Did St Jerome reject the Deuterocanoical books?

Saint Jerome pulling a thorn from a lion's paw All the early Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even the Anglicans) claimed that Saint Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical books of the Bible that Catholics include. This is a bold claim because it sets Saint Jerome, a preeminent saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, against the Catholic Church.

 So is it true?

Certainly, no one can deny that Saint Jerome may have had early reservations about the canonical books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1&2 Maccabees (and those portions of Daniel and Esther).

However, by AD 382, we see a reversal in St Jerome's sentiments. The reason for this is that in AD 382, Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome canonized these books as inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit. So then, after this date, Saint Jerome, as a faithful son of the Catholic Church, submitted to the papal decree. The same is true of Blessed John Henry Newman who personally disagreed with a quick decree on papal infallibility, but certainly obeyed it as soon as it was issued.

Here's proof that Saint Jerome submitted to the decree of Rome of Pope St Damasus. The following quote is taken from a letter written by Saint Jerome in A.D. 404.

Does not the Scripture say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power'?
- Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2, VI:207)

Here Saint Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2 ('Burden not thyself above thy power') as "Scripture".

In Saint Jerome's prologue on the book of Judith, he recongizes that the First Council of Nicea (AD 325 - the council defended the Trinity and deity of Christ against Arians) recognized the book of Judith as "canonical".

Furthermore, Jerome in the year A.D. 402 defended the deuteroncanoical additions to the book of Daniel:

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

I rest may case. It seems clear that Saint Jerome did at one time reject the deuterocanonicals, but by A.D. 402-404 he had become a defender of them. Saint Jerome was not a dissenter.

If you come across a Protestant still making this old and worn out claim about Saint Jerome, please point him to these quotes from St Jerome.

When were the angels created? (Saint Augustine)

My students often ask me, "When were the angels created?" Also, "When did Lucifer fall?"

Here's the order of the days in Genesis:

1. Light
2. Waters (Skies and Seas)
3. Earth and Vegetation
4. Sun, Moon, Stars
5. Fish and Birds
6. Beasts and Man
7. God rested

Where do the angels fit in? This is not a new question. For example, Saint Augustine addresses this very question in his City of God Book 11, Chapter 9:

When all things, which are recorded to have been completed in six days, were created and arranged, how should the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from which on the seventh day He rested?

Then he supplies the answer: 

For when God said, "Let there be light, and there was light," if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called "Day," in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made.

So when God said, "Let there be light," the angels came into existence. This answers the common objection: "How could there be 'light' on the first day if the sun and stars didn't exist till the fourth day? The right answer is that the light was that of the angels.

And when did the evil angels fall from grace? Saint Augustine also says that the fall of angels fell on the first day. This is what is meant by: God divided the light from the darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Later in Chapter 19, Saint Augustine writes: 

But between that light, which is the holy company of the angels spiritually radiant with the illumination of the truth, and that opposing darkness, which is the noisome foulness of the spiritual condition of those angels who are turned away from the light of righteousness, only He Himself could divide, from whom their wickedness (not of nature, but of will), while yet it was future, could not be hidden or uncertain.

So the creation of angels (light) and the fall of Lucifer and the demons (division of darkness from light) occurred on the first day.

Saint Michael all All Angels, pray for us.

Happy Michaelmas, everyone!

The Liturgy Answers the Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is a perennial problem for those who try to seek God's will. If I seek to follow God, why do I suffer? I pray and grow poor. My neighbor curses God and grows rich? How is this just? This mystery is revealed in light of the Christ: God loved His Son and even He suffered more than any. 

Even though I know the theological answer and I accept that redemption involves suffering ("unless you take up your cross daily you are not worthy to be my disciple"), I still struggle against suffering in my soul.

One Psalm in particular is helpful for me - Psalm 72 in the Vulgate (or Psalm 73 in other Bibles). Here, King David laments how the "wicked prosper," and he observes that those who despise God continue to enjoy life. The wicked don't worry about death (v. 4). They don't have to work hard or suffer (v. 5). The wicked are prideful, healthy, and wealthy (v. 6). They curse and blaspheme (vv. 7-9) - think of all those that take God's name in vain repeatedly and yet they prosper upon the earth!

Then David asks in v. 11, "Doesn't God know this? Doesn't God see these people becoming rich and happy?"

David cries out:

Then have I in vain justified my heart, and washed my hands among the innocent. And I have been scourged all the day; and my chastisement hath been in the mornings. I will speak thus; behold I should condemn the generation of thy children (vv. 13-15).

David ponders this problem and he worries about it. But then he finds the answer - the answer is liturgical. Yes, the liturgy of God is what opens his eyes to the truth - a sacramental answer comes from God:

[16] I studied that I might know this thing, it is a labour in my sight: [17] Until I go into the sanctuary of God, and understand concerning their last ends. [18] But indeed for deceits thou hast put it to them: when they were lifted up thou hast cast them down. [19] How are they brought to desolation? they have suddenly ceased to be: they have perished by reason of their iniquity. [20] As the dream of them that awake, O Lord; so in thy city thou shalt bring their image to nothing.

 David's heart doesn't understand the problem of evil "until I go into the sanctuary of God," and then he "understands concerning their last ends."

Within the Temple, in the presence of God, God realizes that His presence is with His people. He also realizes that God is the judge and that this life does not compare to what has been promised by God to those who remain faithful. The present circumstances do not constitute true happiness or true beatitude. David sees that the wicked will be "brought to desolation" for their crimes. 

The rest of the Psalm is beautiful as David reflects on God in the sanctuary:

[24] Thou hast held me by my right hand; and by thy will thou hast conducted me, and with thy glory thou hast received me. [25] For what have I in heaven? and besides thee what do I desire upon earth?
[26] For thee my flesh and my heart hath fainted away: thou art the God of my heart, and the God that is my portion for ever. [27] For behold they that go far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them that are disloyal to thee. [28] But it is good for me to adhere to my God, to put my hope in the Lord God: That I may declare all thy praises, in the gates of the daughter of Sion.

David's desires turn from earth to Heaven. His desire is for God. He body and soul faint for love of God. He realizes that he is made by God to praise God and enjoy Him forever. Note again how the Psalm ends with his desire to worship God: "But it is good for me to adhere to my God, to put my hope in the Lord God: That I may declare all thy praises."

If you struggle with the problem of evil, follow David. Go to Church, kneel before the crucified Savior in the tabernacle and open you heart. The troubles of life and the desire to compare your life to the fortunes of others will fade away. "Thou hast held me by my right hand; and by thy will thou hast conducted me, and with thy glory thou hast received me."

The problem of evil cannot be solved through debate. Rather it won't be solved "until I go into the sanctuary of God."

The Conversion of a Lustful Satanist Magician (Sts Cyprian and Justina)

In the old calendar, today is the feast day of Saint Cyprian and Saint Justina.

Cyprian was a practitioner of the dark arts in Antioch who sought the aid of demons in his craft. He fell into a lustful fit overa beautiful young lady named Justina. Justina, however, was a consecrated Catholic virgin with little interest in a creepy magician.

Cyprian sought to cast spells and hexes upon the virgin in order to seduce her; however Justina foiled his demonic advances by making the sign of the cross. Cyprian, amazed by the power of the cross, himself made the sign of the cross and by doing so was freed from the power of the devil. Cyprian renounced his occult activities, embraced Christ, received baptism and became known for his faith, love, and penances.

Cyprian was eventually made deacon, then priest, then finally bishop. Justina eventually become the abbess of a convent.

Tradition says that Cyprian and Justina received martyrdom together. While Cyprian had once wished to be unlawfully joined to Justina, divine providence joined them together in the greatest human act:, that is, martyrdom for Christ. The date of their martyrdom is placed on this day, September 26 in AD 304.

Saint Justina is the patroness of ladies being harassed by creepy men.

Saint Cyprian and Saint Justina, pray for us.

Great Quote on Suffering (Thomas a Kempis)

Here's a good quote for all my fellow melancholics:

"Who is there that has all things according to his will? Neither I nor you, nor any man on earth. There is no man in the world without some trouble or affliction be he king or pope. Who then is the best off? Truly he that is able to suffer something for the love of God."

