Ten Questions for N.T. Wright regarding Catholicism, Justification, and the Church

Let me begin by saying that I am honored to have received a response from N.T. Wright in Christianity Today last month. He is a giant and he has probably influenced me more than any other living theologian (yes, even more than Ratzinger/Benedict XVI).

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I would like to engage some of N.T. Wright’s comments made in the context of his response to me in the recent Christianity Today article: “Not All Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Protestant debate on justification is reigniting questions about Rome.” I recounted how I began to read N.T. Wright’s books as a seminarian at Westminster Theological Seminary, and how this experience opened my eyes and heart to the Catholic Church. Wright answered that his theology does not necessarily lead to Catholicism. Trevin Wax recently published N.T. Wright’s full response here.

Wright’s responses left me with ten questions. I realize that it is unlikely that I will receive another response from Bishop Wright. He is a busy man, an Anglican bishop, and a world renowned theologian—so I won’t hold my breath. Meanwhile, at least others who have read Wright’s books might ponder these questions and suggest educated answers. No matter how it turns out, here are the Ten Questions:

1. Bishop Wright, in your new book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (page 141) you write concerning 2 Cor 5:21:

“The little word genometha in 5:21b-‘that we might become God’s righteousness in him’-does not sit comfortably with the normal interpretation, according to which ‘God’s righteousness’ is ‘imputed’ or ‘reckoned’ to believers. If that is what Paul meant, with the overtones of ‘extraneous righteousness’ that normally come with that theory, the one thing that he ought not to have said is that we ‘become’ that righteousness. Surely that leans far too much towards a Roman Catholic notion of infused righteousness? How careless of Paul to leave the door open to such a notion!”

Question 1: You seem to indicate here that Saint Paul does in fact teach the “Roman Catholic notion of infused righteousness.” How would we be wrong if we were to assume that you are here denying justification by imputation and favoring “a Roman Catholic notion of infused righteousness”?

2. Also in Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (p. 164), you wrote: “what damage to genuine pastoral theology has been done by making a bogey-word out of the Pauline term synergism, “working together with God.”

Question 2: Should we conclude that you agree with Trent regarding syngergism and disagree with Luther and Calvin on monergism?

3. Bishop Wright, on p. 230, you write: "Thus when [John] Piper says (22) that 'Wright makes startling statements to the effect that our future justification will be on the basis of works', I want to protest: it isn't Wright who says this, but Paul.” Your words conform nicely to the Council of Trent’s Session Six, Chapter 10: “faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified.”

Question 3: Are you not affirming with Session Six of the Council of Trent that our justification (with it’s future implications) will be on the basis of works? John Piper doesn’t want to let you off the hook on this one.

4. Bishop Wright, in What Saint Paul Really Said (page 119) you wrote that justification is about ecclesiology before soteriology. This lines up nicely with Session Six of the Council of Trent (especially Chapter Seven) which relates justification in the traditional terms of catechumens and the Church.

Question 4: How is your teaching in What Saint Paul Really Said substantially different from the Council of Trent’s formulation?

5. Bishop Wright, you note that Heinrich Schlier was a fine New Testament scholar. In fact, Schlier states that it was Sacred Scripture that lead him into the Catholic Church.

Question 5: Do you believe that Schlier was so naïve as to believe that being Bultmannian or being Catholic were the only two options available to him?

6. Bishop Wright, you state the Council of Trent provided the wrong answer regarding “nature/grace question.” As far as I can tell, Trent only touched upon this question in Session Five and even there the word “nature” only appears twice.

Question 6: Could you clarify what you mean by “Trent gave the wrong answer, at a deep level, to the nature/grace question”? To which session would I turn in the Council of Trent to find the alleged “wrong answer”?

7. Bishop Wright, you state that Trent’s “wrong answer to the nature/grace question” led to Catholic abuses in Marian doctrine and devotion.

Question 7: Are you referring to something as general as the prayers to Mary or something more specific like her bodily assumption into Heaven?

8. You indicated that the Catholic Church has sought to prevent the belief that God works through women and lay people. You wrote: “Communal, yes, but don’t let the laity (or the women) get any fancy ideas about God working new things through them.”

It is rather noteworthy that the two greatest saints of the Catholic Church are the Blessed Virgin Mary (a woman) and Saint Joseph (a layman).

