Is Uriel one of the Archangels?

There are three angels who are identified by name in the Sacred Scriptures. St Michael is Prince of the Heavenly Host. Michael means "Who is like God?" St Gabriel is the Messenger of God who announced the Incarnation of Christ to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Gabriel means "Mighty Man of God." The third is found in the deutrocanonical book of Tobit and his name is St Raphael. Raphael means "Healing of God." Tradition has it that he is the angel who stirs up the waters of the healing pool in St John's Gospel.

John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.

But there is a fourth who is not mentioned by name. However, 1 Enoch, 4 Esdras, and the Apocalypse of St Peter mention the fourth angel as St Uriel. Uriel means "fire of God," and tradition associates him with the "angel of fire" in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 14:18 Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe."

Given that both St Gregory the Great and Dionysius list Uriel as an Archangel, it seems that St Uriel does have a place in the Christian tradition. Perhaps it is he who is the "angel who had charge of the fire" in the canonical Apocalypse of St John.

Happy Yom Kippur!

Today is the Jewish feast day of Yom Kippur or “Day of Atonement”.

Regarding the Day of Atonement, Moses commanded: “You shall afflict yourselves” (Lev 23:27). Orthodox Jews obey this injunction by keeping a twenty-five hour fast from all food, drink, and sexual relations. This is the only fast day mandated by the Law of Moses. It begins one hour before sundown and extends to sundown the following day. You might also see contemporary Jews wearing canvas tennis shoes on this day since it seems presumptuous to ask God for mercy when standing in the shoes made from a slaughtered animal.

Continue reading: The Theology of Yom Kippur.

Do Catholics Wrongly Exclude Protestants? (Regarding the Holy Mass)

Why do Catholics "exclude" their separated brothers and sisters belonging to the Protestant denominations? Why can't a Protestant receive Holy Communion at a Catholic church?

First, let's remember that the road goes both ways.

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (held by the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) calls Catholics "idolaters." The reason for this, no doubt, is that Catholics worship the Eucharist as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If the bread is still substantially bread, then this qualifies as idolatry and we are in fact idolaters. This is why Calvin called Catholics idolaters and it also why nearly every PCA session in America would exclude a practicing Catholic from the Lord’s table because the Catholic holds to this so-called “idolatrous” position. The PCA's conviction is actually one of charity, because someone shouldn’t receive the PCAs communion if he is an idolater. No one disagrees with this, we just disagree over what constitutes an "idolater".

The Catholic position even more so. In most cases, Protestants:

A) deny the the substantial change of bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ;
B) They don’t “acknowledge the body of the Lord (either substantially or ecclesiastically as described in 1 Corinthians 11);
C) They deny the sacrificial aspect of the Mass;
D) They deny the liturgy of the Mass which does invoke saints at times;
and E) They reject the papacy and the apostolic succession of the local bishop–both are commemorated in the Mass.

Consequently, its impossible to “include” Protestants since they would “protest” elements of the Holy Mass nearly every minute of the liturgy.

So Protestants are welcome to enjoy Eucharistic communionem in sacris if they would like to do so–but only if they truly believe what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is and what the liturgy says. If this were the case, they would be interested in becoming fully Catholic. They would cease "protesting" and would cease being "Protestant."

Likewise, if I desired to receive from the "Lord's table" at a Protestant church, I would have to renounce several of my beliefs (e.g. abjure transubstantiation) and hold their doctrines (eg. justification by faith alone, etc.).

In conclusion, the Catholic Church isn't doing something mean or intolerant. The Catholic Church is merely practicing charity. For us, the Eucharist is the source and summit of our lives because It is Christ Jesus. It would be wrong for us to allow others to partake if they denied this reality. Similarly, it would be wrong for a Protestant to allow a Catholic whom the Protestant deemed "idolatrous" to receive Communion.

It is a sad state of affairs that brothers and sisters who call upon the same God as Father and seek the same Jesus as their Savior to be so deeply divided. Let us pray to the Holy Spirit to bring us back together again into one Church, united in the Apostles' teaching.

I'm About to Give a Paper at U of Dallas

I'm about to give a paper at the University of Dallas on the platonic influence in Virgil's Aeneid Book VI. Please pray for me. I'm a little nervous.

Augustine on Paedocommunion (Infant Communion)

Saint Augustine testifies that baptized infants received Holy Communion in the early Church. This only makes sense. If they’re regenerate, why can’t they receive the Christ in the Blessed Sacrament? Baptized infants continue to receive the Eucharist in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Alas, I wish that my children could receive the Eucharist. My three year old and my five year old twins have often expressed their desire to "receive Jesus". They already have a Eucharistic faith and believe that the Eucharist is Jesus. Yet they cannot receive because they aren't "old enough". Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Here's the Augustine quote:

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”

Augustine, Sermon 174, 7

Jonathon Deane has a great article on the practice of "paedocommunion" over at Called Communion.