Thomas a Kempis, author of The Imitation of Christ

Video: Latin Mass for the Sacred Heart

Have you ever see a Latin Mass? Here's a nice video of the Latin Mass for the Sacred Heart. Observe the following three elements:

The preciseness of the priest's movements
The reverence
The silent canon (the priest says the words of consecration silently).

This last feature, as my friend Steven Nelson observed, hearkens back to the prophecies of the Old Testament:

"But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him." (Hab 2:20)

Humble silence can be the greatest form of worship. For details, see the Blessed Mother under the cross of the Son of God.

Bishop, Priest, and Deacon - What do these words mean?

St Sixtus II (bishop) ordains St Lawrence (deacon)

Bishop, Priest, and Deacon - What do these words mean? All three come from Greek words and derive from the Greek New Testament.

Bishop comes from the Greek word episkopos, meaning "overseer." The prefix "epi-" means "upon" and "scopus" means "to see," like a scope or a telescope. The word came into Latin as episcopus and then into English as piscop. The "p" turned into a "b" and that gave us "biscop" or "bishop."

episkopos > episcopus > piscop > biscop > bishop

Priest comes from the Greek word presbyteros, meaning "elder" or "old man." It refers back to the ancient elders of Israel who assisted Aaron and Moses in leading the children of Israel. The word came into Latin as presbyterus and then into English as "presbyter" which was shortened to "prester," and finally "priest."

presbyteros > presbyterus > presbyter > prester > priest

Deacon comes from the Greek word diakonos, meaning "servant." The prefix "dia-" means "through" and "konos" means "common." This is someone who works by means of common duties - a servant. It came into Latin as "diaconus" and from their into English as "deacon."

I don't want to get into the debate over whether the New Testament views the office of bishop and presbyter as the same. The word is used interchangeable. But for that matter, Paul also interchanges the words "apostle" and "deacon" - that doesn't mean that each term refers to the same office. Rather the terms are fluid, but the offices are not.

In the New Testament we see three clear offices:

Apostle
bishops/presbyters
deacons

When the Apostles died, the terms changed, but the hierarchy remained:

Bishop
presbyters
deacons

Saint Paul, pray for us.

Why Matthew is the First Gospel - and not Mark (or Q)

For the first 1,500 years of Christianity, the Church unanimously held that the Gospels were historically written in the order we find them in the canon: Matthew first, Mark second, Luke third, and John last of all.

The reason for Matthew's priority is simple: the testimony of the ancient witnesses describe Matthew's Gospel as first and as written in Hebrew/Aramaic. Here is Saint Augustine on the issue:

"Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, …are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John."

"Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done."

St. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, 2.

Yet there is another reason why Matthew would have written the first Gospel of Christ - he owned paper and ink! Think about it. The other Apostles were fishermen. Matthew was a tax collector which meant that he was a record keeper and an accountant. In a time when writing, parchment, and ink were rare commodities, it is fitting that the one Apostle with access to such things would be the first to WRITE the life of Christ.

That recent belief that Matthew is not the first Gospel arose because people first began to doubt the resurrection of Christ and His divinity. As such, the Christian message would have to have been falsified. It was assumed that the shortest and plainest Gospel would have been the earliest. Thus, liberal scholars crowded around the Gospel of Mark as the "earliest" since it does not contain much of Christ's teaching and it's resurrection account is the simplest. Then, they postulated that an unknown source of sayings (the so-called "Q") was used to "fill in" the teachings of Christ. This is entirely ad hoc and has no historical basis. Moreover, Q scholars debate and divide over the issues.

The historic testimony is against this Markan theory. The saints and Fathers teach that Matthew came first - and this simply makes sense.

St Matthew the Evangelist, pray for us!

Wheat and Weeds: Sinners in the Field of the Church

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once remarked: "There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing" (Sheen's Foreword to Radio Replies Vol. 1, (1938) p. ix). I also once heard the famous archbishop say that the most persuasive argument against Catholicism is Catholics themselves - since our lives to do rightly conform to the doctrine that we confess.