Our profound love for the Blessed Virgin Mary and her role in the incarnation goes without mentioning. Moreover, the Catholic Church venerates three female Doctors of the Church (St Teresa of Avila, St Catherine of Sienna, and St Therese of Lisieux) who stand next to the other great Doctors of the Church like St Augustine, St Basil, St Thomas Aquinas, et al.

Question 8: Could you be more specific as to how the Catholic Church devalues the role of women and laymen?

9. You write that the Reformed, Anglican, charismatic, and emergent traditions can encompass the best of what it means to be “sacramental, transformational, communal, eschatological.” Yet, these four traditions (Reformed, Anglican, charismatic, and emergent) are in fundamental disagreement over what a sacrament is, how a human is justified and/or sanctified, what the church is, and what the eschaton is and how it will occur. Even within their own jurisdictions (e.g. Anglican Communion), there is vast disagreement over all of these issues. You say there are “bits of it” in the emergent church, but we could also say that there are “bits of it” when I pray the Our Father with my children before they fall asleep – yet “bits of it” do not entail the climax of the covenant as anticipated in Isaiah, Daniel, or the Minor Prophets.

Question 9: If what it means to be sacramental, transformational, communal, eschatological “can be found in” these four contradicting traditions, doesn’t it entail that each of these four (or even all four together) do not actualize what it means to be sacramental, transformational, communal, eschatological? In other words, “these elements can be found in their congregations” doesn’t entail “these elements constitute their congregations.”

10. Bishop Wright, you write: “Trent, and much subsequent RC theology, has had a habit of never spring-cleaning, so you just live in a house with more and more clutter building up, lots of right answers to wrong questions.”

On the contrary, since the Reformation, only the Catholic Church has continued to hold councils and examine the deposit of faith. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists still appeal to the same dusty articles of faith that they drafted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They do not hold doctrinal councils. They are unable to reform. They are what they are. So the accusation that the Catholic Church doesn’t clean house is actually more appropriately directed toward Protestant denominations.

Question 10: Is it the case that Protestant theology is clean and tidy when compared to Catholic theology?

Bishop Wright, you wrote:

I am sorry to think that there are people out there whose Protestantism has been so barren that they never found out about sacraments, transformation, community or eschatology. Clearly this person [that’s me, Taylor] needed a change. But to jump to Rome for that reason is very odd.

I would like to point out that I am not simply an isolated “this person” who “needed a change.” It’s quite ironic that Wright should says this the wake of the Pope’s announcement of the new Anglican Personal Ordinariates. I’m not the only one. Thousands and thousands of clergy and laity from his own denomination have appealed to the Pope as a result of the Anglican Communion losing its sacramental and communal nature. If Anglicanism can provide a Christianity that is “sacramental, transformational, communal, and eschatological,” then why are these Anglicans so deeply dissatisfied with Anglicanism? Would Wright also say that their “jump to Rome” is “very odd”?
Thank you for reading. As a grateful fan and reader of N.T. Wright’s books, I am continually amazed by his profound insights into Sacred Scripture. As a Catholic, I continue to enjoy his books and find myself returning to his works on a regular basis. I have the highest regard for Bishop Wright and wish him all the best.

I’d like to open up the comments and ask for responses. Would you agree that within Wright’s writings and public comments, “there are some things in them hard to understand”? What are we to make those passages that allege to be “not magisterially Protestant” but “not magisterially Catholic” either?

Please look for my new book: The Catholic Perspective on Paul (Summer 2010). It is based on the conviction that the Pauline epistles contain the primitive and pristine doctrines of the Catholic Faith (that is, the Patristic "old perspective" on Paul). In the Pauline corpus we discover a Paul who is Catholic, a theologian who is sacramental, a churchman who is hierarchical, a mystic who is orthodox.

Listen to Episode #1: RABBI SAUL BECOMES APOSTLE PAUL.

Top Ten Things to Know about Advent!

You might also like:

• Mary's Painless Delivery of Christ
• Remember to put the "Mass" back into "Christmas"
• The Best 12 Days of Christmas Ever
• St Nicholas: He Who Punches Heretics in the Face (and Gives Gifts to Children)

The local radio stations are already playing Christmas music and everyone is already talking about the "Christmas" season--but it's not yet Christmas - this Sunday begins Advent, the season for preparing for Christmas.

So what is Advent and why is it important? Advent is a time to prepare our hearts for the coming of Christ. It has a quasi-penitential theme, and this can be a strong antidote against the consumerism of our nation and time.