Classes This Semester: Aristotle, et al.

I just got home from a doctoral class at the University of Dallas, and I have a headache. I'm in a class on Aristotle's Organon. We're currently going through the Topics, and let me just say that's its not the easiest text to ponder at 8pm. Nonetheless, it's worth it. I'm gaining a lot from the course and Dr. Mirus has kept us disciplined and close to the text. I did Aristotle's Metaphysics with him last year and it was worth it.

I'm also taking a doctoral course of Plato and Aristotle and another course on Machiavelli, Descartes, and Bacon.

I'm teaching Philosophy of Being, which is basically a junior level metaphysics course (Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Dionysius, Aquinas, Kant).

Time for bed.

Calvin's Worst Heresy (and Does it Relate to Von Balthasar?)

Over at the Called to Communion site I wrote a controversial post about "Calvin's Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell." Most Catholic readers might assume that Calvin's worst "heresy" boils down to his doctrine of "double predestination" (that God predestined the blessed to Heaven and the reprobate to Hell without any regard to future deeds, i.e. sins in the case of the latter).

I, however, put my finger on a passage from Calvin's Institutes where Calvin indicates that the cross of Christ was supplemented by Christ's further suffering in Hell (an idea unknown to Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church). Calvin writes:

But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death.

Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II, Chapter 16, 10

Chris Donato has suggested that the crucifixion and descent into hell were one act in Calvin's mind, but I'm not so sure. All the same, Calvin's assumption that the at atonement involves an extrinsic account of penal substitution is the root error.

Please take a look at the original post:

John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell

As an aside, some have compared Calvin's doctrine to Von Balthasar's (d. 1988) doctrine of Christ's descent into Hell (there was a long running debate on this question in First Things a couple years ago).

Let me first say that while I was once a big Balthasar fan, I've drawn away from him in recent years. I don't feel comfortable with certain novelties in his thought. Yet in Balthatsar's defense, it seems that he taught that Christ showed his solidarity with those in Hell as an act of love for them. While I'm unsure of what exactly this means (or entails), it does seem essentially different from Calvin's explanation that Christ suffered eternal damnation.

To be honest, I think that Balthasar's doctrine of Christ's descent into Hell is novel in the Catholic tradition and he's caught a lot of flack for it (there is a several month long debate Balthasar on this question two years ago in First Things). I think the difference is that Calvin taught an extrinsic doctrine of substitution: x in exchange for y. On the other hand, Balthasar's language is different because he speaks of Christ's solidarity with the lost, i.e. Baltharsar employs participatory language.

Balthasar (and the Catholic tradition at large) has tended to avoid the "replacement" formulation of substitutionary atonement. Instead, the Catholic Church sees Christ's act of atonement as "participatory" - i.e. the Christian participates in Christ's work. So it's not a strict replacement. Rather, it's like this: x participates in y. In this way, the Christian is in Christ and receives Christ's benefits. It's not Calvin's "I don't go Hell because Jesus traded places with me." For the Catholic it's "I don't go to Hell because I am in Jesus and I have died in Him and will be raised in Him." That may oversimplify Calvin, but I think it highlights the confusion in his thought about "substitution".

Please take a look at the original post:

John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell

PS: I'm especially grateful to Bryan Cross and John Kincaid in helping me clarify my understanding of the relationship between substitution and participation.

Does Saint Jerome Teach Justification by Faith Alone? No

Check it out, does it look like he
believes in Justification by Faith Alone?
As explained previously, a lapsed Catholic has claimed that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is in the writings of the Church Fathers. We've been going through the disputed passages, beginning with the Epistle to Diognetus and the Epistle of Saint Clement. Now we turn to Saint Jerome (347-420). A Latin quote was listed as teaching "justification by faith alone". Let's take a look at it.

Ignorantes enim justitiam Dei, et suam quaerentes statuere: justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti. Ignorantes quod Deus ex sola fide justificat: et justos se ex legis operibus, quam non custodierunt, esse putantes: noluerunt se remissioni subjicere peccatorum, ne peccatores fuisse viderentur, sicut scriptum est: Pharisaei autem spernentes consilium Dei in semetipsis, noluerunt baptizari baptismo Joannis. Item quia sacrificia legis, et caetera, quae umbra erant veritatis, quae per Christum perfici habebant, praesentia Christi cessaverunt: cui credere noluerunt.

In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D

Even if you can't read Latin, you can see "sola fide" in Jerome's text. Let me translate the key statement: “Being ignorant that God justifies from faith alone, they consider themselves to be just from the works of the Law which they do not keep.” The key here is the contrast to "works of the law."

Saint Jerome then goes on to speak of the “Pharisees” (Pharisaei autem...). Saint Jerome’s discussion is about Pharasaical Jews at the time of Christ who sought to justify themselves through the Mosaic precepts. Moreover, Saint Jerome identifies their “works” as pertaining to the “sacrifices of the Law which were shadows of the truth” (quae umbra errant veritatis). Jerome is contrasting the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. He is not giving a treatise on the role of generic work per se in justification.

Consequently, Saint Jerome is not excluding works per se. Rather he is aiming his sights on the Pharisees faulty understanding of the Law of Moses. Anyone who knows anything about Saint Jerome knows that he is one of the fathers of Western monastic tradition--a tradition rather at odds with "justification by faith alone" since ascetic deeds are seen as meritorious for the monk (and even the married as show below):

Do not fancy your faith in Christ to be a reason for parting from her. For 'God hath called us in peace.' 'Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God.' Neither celibacy nor wedlock is of the slightest use without works, since even faith, the distinguishing mark of Christians, if it have not works, is said to be dead, and on such terms as these the virgins of Vesta or of Juno, who was constant to one husband, might claim to be numbered among the saints."

Jerome, To Pammachius, Epistle 48:6.

50,000 Muslims to attend prayer meeting on Washington Mall

50,000 American Muslims to attend prayer meeting on Washington Mall on Sep 25:

WASHINGTON - At least 50,000 American Muslims will participate in a national prayer gathering for September 25 in Washington, D.C.

According to a report filed by The Star-Ledger, the gathering is taking place in the city’s National Mall area and is being organised by representatives of a mosque in Elizabeth, New Jersey.

The paper quoted Hassen Abdellah, president of the Dar-ul-Islam mosque and an event organizer, as saying: “Most of the time, when Muslims go to Washington, D.C., they go there to protest some type of event…This is not a protest. Never has the Islamic community prayed on Capitol Hill for the soul of America. We’re Americans. We need to change the face of Islam so people don’t feel every Muslim believes America is ‘the great Satan,’ because we love America.”

Full story from Breaking News.

Ten Most Satisfying Jobs

Researchers say the act of helping others is a common thread among the many the most satisfying jobs. The top 10 most satisfying jobs are:

1. Clergy
2. Firefighter
3. Physical Therapists
4. Authors
5. Special Education Teachers
6. Teachers
7. Education Administrators
8. Painters and Sculptors
9. Psychologists
10. Security and Financial Services Salespeople

Do you agree? I will say that my time as an Episcopalian clergyman was the most satisfying things that I've done.

Martin Luther's Two Great Crimes

“Luther was guilty of two great crimes - he struck the Pope in his crown, and the monks in their belly.”

- Desiderius Erasmus

Can You Lose Your Salvation?

I just put up a new article related to my second book: The Catholic Perspective on Paul. The article is entitled: Can a Christian lose his salvation?

To ask the question more accurately: Can you fall from grace? According to Saint Paul, the answer is “yes”.

Most Evangelical Christians hold that a Christian is “once saved always saved,” by which they mean that once a person has committed his life to Christ, he can never do anything to undo this gift of salvation. The explanation assumes that since the gift of salvation was freely granted, there is nothing that one can do lose it. Contrary to this, we know that gifts can be abandoned, rejected, or destroyed by of the ill will of the recipient. A father may purchase a sports car and freely give it to his son as a gift. It is rightly assumed that a gift cannot be “ungifted” or taken away. I am sure that the son would receive the car gleefully. However, the son may turn around and sell the car for drugs, crash the car, or neglect the car so that it no longer functions. The gift was not “ungifted”. Rather, the worth of the gift was rejected through negligence.

Continue reading: Can a Christian lose his salvation?

Listen to: Episode #6 Saint Paul on Confession and Mortal Sin

Click on the triangular “play” button above.
27 minutes.

Download the mp3 file directly by right clicking

My Martin Luther Moment Last Night

Last night after the Holy Spirit Mass for the opening of the academic year at the University of Dallas and after Aristotle's Organon class, I was walking to my car. Lightning was striking all around and I was on a hill. I got a little nervous and I remembered the story about how Martin Luther was caught in a storm and vowed to Saint Anne (the mother of Mary) that he would become a monk if he survived.

So I asked Saint Anne to pray for me to Jesus Christ (her grandson and Lord). I left off the part about becoming a monk.

...I'm still alive.

Did Clement of Rome teach Justification by Faith Alone? No.

Martyrdom of Pope Saint Clement of Rome

As mentioned in a previous post, a lapsed Catholic recently trotted out several passages "proving" that the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone is found in the Church Fathers. In the previous post, I demonstrated how the Epistle to Diognetus does not teach justification by faith alone, but rather that it conforms to the Council of Trent's definition of original sin and justification (see the official Canons of the Council of Trent on Justification).

Next we turn to the so-called "Pro-Protestant" passages from Saint Clement of Rome, the fourth pope and bishop of Rome (died around A.D. 96). Here are the two quotes that supposedly prove that Saint Clement agreed with Luther's doctrine of "faith alone":

St. Clement of Rome Quote #1
Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.

First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30.

I fail to see how this passage teaches “justification by faith alone” since it explicitly teaches that we are “justified by our works”. Why quote this?! It only proves what the Catholic claims already! Here the fourth pope is confirming what later popes also decreed!

St. Clement of Rome Quote #2
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also was descended our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him arose kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.”

All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.

Again a beautiful quote from Saint Clement. Yet nowhere does he speak of “justification by faith alone”. As we already observed in the previous quote, Saint Clement taught "justification by works". Clement's comment about “works which we have wrought in holiness of heart” is also completely in accord with the Council of Trent:

Session VI CHAPTER VIII.
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

The Council of Trent, like Pope Saint Clement confirm that works do not merit the grace of justification. Many Protestants misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches. As Trent decreed, the justified "increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ" by means of "faith co-operating with good works," to use the phrase of the Council and that of Saint James. Catholics do not earn the initial grace of justification.

Listen to the recordec message (mp3):
Are We Justified by Faith or By Faith Alone? by Taylor Marshall

Click on the triangular “play” button above.
19 minutes.

Did the Church Fathers teach Justification by Faith Alone?

Jason Stellman hosts a great Protestant blog over at De Regnis Duobus.

[Quick Plug: Stellman is a minister in the Reformed/Calvinist tradition (PCA). I really enjoy his blog. He's always asking great questions and while I don't always agree with some of his conclusions, I think that his blog is a good one. He also has a new book coming out: Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet.]

I claimed on Stellman's blog that Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone" was unheard of before the 16th century. I was challenged on this by a lapsed Catholic who then listed a variety of quotes. I will address each of these quotes from the Catholic Saints and Fathers of the Church in a new series of blog posts.

One of the so-called "pro-Protestant quotes" that were dragged out by this lapsed Catholic is found in an epistle from an unnamed disciple (Greek: Mathetes) to Diognetus. However, if you read the quote in question, there's nothing particularly "pro-Protestant" about it:

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.

Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter 9.

I've seen Protestants bring out this quote before, but I don't see how it scores any points against the Catholic position. First, it doesn't mention "faith alone" at all. Secondly, it only mentions "justified" once:

By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!

No big deal. If a Protestant thinks this will win him points, he should be prepared for the Catholic to yawn. In fact, the passage argues in favor of the Catholic view of salvation since salvation regards being "hidden in Christ". This is unitive soteriology - the chief model for the Catholic presentation of salvation. It speaks contrary to imputed justification.

The quote does speak of "our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works," but so does the Council of Trent!

Session VI, CHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

So there it is. Mathetes Epistle to Diognetus is in full accord with the Catholic Council of Trent. One quote down. Several more quotes to go. Please check back.

The University of Dallas has a new website

The University of Dallas has a new website. Please take a look: The University of Dallas.

Tomorrow I start teaching philosophy at the University. Check out my site for: Philosophy of Being.

What is meant by INRI over the crucifix or cross of Christ?

The Romans sometimes forced their victims to wear a titulum when convicted for a crime. The titulum or "title" brought shame to the criminal as it announced to the public his crime. This titulum could then be affixed to the victim's crucifix as a warning to other would-be criminals.

The Gospels record that Pontius Pilate issued Jesus a rather sarcastic titulum reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in three languages: Latin, Greek, and Hebrew (likely Aramaic).

The priests objected to the titulum and asked that it be rewritten to read: "This man claimed to be the King of the Jews" but Pilate answered, "I have written what I have written." (Jn 19:22)

Perhaps Pilate wished to send a message to the Jewish population that anyone else claiming regency in Judea was likewise be crucified.

The "I.R.N.I." is an artistic rendering of the title in Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum ("Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews").