanasius on the Blessed Trinity (Happy Trinity Sunday)

This morning's Office of Readings has a fantastic letter from Saint Athanasius on the topic of the Most Holy Trinity and I wanted to share it with those who don't have access to it. Today is after all the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity. I placed a few of my own meager thoughts below Saint Athanasius brilliant explanation.

A letter by St Athanasius

Light, radiance and grace are in the Trinity and from the Trinity
It will not be out of place to consider the ancient tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers. For upon this faith the Church is built, and if anyone were to lapse from it, he would no longer be a Christian either in fact or in name.

We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being. It is a wholly creative and energising reality, self-consistent and undivided in its active power, for the Father makes all things through the Word and in the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Accordingly, in the Church, one God is preached, one God who is above all things and through all things and in all things. God is above all things as Father, for he is principle and source; he is through all things through the Word; and he is in all things in the Holy Spirit.

Writing to the Corinthians about spiritual matters, Paul traces all reality back to one God, the Father, saying: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of service but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in everyone.

Even the gifts that the Spirit dispenses to individuals are given by the Father through the Word. For all that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son, and so the graces given by the Son in the Spirit are true gifts of the Father. Similarly, when the Spirit dwells in us, the Word who bestows the Spirit is in us too, and the Father is present in the Word. This is the meaning of the text: My Father and I will come to him and make our home with him. For where the light is, there also is the radiance; and where the radiance is, there too are its power and its resplendent grace.

This is also Paul’s teaching in his second letter to the Corinthians: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. For grace and the gift of the Trinity are given by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Just as grace is given from the Father through the Son, so there could be no communication of the gift to us except in the Holy Spirit. But when we share in the Spirit, we possess the love of the Father, the grace of the Son and the fellowship of the Spirit himself.

This letter is beautiful and there are three things that should be especially noted.

First, St. Athanasius is convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is the sine qua non of Christian faith. Faith's content includes not only the narrative of redemption culminating in Christ (he died, he rose, he shall come again), but also contains the conviction that God is one being subsisting in the three divine Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, St. Athanasius and the Catholic Church hold that "there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being." The holy father Athanasius undercuts any notion of the Trinity that would introduce a "blend" of uncreated and created. This is a metaphysical conviction that safeguards us from wading into error as it regards the Most Holy Trinity.

Lastly, St. Athanasius appeals to Sacred Scripture for support. As a bishop of the Catholic Church, Athanasius roots his theological beliefs in the pages of Sacred Writ. It is not enough to have a sound metaphysical understanding of God. It must be based on divine revelation because the mystery of the Holy Trinity is beyond the light of natural reason. Even more, Athanasius appeals to Saint Paul, a worthy theologian of the Holy Trinity. This is a fitting reminder of the Apostle Paul's robust Trinitarianism as we draw to the end of the year of Saint Paul.

Romans 6 vs. Romans 7 - Are Christians free from sin or slaves to sin?

Those of you following on Twitter saw that I had posted that Dr. Scott Hahn gave the best analysis of Romans chapter seven that I had ever heard. Romans chapter seven is a much debated passage because it seems to contradict what Saint Paul said previously in Romans chapter six:

"We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin" (Rom 6:6).

The Apostle writes that we should no longer be enslaved to sin. This he repeats in 6:17

"But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed."

As is clear then, Romans chapter six seems to indicate that we are "no longer slaves to sin", because the transformative power of grace leads to an emancipation from sin.

In light of this teaching in Romans chapter six, interpreters have been puzzled by how it relates to Romans chapter seven where the Apostle writes:

"I am carnal, sold under sin" (Rom 7:14).

Suddenly it seems that Saint Paul takes back everything he said about the transformative power of grace in Romans chapter six. Are we Christians "no longer slaves to sin" (Rom 6), or are we "sold under sin" (Rom 7)? Is the Apostle Paul schizophrenic? Is there a contradiction?

Well that sets up the "Pauline Aporia" of Romans. The interpretive difficulty should be clear. Contemporary scholars, especially in light of the New Perspective on Paul, have sought to show that Romans chapter seven is a description "pre-Christian Paul" despite the Apostle's use of the present tense: "I am carnal, sold under sin." In other words, they say, "Romans six is the Gospel truth about emancipation from sin, and Romans seven is a description of Paul's spiritual state prior to his conversion to Christ."

The more traditional, historical interpretation is that Christians are somehow "no longer slaves to sin" and that we are also somehow "sold under sin". In other words Saint Paul is saying: "I am liberated from sin, but I am also still sold under sin." Martin Luther's simul iustus et peccator is one way to harmonize the passage. Obviously, we Catholics do not follow Luther's interpretation. There has been another strong (and persuasive) tradition in the Catholic Church of reconciling these two teachings in Romans as found in the writings of Saint Augustine and flowing into the decrees of Council of Trent.

I'll analyze the passages later and share something of what Dr. Scott Hahn suggested to us at the Letter and Spirit Institute. I'll also share some things controversy that I have written in my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul.

Look for a post either later today or tomorrow. Till then, "be no longer a slave to sin".

Godspeed,
Taylor

To read the follow up post: Part II of Romans 6 vs. Romans 7 - Original Sin and Concupiscence, click here.