I was recently wondering about the origins of Advent and its history. So I did a little research and came up with the Top Ten Things You Need to Know about Advent:

1. The first recorded "preparation for Christmas" is found in the acts of the Synod of Saragossa, Spain in A.D. 380. This synod declared that all baptized Christians should be present in Church from December 17 till December 25. If you do the math, that comes out to the eight days before Christmas--not quite a full Advent season, but it's a start.
2. Saint Caesarius of Arles (502-542) is recorded to have delivered the first recorded homilies on Advent.
3. The Synod of Mâcon in Gaul (modern day France) in A.D. 581 is our first firm witness of what we might call the season of Advent. It states that the liturgical norms for Lent be kept from November 11 to December 24. The connection made here between Advent and Lent reflects the reason why the penitential color of purple is common to both Advent and Lent.
4. We also have a copy of a sermon given by Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604) for the second Sunday of Advent.
5. In the seventh century, Advent was celebrated in Spain with five Sundays! The Gelasian Sacramentary also gives liturgical propers for the "five Sundays of Advent."
6. The Eastern Churches began celebrating Advent in the eighth century as a time of strict fasting and abstinence--a practice still common Eastern Orthodoxy. This practice also reflects the season's similarity to Lent. Incidentally, red is the most common liturgical color for Advent in the Eastern churches.
7. Pope St. Gregory VII (1073-85) apparently reduced the number of Sundays in Advent from five to four--the current practice.
8. The third Sunday of Advent is technically called Gaudete Sunday and it is marked by rose vestments (don't ask your priest why he's wearing "pink"!) and hangings. Gaudete means rejoice because the third Sunday marks the over-half-way-point of Advent. This usage corresponds to the rose vestments used on Laetare Sunday, the fourth Sunday of Lent (also the over-half-way-point of Lent).
9. The Advent wreath, found in many Catholic homes, is a rather modern invention. It derives to a 19th century German custom, apparently Lutheran in origin. The practice was soon adopted by Bavarian Catholics and spread all over the world.
10. The liturgical season of Advent anticipates Second Advent (Coming) of Christ while also remembering the First Advent (Coming) of Christ at Christmas. Thus, the season generally celebrates the activity of God in history in and through our Lord Jesus Christ. Advent is the parenthesis in which falls all of Christian history.

I hope you found this helpful. Please send it along to friends and family and have Happy Advent.

Have a Happy and Holy Advent,
Taylor Marshall

PS: Tune in again at Christmas for a special piece on the "Top Ten Things to Know about the Twelve Days of Christmas."

PPS: If you want to know the truth about the so-called Sarum Use tradition in England of wearing blue vestments during Advent then you need to read this: Liturgical Colors in the Sarum Rite.

The Catholic Origins of the First Thanksgiving

You may also like:

• Which is more gruesome? Halloween or Reformation Day?
• Top 10 Ways to Have a Catholic Halloween!
• Does the word 'Easter' have pagan origins? (from Venerable Bede)
• Seven reasons to go to confession during Lent

The history books will tell you that the first Thanksgiving was celebrated by the pilgrims in 1621. Not true.

An interesting bit of trivia is that the first American Thanksgiving was actually celebrated on September 8, 1565 in St. Augustine, Florida. The Native Americans and Spanish settlers held a feast and the Holy Mass was offered.

The Catholic origins of Thanksgiving don't stop there. Squanto, the beloved hero of Thanksgiving, was the Native American man who mediated between the Puritan Pilgrims and the Native Americans. Squanto had been enslaved by the English but he was freed by Spanish Franciscans. Squanto thus received baptism and became a Catholic. So it was a baptized Catholic Native American who orchestrated what became known as Thanksgiving.

All that being said, Thanksgiving is traditionally Protestant and marks the tradition of religious toleration (something in which the Puritan pilgrims did not actually believe - they set up a "theocracy").

My wife once taught at a high-church Episcopalian/Anglican classical school in Philadelphia. The school consciously played down the significance of Thanksgiving. Why? The reason is simple. At root, Thanksgiving commemorates the good fortune of political and ecclesiastical rebels against the Church of England and the Anglican tradition as a whole.