We must be mindful of the explicit teaching of Christ our Lord on this topic - the manifestation of Kingdom of God on earth (the Church) is a visible society of good and bad members. Christ proclaimed, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a net which was cast into the sea, and gathered all kinds of fishes." 

Likewise, Our Blessed Lord refers to the Kingdom as a field with both valuable wheat and twith roublesome weed growing up together. Our Divine Savior also refers to the Kingdom as a wedding party in which there are both good and bad guests present. The Kingdom is also like investors, some of which fail and in doing so lose their principle. The Kingdom, teaches Christ, also tolerates both wise and foolish virgins.*

So then, the manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth (the Church) temporarily contains within it s visible membership the unwise, the unfaithful, heretics (so says St Paul), and even antichrists (so says St John).

This is now currently the case while the Church is invaded by unfaithful clergy, unorthodox talking heads with Ph.D.'s, so-called "pro-choice" Catholic politicians, and yes, even our own personal sins.

Christ warns us that the Church will not be perfected until He returns for us on the Last DAy. So there is no excuse to stay away from the Pope, the Church, and the Sacraments because of the "bad people." within the Church. The desire for a "pure Church," before the Last Day is a condemned heresy (Donatism). That there are weeds among us only reveals that there is also wheat. For the two will coexist until the end of time. And then the angels shall gather the elect into the eternal Kingdom of Heaven.

* One of the most painful sights for me as a relatively new Catholic is the existence of heterodox and dissenting nuns. It seems that the beauty and glory of femininity is expressed by Our Blessed Mother Mary and by those consecrated women who seek to live under her humble mantle. Thus, the  existence of heterodox nuns in the Church are especially troubling. Even still, Christ our Lord promised that there would be "unwise or foolish virgins" in His Church. Sad, but prophetically true.

Relic Video: The Liquifying Blood of St Januarius

Every year on September 19 (today), thousands of people assemble at the cathedral in Naples to witness the miracle of the blood of Saint Januarius. This miracle has occurred annually since AD 1389.*

Saint Januarius was the bishop of Naples and received the palm of martyrdom under Diocletian's persecution of the Catholic Church (ca. AD 303).

Somehow samples of the martyr's blood were acquired and stored in a small vial. Today, this vial contains a dark reddish dried residue.

On the feastday, the archbishop of Naples holds up the reliquary containing the blood and shows that the vials contain the dry and solid remains of blood. Next, the archbishop places the reliquary on top of the altar of Saint Clare along with the bones of the saint.

The people begin to pray and shout and then the blood begins to liquify. The archbishop then moves the reliquary around to show that the once solid contents are not liquid (see video below). The Neapolitans commemorate the miracle with a 21 gun salute. The liquified blood remains in the vial on the altar for 8 days.

Here's a video of the miracle:

Saint Januarius, holy martyr, pray for us.

* This miracle also happens on Dec 16 and the first Sunday in May.

The difference between Weak Christians and Ill Christians (by St Augustine)

In the Office of Readings (LOTH) for this morning, St Augustine speaks of wicket Catholic priests, but specifically the difference between "weak" and "sick" Christians. I was humbled to learn that I am, in fact, a "weak Christian," and have a very long way to go. 

Weak Christians desire to live a holy life and do good works; however, they are "weak" in that they are not willing to suffer hardships and setbacks. They want to be holy, but only if they can be "pain free" saints. The weak Christian is willing to pray the Rosary, feed the poor, attend Holy Mass, tithe, etc, but he is not willing to suffer for and with Christ. When tribulations arrive, he becomes angry with God for "rewarding" his presumed piety with temporal pain.

Sick or ill Christians, on the other hand, desire pleasure and worldly attachments so much that they are unwilling to do good works or obey the positive law of God. These are Christians in name only. They confess the name of Christ but they do not attend Holy Mass or seek to obey God's law. Perhaps this is Augustine's way of speaking of "Christmas and Easter Catholics."

Here is the holy bishop of Hippo in his own words:

You have failed to strengthen the weak, says the Lord. He is speaking to wicked shepherds, false shepherds, shepherds who seek their own concerns and not those of Christ. They enjoy the bounty of milk and wool, but they take no care at all of the sheep, and they make no effort to heal those who are ill. I think there is a difference between one who is weak (that is, not strong) and one who is ill, although we often say that the weak are also suffering from illness.

  My brothers, when I try to make that distinction, perhaps I could do it better and with greater precision, or perhaps someone with more experience and insight could do so. But when it comes to the words of Scripture, I say what I think so that in the meantime you will not be deprived of all profit. In the case of the weak sheep, it is to be feared that the temptation, when it comes, may break him. The sick person, however, is already ill by reason of some illicit desire or other, and this is keeping him from entering God’s path and submitting to Christ’s yoke.

  There are men who want to live a good life and have already decided to do so, but are not capable of bearing sufferings even though they are ready to do good. Now it is a part of the Christian’s strength not only to do good works but also to endure evil. Weak men are those who appear to be zealous in doing good works but are unwilling or unable to endure the sufferings that threaten. Lovers of the world, however, who are kept from good works by some evil desire, lie sick and listless, and it is this sickness that deprives them of any strength to accomplish good works.

  The paralytic was like that. When his bearers could not bring him in to the Lord, they opened the roof and lowered him down to the feet of Christ. Perhaps you wish to do this in spirit: to open the roof and to lower a paralytic soul down to the Lord. All its limbs are lifeless, it is empty of every good work, burdened with its sins, and weak from the illness brought on by its evil desires. Since all its limbs are helpless, and the paralysis is interior, you cannot come to the physician. But perhaps the physician is himself concealed within; for the true understanding of Scripture is hidden. Reveal therefore what is hidden, and thus you will open the roof and lower the paralytic to the feet of Christ.

  As for those who fail to do this and those who are negligent, you have heard what was said to them: You have failed to heal the sick; you have failed to bind up what was broken. Of this we have already spoken. Man was broken by terrible temptations. But there is at hand a consolation that will bind what was broken: God is faithful. He does not allow you to be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Saint Augustine pray for us.

Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto thine.

The Glorious Martyrdom of St Cyprian

Below is the historical account of the martyrdom of St Cyprian of Carthage (AD 258). I am amazed by how calm and collected St Cyprian is. He simply knows what he believes and he knows what he has to do.

Acts of the Martyrdom of Saint Cyprian

On the morning of 14 September a huge crowd gathered at Villa Sexti as the proconsul Galerius Maximus had ordered. The proconsul commanded that Bishop Cyprian be brought to trial before him as he sat in judgement in the court called Sauciolum. When the bishop appeared the proconsul asked him: ‘Are you Thascius Cyprian?’

  The bishop replied: ‘I am.’

  ‘And have you acted as leader in a community of impious men?’

  ‘I have.’

  ‘The sacred emperors have ordered you to sacrifice.’

  ‘I will not sacrifice.’

  ‘Consider your position.’

  ‘Do what is required of you. I have no need to deliberate; the issues are clear.’

  Galerius consulted briefly with his advisers and reluctantly pronounced sentence in the following words: ‘You have lived in an irreligious manner for a long time now and have gathered about you a large congregation of criminals and unbelievers. You have shown yourself hostile to the gods of Rome and the rites by which they are worshipped. The pious and sacred emperors Valerian and his son, Gallienus, and the right noble Caesar, Valerian, have been unable to recall you to the practice of the official religion. Furthermore you are the instigator of abominations, a veritable standard-bearer for criminals and as such you have been brought before me. Your death will be an example to those whom you have gathered into your criminal conspiracy. Your blood will uphold the law.’ He then pronounced the following sentence from his wax tablet: ‘It is our decision that Thascius Cyprian be put to death by the sword.’ Bishop Cyprian simply said, ‘Thanks be to God.’

  When sentence had been passed the assembled brethren cried out: ‘Let us be beheaded with him!’, and followed him in a huge and tumultuous crowd. Cyprian was brought to the plain of Sextus. There he removed his cloak and kneeling down he humbled himself in prayer to God. He disrobed and gave his dalmatic to the deacons. Clad only in his linen tunic he awaited his executioner.

  When the executioner arrived Cyprian told his followers to give him twenty-five gold pieces. His brethren spread before him linen cloths and towels. The blessed Cyprian blindfolded his eyes with his own hands. The presbyter Julian and the subdeacon Julian tied the ends of the handkerchief since he was unable to do so himself. So died blessed Cyprian.

  His body was exposed nearby to satisfy the curiosity of the pagans. During the night the body was removed by the light of wax candles and torches, and with prayer and great pomp it was brought for burial to a piece of open ground belonging to the procurator Macrobius Candidianus near the reservoirs on the Mappalian Way. A few days later the proconsul Galerius Maximus died.

  The blessed Cyprian suffered martyrdom on 14 September, under the emperors Valerian and Gallienus, but in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is honour and glory for ever. Amen.

St Cyprian, pray for us.

The History and Seven Graces of the Seven Sorrows of Mary

In 1233, seven young men in Tuscany founded the Servite Order ("Order of the Servants of Mary"). They sought to spread devotion to the Seven Sorrows of Mary

The feast of the Our Lady of Sorrows was instituted by a provincial synod of Cologne in 1413 as a response to the Protestant Hussites (by the way, it the Hussites were the ones that put the sword gashes on the face of the Polish Our Lady of Czestochowa)

Pope Saint Pius X placed the feast on September 15 so that it would close to the feast of the Holy Cross on September 14.

The Blessed Virgin Mary revealed to Saint Bridget of Sweden (died 1373)  that those that  pray a Hail Mary while meditating on Mary’s Seven Sorrows will receive Seven Graces:

1. I will grant peace to their families.
2. They will be enlightened about the divine mysteries.
3. I will console them in their pains and I will accompany them in their work.
4. I will give them as much as they ask for as long as it does not oppose the adorable will of my divine Son or the sanctification of their souls.
5. I will defend them in their spiritual battles with the infernal enemy and I will protect them at every instant of their lives.
6. I will visibly help them at the moment of their death, they will see the face of their Mother.
7. I have obtained (This Grace) from my divine Son, that those who propagate this devotion to my tears and sorrows, will be taken directly from this earthly life to eternal happiness since all their sins will be forgiven and my Son and I will be their eternal consolation and joy.

Notably, the Seven Sorrows are Scriptural (with the exception of #4):

   1. The prophecy of Simeon. (St. Luke 2: 34, 35)

   2. The flight into Egypt. (St. Matthew 2:13-14)
   3. The loss of the Child Jesus in the temple. (St. Luke 2: 43-45)
   4. The meeting of Jesus and Mary on the Way of the Cross.
   5. The Crucifixion and Death of Jesus.
   6. The taking down of the Body of Jesus from the Cross.
   7. The burial of Jesus.

Let's Get Metaphysical...

I'm currently teaching a college course on Metaphysics (Philosophy of Being) at the University of Dallas.

If you're interested in this kind of thing, please visit our class website. I try to break down a very difficult subject into easy to understand lessons:

www.philofbeing.com

Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall

PS: I'm looking for a tenure track position in Philosophy at a University/College. If you know of one or "know somebody," please let me know!

Three Arguments for Your Atheist Friends

You don't have to be a philosophy major to talk to atheists about God. Here are three simple arguments to help you in your task. Practice them on a friend before you try to use them in real life.

Warning: These are "negative arguments," in that they do not prove the existence of God directly, but they do reveal that only the existence of God can account for the objections each raises.

1) Moral Argument: How can there be good and evil or right and wrong? Another way to put it, if we're playing a game then someone has to create the rules. If there are no objective rules then there are no rules. All human acts would be morally arbitrary and neutral.

Was Hitler evil? By whose standards? Does the atheist have a good answer to this?

So then, there must be an objective lawgiver - and this we know as "God."

2) Cause and Effect Argument: This is also referred to as the cosmological argument. We observe cause and effect in the world. Yet it is absurd that the chain of cause and effect would go back in an infinite directly. There must have been a first cause. This first cause we know as "God."

Think of one million people leaning on one another at an equal angle. At the end of the leaning line of people, there must be a wall to hold up the first person. If there weren't something supporting the leaning line, everyone would just fall over.

3) Design Argument: This is commonly called the teleological argument or "watchmaker" argument. There is order and design in the universe (e.g. mathematical ratios observed in sea shells and bee hives). Since there is a rational order in the universe, then there must be a rational mind behind. To put it another way, if there is design, then there must be a designer.

The common version of this argument is that if you were walking in the desert and you came across a gold watch, you would not assume that the gold, steel, springs, leather strap, crystal, etc. randomly came together to form a sophisticated machine. Rather, you would assume that the watch was made by a watchmaker. So then, the world is ordered and more sophisticated than a watch, therefore there is a supernal "watchmaker," and this we call "God."

Did Jesus Christ really exist? How best to answer this question

"Did Jesus really exist?" This accusation is not very common, but you do occasionally hear it. Someone told me that it was recently explored on the History Channel.

How do we know that Christ existed? We have the four Gospels and the other day we established how these four books are the most historically attested documents in human history.

What about non-Christian sources? Here are some non-Christian sources that testify to Christ's existence:

1. Tacitus, the Roman historian, tells of the founding of Christianity by Jesus who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate." Tacitus also tells us that Nero blamed the Roman Christians for the great fire of Rome. See Tacitus' Annal. 15, 44.
2. Suetonius, the biographer of the Roman Caesars, records how the Roman Jews were expelled from Rome in AD 50 because of internal fights and debates over a certain man named "Chrestus." Almost all scholars agree that "Chrestus" is a misspelling of "Christus." By the way, tradition states that Peter came to Rome in the AD 40s and so the Jewish debates in Rome "over Chrestus" may have been kindled by Peter. By the way, the reason Peter is back in Jerusalem for the Council of Jerusalem is that all Jews were expelled from Rome in about AD 50. So Peter (a Jew) left Rome and came back to Jerusalem.
3. Josephus was a Jewish historian writing in the first century. He mentions Jesus of Nazareth twice and gives plenty of details about him and the Christians who follow him.
4. Pliny the Younger, in AD 111 wrote a letter to Trajan about the "superstitious sect" of Christians in Asia Minor. Remarkably, Pliny records that Christians believed that Christ was God: "they sing together a hymn to Christ as God." See Pliny the Youngers Epistle 97.
5. The Talmud is the record of Jewish oral tradition. The Talmud contains many blasphemous accounts of Christ (and Mary). For the sake of history, the Talmud records that Jesus was a false Messiah who learned dark magic in Egypt. The Talmud records that this Jesus was crucified on the Eve of the Passover.

These five sources (3 Roman, 2 Jewish) reveal that there was a remarkable Jewish man named Jesus who truly lived in the first century. His named was Jesus, and He was the crucified, claimed to have risen, and that his followers had already flourished as far away as Rome itself. When we couple these pagan and Jewish testimonies with the writings of St Paul and the four Gospels, (all of which were written in the middle/late of the first century) we have an amazing amount of evidence.

There is more evidence for the existence of Christ than there is for the existence of Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero.

Are the Four Gospels Historically Verifiable? (Arguments in Favor)

Some claim that the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not historical or are later documents not actually written by St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke, and St John.

Here are some quick facts demonstrating the historicity of the Four Gospels:

1. The Didache (written between AD 70 and 100 quotes the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It also refers to the "gospels" (plural) revealing that there already more than one.
2. Saint Clement (the fourth pope circa AD 96) in his epistle to the Corinthians contains ten quotations from both Matthew and Mark.
3. The Epistle of St Barnabas (circa 90-130) quotes Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
4. St Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 108) quotes Matthew, Luke, and John.
5. Papias (circa AD 120) spoke of all four Gospels and said that Matthew first wrote the words and acts of Christ in the Hebrew language which was later translated into Greek.
6. St Justin Martyr knew all four Gospels and refers frequently to Luke.
7. Tertullian (ca. AD 200) spoke of the Gospels "of Matthew and John the Apostles and Mark and Luke the disciples of Apostles."

There is literally no other literary work that has this much early testimony to support it. The writings of Cicero and Caesar do not even come close - to say nothing of Plato and especially Homer. The Gospels are the best attested historical documents known to mankind. The Gospels have more historical witness than even the Old Testament, which is rather amazing when you think of it.

Your Guardian Angel (What you need to know)

The concept of "guardian angels" is thoroughly Jewish. Moses records human interaction with guarding angels in the Torah, and Daniel frequently mentions the powerful role of angels as guardians (see Daniel 10 for details).

Christ our Lord explicitly teaches the existence of guardian angels in Matthew 18:10: "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

The early Church Fathers also spoke of our guardian angels. St. Jerome, for example, taught that each person (both good and evil) has a guardian angel appointed to a person from the beginning of his existence.

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that all humans have a guardian angel and that these were chosen from the lowest hierarchy of angels.

Blesse John Paul II emphasized the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the ministry of guardian angels:

"Let us invoke the Queen of angels and saints, that she may grant us, supported by our guardian angels, to be authentic witnesses to the Lord's paschal mystery" (Regina Caeli Audience, 1997).

Maria Agreda, the visionary, taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary had hundreds of guardian angels, including St Michael and St Gabriel. I've heard some people say that Catholic priests have "two guardian angels," but I don't know if this tradition has any magisterial support.

And to raise a very controversial topic, you're not supposed to name your Guardian Angel. Sorry, just don't do it.

Excommunicated for a Bad Hair Cut! (How did ancient Christians wear their hair?)

How did ancient Christians wear their hair? The answers may surprise you. The catocombs reveal some hair styles. And when it came to the clergy, they had strict and enforced rules.

The answers from the Catholic Encyclopedia, thanks to newadvent.org ("Hair in Ancient Christianity): 

The paintings in the catacombs permit the belief that the early Christians simply followed the fashion of their time. The short hair of the men and the waved tresses of the women were, towards the end of the second century, curled, frizzed with irons, and arranged in tiers, while for women the hair twined about the head forming a high diadem over the brow. Particular locks were reserved to fall over the forehead and upon the temples.

Images of Christ retain the long hair parted in the middle and flowing to the shoulders. Those of the Blessed Virgin still wear the veil which conceals a portion of the brow and confines the neck. The Orantes, which represent the generality of the faithful, have the hair covered by a full veil which falls to the shoulders.

Byzantine iconography differs little as to head-dress from that of the catacombs. Mosaics and ivories portray emperors, bishops, priests and the faithful wearing the hair of a medium length, cut squarely across the forehead. Women then wore a round head-dress which encircled the face. Emperors and empresses wore a large, low crown, wide at the top, ornamented with preciousstones cut en cabochon, and jeweled pendants falling down to the shoulders, such as may be seen in the mosaics of S. Vitalis at Ravenna and a large number of diptychs. The hair of patriarchs and bishops was of medium length and was surmounted by a closed crown or a double tiara.

And more the hair-dues of priests:

The councils regulated the head-dress of clerics and monks. The "Statuta antiqua Ecclesiae" (can. xliv) forbade them to allow hair or beard to grow. A synod held by St. Patrick (can. vi) in 456 prescribed that the clerics should dress their hair in the manner of the Roman clerics, and those who allowed their hair to grow were expelled from the Church (can. x). The Council of Agde (506) authorized the archdeacon to employ force in cutting the hair of recalcitrants; that of Braga (572) ordained that the hair should be short, and the ears exposed, while the Council of Toledo (633) denounced the lectors in Galicia who wore a small tonsure and allowed the hair to grow immoderately, and two Councils of Rome (721 and 743) anathematized those who should neglect the regulations in this matter. (wow!!!) This legislation only shows how inveterate was the contrary custom. The insistence of the councils is readily explained if we recall the ridiculous fantasies to which the heretical sects permitted themselves to go. Whether through the love of mortification or a taste for the bizarre, we see, according to St. Jerome's testimony, monks bearded like goats, and the "Vita Hilarionis" also states that certain persons considered it meritorious to cut hair each year at Easter.

Not that it matters too much, but I thought you might enjoy odd topic. Have a great three day weekend.