Photo of Dr. Scott Hahn and Letter and Spirit participants

2009 Letter and Spirit Summer Institute Participants
[Click on photo to enlarge]

Sitting from left to right: Matthew Leonard, Dr. Neal Judisch, Taylor Marshall, Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Jared Staudt, Br. Felix CFR

Standing from left to right: Bryan Cross, Br. Sebastian CFR, Br. Simon Dankoski CFR, John Kincaid, Fr. Pio Maria Hoffmann, Rob Hartley, Matt Caes, David Wills, Br. Peter Hannah OP, Br. Paschal Maria, CFR

The first biography of Saint Francis of Assisi (nails in the stigmata)

While I was at Dr. Scott Hahn's Letter and Spirit Institute, I enjoyed many conversations with the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal (CFR) regarding Saint Francis and the Franciscan tradition. Especially helpful were Fr. Pio Maria Hoffmann and Br. Sebastian, not to mention Br. Paschal, Br. Felix, and Br. Simon.

I learned that first Life of Saint Francis was written by Thomas of Celano. Pope Gregory IX commissioned it and Thomas of Celano completed it by 1230. Remember, Saint Francis died in 1226 so that it is a contemporary account.

In 1247, Thomas of Celano produced a second version incorporating missing information.

I plan to read Celano's biography, especially since he retells how Saint Francis' stigmata were not mere holes in his flesh. Even more, something like nails grew into the wounds. I find this fascinating and hope to learn more about it. If anyone has anymore information about this detail, please share it with us.

Pistis Christou, the Subjective Gentive, and Christ's so-called Faith

[Please visit: The Catholic Perspective on Paul]

While at Dr. Hahn's, one of the things he discussed was the significance of the debate surrounding the so-called "pistis Christou" passages in the New Testament (Rom. 3:22, 26, Gal. 2:16; 3:22, Eph. 3:12, Phil 3:9). Taken subjectively, Saint Paul's Greek phrase "pistis Christou" can mean "the faith of Christ". Taken objectively, it's closer to "faith in Christ".

The distinction is rather important. Take for example Galatians 2:16:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus [subjective translation] Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ [subjective translation], and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The subjective translation above makes the faith in question the faithfulness of Christ. I'm open to this reading but with a caveat. We must never never attribute the theological virtue of faith to Christ. This is why I favor "faithfulness" if we must opt for the subjective genitive version of the phrase pistis Christou.

Why can't Christ have "faith"? Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:

As was said above (II-II, 1, 4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's Essence fully, as will be made clear (34, 1). Hence there could be no faith in Him (STh III q. 7, a. 3)

As the consubstantial Logos, Christ always sees the Divine Essence, even after his incarnation, even on the cross, even in his descent into hell. As Hebrews states, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen" (Heb 11:1), yet Christ always saw perfectly the object of faith. Consequently, Christ does not have "faith" in the strict sense since there is nothing "unseen" to Him.

If you're interested in the subjective/objective debate concerning Saint Paul's phrase "pistis Christou" below is a great little bibliography arranged by Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand) at the University of St. Michael's College Ontario, Canada (FYI, Crook favors the subjective genitive interpretation):

Pistis Christou Bibliography

Dunn, J.D.G., "Once More: Pistis Christou," _SBL 1991 Sem. Papers_
(Atlanta" Scholars, 1991) pp. 730-44.

Hay, D.M., "Pistis as 'Ground for Faith' in Hellenized Judaism and
Paul," _JBL_ 108 (1989) : 461-76.

Hays, R.B., "Pistis and Pauline Christology," _SBL 1991 Sem. Papers_
(Atlanta" Scholars, 1991) pp. 714-29

Hebert, G., "'Faithfulness' and 'Faith,'" _Theology_ 58 (1955) :
373-379.

Hooker, M.D. "Pistis Christou," _New Testament Studies_ 35 (1989) :
321-342.

Howard, George, "Notes and Observations on the Faith of Christ,"
_Harvard Theological Review_ 60 (1967) : 459-484.

, "The 'Faith of Christ,'" _The Expository Times_ 85 (1974)
: 212-215.

Hultgren, A.J., "The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul," _Novum
Testamentum_ 22 (1980) : 248-263.

Johnson, L.T., "Rom 3:21-26 and the Faith of Jesus," _The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly_ 44 (1982) : 77-90.

Ljungman, Henrik, _Pistis: A Study of its Presuppositions and its
Meaning in Pauline Use_ (Lund: C.K.W. Gleerup, 1964).

Longenecker, B.W., "Pistis in Romans 3:25: The Neglected Evidence for
the 'Faithfulness of Christ,'" _New Testament Studies_ 39 (1993) :
478-480.

O'Rourke, J.J., "Pistis in Romans," _Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ 35
(1973) : 188-194.

Robinson, D.W.B., "Faith of Jesus Christ," _Reformed Theological Review_
29 (1970) : 71-81

Taylor, G.M., "The Function of Pistis in Galatians," _The Journal of
Biblical Literature_ 85 (1966) : 58-76.

Williams, S.K., "Again Pistis Christou," _The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly_ 49 (1987) : 431- 447.

I'm back from the Letter and Spirit Institute 2009

I'm back and I have a lot to blog about. It was a great week with Dr. Scott Hahn, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal (CFRs), brethren from Called to Communion, and new friends. I'll post later tonight.