It all started with Richard Clyfton who was a Church of England parson in Nottinghamshire in the early 1600s. Clifton sympathized with the Separatists of that era. Separatists were Calvinistic non-conformists to the doctrine and liturgy of the Church of England. The Hampton Court Conference held by King James I (1604) condemned those who would not conform to the more outwardly Catholic usages in the Church of England (e.g. robes, candles, bowing the head at the name of Christ, processions). The result was that Richard Clyfton was “defrocked” and stripped of his clerical status in the Church of England. Shortly thereafter Richard Clyfton went to Amsterdam and was followed by his disciples: the Pilgrims.

These Pilgrims moved around a bit until finally coming to America in 1620. An interesting bit of trivia is that one child was born on board the Mayflower while at sea. The child was given the rather lame name: “Oceanus”. Poor child.

In 1621, the Pilgrims allegedly celebrated a happy meal with the Native Americans and the rest is history. So why would an Anglican school be against Thanksgiving? It celebrates those who defied the Church of England and the Crown of England.

Now that I’m no longer an Anglican and now a Catholic, things are a bit different. The penal laws of England regarding non-conformists affected not only the rigorous Calvinistic Puritans in England, but also the English Catholic recusants. The Pilgrims shared the same lot as the Catholic faithful of England. Interestingly enough, the Catholics who lived in Nottinghamshire where the Pilgrims originated were persecuted mercilessly.

So while Thanksgiving may celebrate the Calvinist Separatists who fled England, Catholics might remember the same unjust laws that granted the crown of martyrdom to Thomas More, John Fisher, Edmund Campion, et al. are the same injustices that led the Pilgrims to Plymouth.

Another bit of trivia is that the truly “First Thanksgiving” celebration occurred on American soil on April 30, 1598 in Texas when Don Juan de Oñate declared a day of Thanksgiving to be commemorated by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And let everyone remember that “Thanksgiving” in Greek is Eucharistia. Thus, the Body and Blood of Christ is the true “Thanksgiving Meal”.

You may also like:

• Which is more gruesome? Halloween or Reformation Day?
• Top 10 Ways to Have a Catholic Halloween!
• Does the word 'Easter' have pagan origins? (from Venerable Bede)
• Seven reasons to go to confession during Lent

Marian Apparitions in Egypt

This is a pretty interesting video about the apparition of the Blessed Virgin in Egypt. Anybody heard of this? The Coptic Orthodox Patriarch has approved it, for what it's worth.

St Augustine on Mary and our Becoming "His Mother"

This homily by Saint Augustine is from this morning's Office of Readings. If you ever wondered why Jesus calls his disciples "my mother" then check out this great explanation by Augustine. He shows how Mary was a greater as a disciple of Christ than as the mother of Christ - something quite profound:

	A sermon of St Augustine
By faith she believed; by faith, conceived
Stretching out his hand over his disciples, the Lord Christ declared: Here are my mother and my brothers; anyone who does the will of my Father who sent me is my brother and sister and my mother. I would urge you to ponder these words. Did the Virgin Mary, who believed by faith and conceived by faith, who was the chosen one from whom our Saviour was born among men, who was created by Christ before Christ was created in her – did she not do the will of the Father? Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father’s will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ’s disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master. Now listen and see if the words of Scripture do not agree with what I have said. The Lord was passing by and crowds were following him. His miracles gave proof of divine power. and a woman cried out: Happy is the womb that bore you, blessed is that womb! But the Lord, not wishing people to seek happiness in a purely physical relationship, replied: More blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Mary heard God’s word and kept it, and so she is blessed. She kept God’s truth in her mind, a nobler thing than carrying his body in her womb. The truth and the body were both Christ: he was kept in Mary’s mind insofar as he is truth, he was carried in her womb insofar as he is man; but what is kept in the mind is of a higher order than what is carried in the womb. The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God. Now, beloved, give me your whole attention, for you also are members of Christ; you also are the body of Christ. Consider how you yourselves can be among those of whom the Lord said: Here are my mother and my brothers. Do you wonder how you can be the mother of Christ? He himself said: Whoever hears and fulfils the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and my sister and my mother. As for our being the brothers and sisters of Christ, we can understand this because although there is only one inheritance and Christ is the only Son, his mercy would not allow him to remain alone. It was his wish that we too should be heirs of the Father, and co-heirs with himself. Now having said that all of you are brothers of Christ, shall I not dare to call you his mother? Much less would I dare to deny his own words. Tell me how Mary became the mother of Christ, if it was not by giving birth to the members of Christ? You, to whom I am speaking, are the members of Christ. Of whom were you born? “Of Mother Church,” I hear the reply of your hearts. You became sons of this mother at your baptism, you came to birth then as members of Christ. Now you in your turn must draw to the font of baptism as many as you possibly can. You became sons when you were born there yourselves, and now by bringing others to birth in the same way, you have it in your power to become the mothers of Christ.

A Conversation with a Lutheran Friend on Justification

I'm having a friendly conversation with a Lutheran seminarian over at www.PaulisCatholic.com. The topic is justification (surprise!!!). Here's a recent response of mine to him:

As a Catholic, I understand the Greek verb dikaio as juridical AND transformative. A sinner “becomes righteous” and this is why the Greek word was rightly translated as iustificatio—“making just.”

I’m saying that a legal, declarative change is not merely what God does for us. Salvation involves a union with Christ to the sinner and that union transforms the sinner into a new creation.

I was not merely “declared righteous” through faith, rather I “became righteous,” because Christ washed away my original sin and my personal sins so that I was a new creation. Grace filled my soul and the Holy Spirit came upon me. As Saint Paul wrote:

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:21)

We BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of God. It’s not merely imputed. Luther didn’t do justice to the entire Pauline corpus, in my opinion. He stopped way too short of the glory of justification.

You wrote:

“A Lutheran would say that a perfect righteousness identical to that of Christ, which is recieved through faith (being the first of the cardinal virtues), would be a stronger type of righteousness (if not the only type of righteousness) than anything that could dwell within a more or less sinful man.”

Joseph, that’s the just the rub. If God’s righteousness can’t dwell in a man, how could a sinful man ever enter Heaven? You’ve got to have a transformation/infusion for this whole thing to work. If God’s righteousness is to holy to dwell in a sinner, then how can the sinner ever dwell in God??!!

You wrote:

“The quality of our righteousness and participation is made the qualifications for our eternal life. Why is this necessary to believe?”

Jesus said, “If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned” (Jn 15:6).

I read this (as a Catholic) as saying that if you don’t participate in Christ through union with Him, then you’re going to Hell.

Just a few bits of difference that I picked up from your email:

• For Catholics, charity, not faith, is the highest of the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity), and faith isn’t a cardinal virtue at all (cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance). This may be a difference with Lutherans. Is it?
  
  
• For Catholics, virtues (e.g. faith, charity, justice) are habits of the soul. This means that for us they are accidents, not substances in the soul.

One final thought. Which is better?:

A) To be married on paper – that is, to be declared married.
B) To experience the union of marriage, being transformed as “one flesh”?

Clearly, matrimony includes both realities. As I understand it, you’re choosing (A) to the exclusion of (B). As a Catholic, I’m saying both (A) and (B). God declares us righteous because He has made us righteous. When a baby is baptized, he is 100% holy.

Looking forward to your response. This is a very helpful dialogue.

In Christ,
Taylor

Please listen to a related podcast: What did Paul Teach about Justification?

My Conversion to Catholicism (and Information about the Anglican Personal Ordinariates)

The Story of my Conversion to Catholicism (Audio Version)
- and Information about the Anglican Personal Ordinariates by Taylor Marshall

Click on the triangular “play” button above.

This recording is in two parts. The first half explains how I became a Christian (through a baseball autograph from Tom Monaghan), then an Episcopal priest, and then how I became a Catholic Christian. The second half is a presentation on the Anglican Personal Ordinariates and a public Q&A session on that topic.

You have to wait about 8 seconds to hear anything, so please don't give up after you hit play.

A special thanks to an Anglo-Catholic friend Tony Clark who recorded this talk and edited it.

Click on the triangular “play” button above.

You can also download the mp3 file directly by right clicking

The Crucified Rabbi as Part of a Trilogy (and the Other Two Books)

I'm starting to hear back from folks who have finished reading my new book The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity. Some readers are people that I know, some of them are people that I have never met, but heard about the book via Twitter, a friend, etc. So far, (insert sigh of relief), everyone likes it and has positive things to say (insert knock on wood).

Some have asked about the "next book." Please remember that The Crucified Rabbi is actually the first book in a Trilogy. The second book is already finished, but not yet published. The third book is almost finished (needs two more chapters). The Trilogy is called "Origins of Catholic Christianity." Here are the three books:

1. The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity
   
   
2. The Catholic Perspective on Paul: The Apostolic Origins of Catholic Christianity
   
   
3. The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity
   
   

This first book (Crucified Rabbi) examines the Jewish origins of Catholicism and the third book (Eternal City) examines the Gentile origins of Catholicism, especially the role of the city of Rome in salvation history. The middle book on Saint Paul (Catholic Perspective on Paul) is the bridge between the two. Paul was a Jewish rabbi and he became the Apostle to the Gentiles. Moreover, I perceive the book of Acts as the linchpin: Acts begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome. This is the early Christian ecclesiastical narrative and I hope to remind Christians that their origins are both Jewish and Roman—consequently Christianity is best expressed in Roman Catholicism with its Jewish inheritance of liturgy, sacrifice, art, priesthood, and ritual. That’s the trilogy thesis in a nutshell.

The Trilogy is a New (really Old) Perspective on Paul with an emphasis on Jewish culture and theology AND pagan Roman culture and theology. Paul found both as playing a role in the redemptive economy of God. It's not simply Hegelian ("Judaism" + "Greek culture and philosophy" = "Christianity"). Instead it's a biblical theology that tries to account for all the details.

The first book on Judaism is already published (Oct 2009), the Paul book is due for 2010, and the last book on Rome will be published in 2011 (God willing).

The Paul book is complete and it is in the editorial stages. The Rome book is almost finished. I’m working on the final two chapters. One of these chapters on the theological significance of Constantine’s conversion; and the final chapter on the true eternal City of God a la Saint Augustine.

I hope in the end to demonstrate that only Catholic Christianity follows the trajectory of God’s providential plan in history from Moses to Augustine. In brief, I wish to show that Moses' religion of tabernacle-sacrifice flows into the Roman Church and on into eternity.

Last of all, the books are written at that popular level. My wife has read all three books and thinks that the third book on Rome (Eternal City) is the best. My favorite book is the second book (Catholic Perspective on Paul). I'm hoping that the second book will be out by the end of next summer.



Five Reasons to read Taylor Marshall's The Crucified Rabbi

You may also like:

• Heaven and Hell, Eden and Gehenna in Judaism and Catholicism
• Orthodox Judaism and Purgatory

New Blog to Watch: Caritas et Veritas

My buddy Dr. Jeff Morrow and some of his friends are putting together a really interesting and good-looking blog.

Please check it out: Caritas et Veritas.

Was the Black Stone (al-Hajar-ul-Aswad) of the Muslims Once the Head of an Idol?

The Catholic Saint John Damascene (676 – 749) reports that that sacred black stone (al-Hajar-ul-Aswad in Arabic) that Muslims kiss and venerate at the Kaaba in Mecca is actually the head of an ancient Arab idol depicting the fertility goddess Al-‘Uzzá.

This fact alone would be provocative in itself. However, we also read from Islamic sources that Muhammad once uttered that his followers should venerate and pray to Al-‘Uzzá and two other Arab goddesses. According to Muslim tradition, the angel Gabriel rebuked Muhammad for uttering these so-called "Satanic Verses."

What's interesting is that Muslim tradition itself betrays that the early inclinations of Muhammad were not 100% monotheistic. Instead we see a bit of goddess worship being tolerated...even approved. If this is the case, then Saint John Damascene's allegation that the black stone is actually the head of a fertility goddess is particularly of interest.

Pope Says That Universities Need Solid Teachers (Video)

Map for My Talk Tonight on the Anglican Ordinariates

Here's a map of campus for tonight's presentation on the Anglican Ordinariates at the University of Dallas: click here.

We'll be at Gorman Room B at 7:00pm.

Theology is sponsoring the following talk by one of UD’s own.

“The New Anglican Ordinariate
and its Background”

Come hear Taylor Marshall,
former Anglican minister
and current PhD student in the University of Dallas'
Institute of Philosophic Studies
discuss Pope Benedict XVI’s new
Anglican Ordinariate.

Friday, November 13th
7:00 – 8:30
Gorman B

Refreshments to follow.

I'll be giving a talk tomorrow on the Anglican Ordinariates

I know this is late notice, but if you're in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, I'll be giving a talk on the Anglican Ordinariates on Friday evening at the University of Dallas:

Theology is sponsoring the following talk by one of UD’s own.

“The New Anglican Ordinariate
and its Background”

Come hear Taylor Marshall,
former Anglican minister
and current PhD student in the University of Dallas'
Institute of Philosophic Studies
discuss Pope Benedict XVI’s new
Anglican Ordinariate.

Friday, November 13th
7:00 – 8:30
Gorman B

Refreshments to follow.

If you don't know the University of Dallas' campus, here's a map of campus for tonight's presentation on the Anglican Ordinariates at the University of Dallas: click here. We'll be at Groman B.

The Koran and Christian Apocrypha

I'm finally getting around to something that I've always wanted to do for academic purposes, that is read the Koran. If you read the last First Things issue, there was a great article on heretical Christian documents being employed in the construction of the Koran.

I've recently learned that the Koran seems to refer to the following heretical Christian apocryphal books:

• Proto-Evangelion of James
• Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
• Arabic Infancy Gospel
• Taitian's Syriac Diatessaron (blend of the four Gospels) may also be a source

I can't remember who it was (maybe St John Damascene?) who said that Muhammad composed the Koran with the help of an Arian monk. Has anyone ever heard of this tradition?

Interpretation of the Pope's Apostolic Constitituion Anglicanorum Coetibus

Alright, I have had some to read and re-read the Holy Father's new Apostolic Constitituion Anglicanorum Coetibus. I was able to speak with Monsignor Bill Stetson today on the phone who cleared up a few ambiguities.

The Constitution is basically what everyone expected, but there are some notable features. The most juicy tidbit is that married former Anglican bishops who become Catholic priests can apply for Episcopal insignia! As Whispers in the Loggia stated today: "Orders Void, Mitres Valid!" This point will obviously draw attention.

Reaffirmed was the expectation that the ordinary could be a married priest. In canonical terms, this ordinary will be:

a. ordinary: connected by the law itself to the office entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff, for both the internal forum and external forum;

b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff;

c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate;

The situation of married Anglican seminarians will likely be by a case by case situation and will have a calendar limit (i.e. no Anglican seminarians who enrolled passed such and such a date).

The role and purpose of the current Pastoral Provision system in the United States is currently uncertain, but it will likely be adapted to fit the Holy Father's new vision.

Notably, those baptized as Catholics will apparently be barred from the Anglican ordinariate, but I wonder whether exceptions might be made for men who were not raised and rightly catechized in the Catholic Church.

Another interesting feature was the stipulation for multiple ordinariates in a single national conference.

The ordinary will be assisted by six priests to determine the suitability of future Anglican ordinariate priests.

The ordinary will be appointed directly by the Pope and will be a member of the national conference of bishops--again nothing surprising there. It seems also that this ordinary, whether a bishop or not will be granted the ability to "pontificate" liturgically (in lay terms: vest and preside as if a bishop).

I'm personally very excited to learn who the Holy Father will appoint to this new post in the United States. We should begin to pray for him, whomever he will be. I'm sure that the Holy Spirit is preparing him for this.

Last of all, I am still grateful to our generous Holy Father Benedict XVI. This is truly a historic moment. I encourage everyone to pray a Te Deum in gratitude to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for this gracious overture of the Church - "that they all might be one."

The Apostolic Constitution on Anglican Converts: Anglicanorum Coetibus

I'm still digesting the Holy Father's new Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. I also want to talk to a few people about it before I comment publicly.

I'll try to write up something by tomorrow (Tuesday).

in Christ,
Taylor

PS: In the mean time, please read: "Five Myths about the Pope's Anglican Ordinariates" by Taylor Marshall

St Cyril on the Need for Creed

Today's second reading in Office of Readings is from Saint Cyril on the need for the creed as a synopsis of the Gospel and the biblical faith. The red annotations are my own comments.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem On the Faith and the Creed
(Patroligia Graeca, 33, 519-523)

In learning and professing the faith, you must accept and retain only
the Church's present tradition, confirmed as it is by the Scriptures [we must accept the Church's "tradition" as confirmed by the Scriptures - that's not Luther's sola scriptura folks].
Although not everyone is able to read the Scriptures, some because
they have never learned to read, others because their daily activities
keep them from such study, still so that their souls will not be lost
through ignorance, we have gathered together the whole of the faith
in a few concise articles. [the formulation of a "creed" then is for salvation - it summarizes the Gospel content]

Now I order you to retain this creed for your nourishment
throughout life and never to accept any alternative, not even if I
myself were to change and say something contrary to what I am now
teaching, not even if some angel of contradiction, changed into an
angel of light, tried to lead you astray. For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which you have now
received, let him be accursed in your sight. [Again the "creed" is the objective Gospel of Christ and St Cyril invokes St Paul's anathema regarding it.]

So for the present be content to listen to the simple words of the
creed and to memorize them; at some suitable time you can find
the proof of each article in the Scriptures [first we assent to the Church's teaching - and then we find that it is based on Scripture - not the order of things here - again not Luther's sola scriputra]. This summary of the
faith was not composed at man's whim, the most important sections
were chosen from the whole Scripture to constitute and complete
a comprehensive statement of the faith. Just as the mustard seed
contains in a small grain many branches, so this brief statement of
the faith keeps in its heart, as it were, all the religious truth to be
found in Old and New Testament alike [the Creed itself is built on Scripture as a synopsis]. That is why, my brothers,
you must consider and preserve the traditions you are now receiving [so the creed is a set of traditions derived from Apostolic teaching, summarizing Scripture, and must be preserved by catechumens from baptism till death].
Inscribe them across your heart.

As a completely random thought based on Saint Cyril, it is truly wonderful that the Catholic Church as preserved the catechumenate. Nobody talks about this, but the Catholic catechumanate (liturgical training of inquirers for baptism), is further proof of the Catholic Church's ecclesiastical understanding of justification.

Scott Hahn's New Book of Pope Benedict's Biblical Theology: Covenant and Communion

This weekend I started reading Scott Hahn's new book Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. It's fantastic. This book is fantastic. Dr. Scott Hahn describes the rich theological method of Pope Benedict XVI as a canonical approach to theology, which locates theology in the history of salvation. If John Paul II will be remembered for his Theology of the Body, then I’ll wager that Benedict XVI will be remembered for his profound biblical theology.

Hahn's presentation will likely resonate with conservative Evangelicals and Protestants who have a love for Sacred Scripture. Hahn reveals Benedict as a biblical theologian par excellence. This has been noted before, but Hahn demonstrates the Holy Father's biblical theology in detail with seven academic essays collected together in this volume. Hahn also quotes the Holy Father’s writings frequently (several times per page) making this book a fine collection of the Holy Father's teaching in his own words. I have already collected a dozen priceless Benedict quotes from this book. It is a great resource.

Here are my favorite two chapters from the book:

• Chapter Two: The Critique of Criticism: Beginning the Search for a New Theological Synthesis
• Chapter Six: The Theology of the Divine Economy: Covenant, Kingdom, and the History of Salvation

If you're a fan of Pope Benedict or you're a non-Catholic interested in how Catholics do biblical theology, then you should buy this book immediately. (If you buy it with my book The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity at amazon.com, you'll qualify for free shipping...end of shameless plug.)

The Mystical Significance of the Fish in Jonah

The story of Jonah and the fish is a story of Israel's exile and return to the Holy Land.

Here's how it goes:

1. Jonah disobeys God.
2. Jonah leaves the "land" and goes to "sea."
   
3. Jonah appears to lost in exile at "sea".
4. But Jonah doesn't perish and disappear into the "sea".
5. Jonah seems to die (Jon 2:5-7).
   
6. Yet Jonah is miraculously preserved in a fish (3 days in the belly of whale).
7. The Jonah revives and comes back to the "land."
8. Once back on "land" Jonah proclaims the God of Israel to the Gentiles.

Jesus taught that He is the "greater-than-Jonah" (Mt 12:41). How does it all work?

1. Israel turned from God toward idolatry and was taken into captivity by Assyria (the Gentiles to which Jonah preached).
   
2. Israel left the promised "land" and is scattered into the "sea" of the Gentiles.
3. Israel appears to lost in exile among the "sea" of Gentiles.
4. But Israel doesn't perish and disappear into the "sea."
5. Jesus comes from the north of the Holy Land and dies.
   
6. Yet Jesus is miraculously preserved in His tomb (3 days in the belly of the earth).
7. Jesus revives and comes back to the "land."
8. Once back on "land" Jesus proclaims the God of Israel to the Gentiles through His body the Church.
   

Here we see that the story of Jonah is actually the story of Israel and a type of Jesus who was "greater-than-Jonah" (Mt 12:41).

Please check out my new book on Judaism and Catholicism at amazon.com:

The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity