Thomas Aquinas, Proclus, and Dionysius

In the 1100s Gerard of Cremona discovered and translated into Latin a ninth century Arabic book bearing the title: The Book of Aristotle's Explanation of the Pure Good. 

Many assumed that this Arabic text captured an authentic metaphysical book by Aristotle. It bore the Latin title Liber de causis or "Book of Causes."

About one hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas (so the legend goes) asked William of Moerbeke to translate The Elements of Theology by Proclus from the original Greek into Latin. The Latin translation of Proclus' Elements of Theology became available in 1268 - six years before the death of Saint Thomas.

Saint Thomas discovered something amazing. What was assumed to be Aristotle's Book of Causes was actually an Arabic bastardized version of Proclus' Elements of Theology.

Think about it. Aristotle died in 322 before Christ. Proclus died in the year of Our Lord 485. That's a difference of 807 years. What a goof up!

So Saint Thomas Aquinas picked up on the borrowing and was able to solve the mystery.

Ah...but there is more mystery.

If you have read much Saint Thomas Aquinas, you know that he loves Dionysius the Areopagite. Thomas cites Dionysius 1,700 times. That's really important. This means that Dionysius is one of the most quoted sources for Thomas - right up there with Augustine and Aristotle. 

Modern scholars hold that the works of Dionysius are a Christianized version of Proclus. They even claim that the "Pseudo-Dionysius" borrows directly from the pagan philosopher Proclus. This entails that the traditional dating of the Dionysian books cannot be placed during the time of the Apostles. Rather, the "Pseudo-Dionysian" books would need to be dated after Proclus - sometime around AD 500. 

If Thomas Aquinas figured out that the Liber de Causis derived from Proclus, why didn't he figure out that Dionysius also derived from Proclus? Hmmm. Well maybe there is more to this story. I'm currently studying the issue. So far, I've discovered that many of the so-called Proclian elements in the Dionysian works can be traced straight to Aristotle's authentic works. If this is always the case, then perhaps we need not claim that a Pseudo-Dionysius was borrowing from Proclus. This would allow us to follow Thomas Aquinas who believed that Dionysius is none other than the true Dionysius converted by St Paul in Acts 17. There are other complications, but it is rather interesting. Stay tuned.

Godspeed,

Taylor

PS: I'm also working on a translation of St Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Dionysius' Divine Names. However, I hear that others are doing the same thing. Can anybody out there confirm this rumor. I don't want to labor on the translation if someone else is doing it.

Do You Have a Heresy Checklist? Here it is

Above, the Nestorian Heresy Depicted Graphically

Perhaps the best way to learn the truth about the person and natures of our Lord Jesus Christ is to learn how the ancient heresies got it wrong. Here is a basic checklist to help you along the way:

Heresies Checklist

• Docetism teaches that Jesus only appeared to be human (from the Greek dokeo meaning "to seem"). On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ if fully God and fully man and they He possessed a physical human body.
• Sabellianism (aka modalism) falsely teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same person. Sabellianists were called "Patripassians" (Greek for "the Father suffered") because they taught that God the Father suffered on the cross since the Father is the Son and vice versa. The Catholic Faith holds that there is one Divine Essence and three divine Persons. The TV preacher TD Jakes and Oneness Pentecostals are modern-day Sabellian heretics.
• Adoptionism falsely teaches that Jesus had been a holy man who kept himself sinless. Adoptionists usually hold that Jesus achieved union with God at his baptism in the Jordan at which moment he was adopted by God the Father and given the title "Son of God." Adoptionism of a sort is held my modern-day liberals who believe that Jesus was only a "good teacher" and "holy man" who achieved spiritual union with God on earth. Modern Unitarians also teach adoptionism.
• Arianism teaches that Jesus is not fully God - that Christ was merely the greatest creature of God the Father - that Jesus is the best creature who exists just one level above the angels. Arians teach that there was a time when the Son did not exist. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father. God the Son is fully God and fully man. Modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses are officially Arian - the JWs believe that Christ is the greatest creature of God the Father. We Catholics believe Christ is a divine person. Mary, as the human mother of Jesus, is the greatest creature of God.
• Nestorianism (named after its founder, the heretic Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius) teaches that Jesus is two “persons” - Jesus the human son of Mary and Jesus the divine Son of God. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is one person with two natures: divine nature and human nature. If you've ever heard someone speak of "the human Jesus and the divine Jesus" then you're dealing with a Nestorian.
• Monophysitism (mono = only & physis = nature) teaches that the divinity and humanity of Christ fused into only one single nature. They speak of the human nature being absorbed into the divine nature. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ has two distinct natures: divine nature and human nature. 
• Monothelitism (mono = only & thelema = will) teaches that Jesus has only one divine will. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ has two wills: a divine will and a human will belonging to His human soul. In Christ, the divine will and His human will were in perfect harmony. Some have argued that John Calvin and Calvinists are practically Monothelites.
• Iconoclasm teaches that images are idolatrous. On the contrary, the Catholic Church defends the use of Christian (not pagan) images since Christ became visible through the incarnation. Many modern Protestants subscribe to varying degrees to Iconoclasm. John Calvin was an iconoclast and Presbyterianism is historically iconoclastic

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is:

• Second Person of the Trinity
• One divine person with two natures (divine nature & human nature)
• 100% divine (Son of God)
• 100% human (Son of Mary)
• Christ or Messiah (royal heir of David - King of the Jews)
• Rose from the dead and is seated at Father’s right hand
• Shall come again to judge the living and the dead

Papicolist: A New Catholic Word for You on St Thomas Becket's Day

A couple of weeks ago, Joy and I were at an O-Antiphons Advent Party at the home of Muffin Armstrong (her blog is Theology of the Body). We were playing Balderdash after supper and a great word came up: 

Papicolist. 

What does "papicolist" mean? Some said, "A person who plays the papicolo instrument." Clever, but not quite. The true definition is as follows:

papicolist. noun, 1633-1810

one who worships the pope; a papist

Hah! What a great word. Of course, we don't worship the Pope with the cult of adoration of latria, but we do give him high honors as our universal pastor on earth - the pastor of pastors and the servants of servants.

Today is the perfect day for this word since it is the feast day of Saint Thomas Becket - a true papicolist (in the good way) if there every was one. Many people don't know this, but this blog is actually named after Saint Thomas Becket, who was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral--hence the name "Canterbury Tales." Today, then, is the feast of this blog. 

Our fifth child is also named "Becket" in honor of this great witness of Christ. Becket, you might remember, stood up against King Henry II of England over the rights and privileges of the Pope in England. Henry II wanted clergy tried in secular criminal courts and the Pope resisted this since clergy were to be tried in church courts under the direction of the Pope. Tradition relates that the king said the following about Becket: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

As a favor to the king, some cronies of Henry murdered papicolent Becket in his Cathedral in Canterbury. T. S. Eliot's famous play "Murder in the Cathedral" is based on this story. Why not order a copy of the play.

Saint Thomas Becket died valiantly for the Pope's prerogatives. If only his successor Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had served so under the rascal King Henry VIII! Thomas Becket reminds us that it is worth shedding blood for the papacy. Loving, serving, and submitting to the Pope is not something incidental to being a Christian - Becket teaches us that submission to Pope is absolutely essential. This, by the way, is why you will notice from time to time that I have very little patience for the Greeks and Russians who enter our comment box and fight against the Popes and their infallible teachings. 

As an aside, I usually don't refer to the non-papal Easterns as "Orthodox" because they deny at least four Apostolic doctrines: original sin and concupiscence, the Immaculate Conception, universal papal jurisdiction, and papal infallibility. Some even make the silly claim that the Catholic Church is in heresy because we use the papal sanction Filioque in the Creed. It is not "orthodox" to say that the Popes have infallibly defined error. That, rather, is heterodox. 

Similarly, Anglicans are not "catholic" until they embrace these doctrines and submit to the successor of Saint Peter in Rome. If a true Catholic denies any of these doctrines, he cannot be saved - so this is all very serious. I'm not interested in playing the niceties of ecumenical flattery. Our Divine Lord said, “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matthew 18:17, D-R) If a man won't listen to Peter and the Church's magisterium, he is more a "heathen" than he is "Orthodox."

When I was in Rome, I was standing on a street corner when suddenly a black car rolled up. A bishop opened the back door and Pope Benedict XVI got out. A shouted "Viva Papa!" and he waved at me. That is my spiritual papa and I will love to death by the grace of Christ. As the fourth commandment teaches: "Honor thy Papa" or something like that.

Viva Papa! and may St Thomas Becket pray for us.

Were the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem True Martyrs? (Thomas Aquinas on the Baptism of Blood)

Today, December 28, the Catholic Church honors and remembers the Holy Innocents. The Holy Innocents are those Jewish infants murdered by the order of King Herod who feared that a newborn king would usurp him. 

Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. (Matthew 2:16, D-R)

The martyrdom of the Holy Innocents is a difficult theological problem. There have been those who have argued that the Holy Innocents are not truly martyrs, because martyrdom is an act of virtue and therefore a voluntary act. Yet, infants have not yet reached the age of reason and so they cannot voluntarily lay down their lives for God. So it seems that the Holy Innocents are not strictly "martyrs" since they did not willingly die for the sake of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas defends the traditional definition of martyrdom as a voluntary act of heroic virtue wherein a believer dies for Christ. He also defends the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. Here is Saint Thomas:

Some have said that in the case of the Innocents the use of their free will was miraculously accelerated, so that they suffered martyrdom even voluntarily. Since, however, Scripture contains no proof of this, it is better to say that these babes in being slain obtained by God's grace the glory of martyrdom which others acquire by their own will. For the shedding of one's blood for Christ's sake takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore just as in the case of baptized children the merit of Christ is conducive to the acquisition of glory through the baptismal grace, so in those who were slain for Christ's sake the merit of Christ's martyrdom is conducive to the acquisition of the martyr's palm. 

Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (De Diversis lxvi), as though he were addressing them: "A man that does not believe that children are benefited by the baptism of Christ will doubt of your being crowned in suffering for Christ. You were not old enough to believe in Christ's future sufferings, but you had a body wherein you could endure suffering of Christ Who was to suffer."  

- Summa theologiae II-II q. 124, a. 1, ad. 1.

Augustine and Thomas answer by associating their martyrdom with the baptism of blood. The Catholic Church, faithful to Our Lord's teaching in John 3:3-5, states that no man can be saved without baptism. Period. Close the book. Impossible. However, there are three kinds of baptism: sacramental water baptism, baptism of blood, and baptism by desire.

The Holy Innocents, by their blood death, received all the benefits of sacramental baptism. Their infant souls were regenerate, cleansed of original sin, and infused with sanctifying grace. The Holy Innocents, then, become a very powerful apologetical argument for infant baptism! Keep this fact in your apologetical tool box. If the Holy Innocents were saved by a baptism of blood, then would not sacramental baptism with water also produce the same effects of regeneration and salvation. Of course.

Holy Innocent Infants of Bethlehem, please pray for us who are not innocent.

Dec 27: Today is Wine Blessing Day in the Catholic Church!

Attention all oenophiles! Pack up your wine and head to church...

Today after Holy Mass, our priests will perform the traditional blessing of wine for the feast of Saint John. Think about it, Holy Mother Church not allows us to drink wine, she blesses it! I'm packing up a box of wine. I mean, who doesn't love to get a bottle of blessed wine on New Year's day?

In case you've never experienced it, on Dec 27 the faithful bring bottles of wine into church. After Holy Mass, the priest solemnly blesses the wine. The priest prays over all the wine bottles, and then sprinkles them all with holy water. At our parish we leave the wine in the aisles and in the back of the church.

The custom derives from Dec 27 being the feast day of the Apostle John. Tradition says that the Emperor Domitian once tried to poison St John by offering him poisoned wine. When the Apostle John said a blessing over the wine, the poison left the wine in the form of a snake. See pic above at the top of the post for details.

Here's an English translation of the ritual for blessing the wine for your edification:

BLESSING OF WINE on the Feast of St. John, Apostle and Evangelist

At the end of the principal Mass on the feast of St. John, Apostle and Evangelist, after the last Gospel, the priest, retaining all vestments except the maniple, blesses wine brought by the people. This is done in memory and in honor of St. John, who drank without any ill effects the poisoned wine offered to him by his enemies.

P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.

All: Who made heaven and earth.

P: The Lord be with you.

All: And with your spirit.

Let us pray.

If it please you, Lord God, bless and consecrate this vessel of wine (or any other beverage) by the power of your right hand; and grant that, through the merits of St. John, apostle and evangelist, all your faithful who drink of it may find it a help and a protection. As the blessed John drank the poisoned potion without any ill effects, so may all who today drink the blessed wine in his honor be delivered from poisoning and similar harmful things. And as they offer themselves body and soul to you, may they obtain pardon of all their sins; through Christ our Lord.

All: Amen.

Lord, bless this creature drink, so that it may be a health- giving medicine to all who use it; and grant by your grace that all who taste of it may enjoy bodily and spiritual health in calling on your holy name; through Christ our Lord.

All: Amen.

May the blessing of almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, come on this wine (or any other beverage) and remain always.

All: Amen.

Next the wine is sprinkled with holy water. If the blessing is given privately outside of Mass, the priest is vested in surplice and stole and performs the ceremony as given above.

Have a Merry Third Day of Christmas,

Taylor

PS: Saint John is my patron saint, so please pray an Our Father for me today! I'd be grateful.

Pope Benedict XVI: December 25 as the Historical Date of the Christ's Birth

In two previous posts, we examined how the Bible indicates that Christ was born in late December and how Mary and the Apostolic tradition  prior to Constantine confirm December 25 as the historical date of Christ's birth at Bethlehem. Today we turn to our present Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

Please read:

Part 1: Was Christ Truly Born on Dec 25 - A Biblical Argument for Christ's Birth in Late December

Part 2: December 25 is the Historical Birthday of Christ: Mary and Tradition

In 2000, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy that a Jewish tradition holds that Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac on Mount Moriah on March 25. Mount Moriah is Jerusalem (see 2 Chron 34:1), and March 25 is the date on which Christ was crucified on the solar calendar (Easter like the Mosaic Passover is calculated by a lunar phenomenon). I think that you can see that there is a geographical and temporal parallel here. We see that the Father willingly offers His only-begotten Son.

Cardinal Ratzinger also noted that March 25 was thought to be the first day of creation. Hence, March 25 has a cosmic significance. His Eminence also describes how the zodiac and Aries relates to this cosmic significance in the Spring, but that is a bit too much for our purposes. The important thing is that March 25 was the traditional date for the creation of the world, for the sacrifice of Abraham, and for the sacrifice of God the Son.

On pages 107-108, Cardinal Ratzinger makes the observation that the day of Christ's death was also reckoned as the day he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. March 25, then was the annunciation of Gabriel. Add nine months to that and you arrive at December 25 as His birthday.

Ratzinger then dismisses what he calls "these old theories" that teach that December 25 was chosen to cover over pagan holidays. Rather, the Holy Father recognizes December 25 as the true birthday of Christ the Lord. He expands that this alignment of meanings has liturgical significance.

While we're on the topic, Pope Saint Leo the Great spoke of the cosmic meaning of Christ's birth in the depth of winter:

But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery. (St Leo Magnus, Sermo 26)

Also, Pope Benedict XIV argued in 1761 that the church fathers would have known the correct date of birth from Roman census records.

Merry Christmas!

Part 1: Was Christ Truly Born on Dec 25 - A Biblical Argument for Christ's Birth in Late December

Part 2: December 25 is the Historical Birthday of Christ: Mary and Tradition

Merry Christmas: A Gift to You from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich

Merry Christmas to you all!

Below is a Christmas gift - the mystical vision of the birth of Christ described by the stigmatist Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich:

I saw the radiance round the Blessed Virgin ever growing greater. The light of the lamps which Joseph had lit was no longer visible. The Blessed Virgin knelt on her rug in an ample ungirt robe spread out round her, her face turned towards the east.

At midnight she was rapt in an ecstasy of prayer. I saw her lifted from the earth, so that I saw the ground beneath her. Her hands were crossed on her breast. The radiance about her increased; everything, even things without life, were in a joyful inner motion, the stones of the roof, of the walls, and of the floor of the cave became as it were alive in the light. Then I no longer saw the roof of the cave; a pathway of light opened above Mary, rising with ever-increasing glory towards the height of heaven.

In this pathway of light there was a wonderful movement of glories interpenetrating each other, and, as they approached, appearing more clearly in the form of choirs of heavenly spirits. Meanwhile the Blessed Virgin, borne up in ecstasy, was now gazing downwards, adoring her God, whose Mother she had become and who lay on the earth before her in the form of a helpless newborn child.

I saw our Redeemer as a tiny child, shining with a light that overpowered all the surrounding radiance, and lying on the carpet at the Blessed Virgin's knees. It seemed to me as if He were at first quite small and then grew before my eyes. But the movement of the intense radiance was such that I cannot say for certain how I saw it.

The Blessed Virgin remained for some time rapt in ecstasy. I saw her laying a cloth over the Child, but at first she did not touch Him or take Him up. After some time I saw the Child Jesus move and heard Him cry. Then Mary seemed to come to herself, and she took the Child up from the carpet, wrapping Him in the cloth which covered Him, and held Him in her arms to her breast. She sat there enveloping herself and the Child completely in her veil, and I think Mary suckled the Redeemer. I saw angels round her in human forms, lying on their faces and adoring the Child.

It might have been an hour after His Birth when Mary called St. Joseph, who was still lying in prayer. When he came near, he threw himself down on his face in devout joy and humility. It was only when Mary begged him to take to his heart, in joy and thankfulness, the holy present of the Most High God, that he stood up, took the Child Jesus in his arms, and praised God with tears of joy.

The Blessed Virgin then wrapped the Child Jesus in swaddling-bands. I cannot now remember how these bands were wound round; I only know that the Child was wrapped to His armpits first in red and then white bands, and that His head and shoulders were wrapped in another little cloth. Mary had only four sets of swaddling-bands with her. Then I saw Mary and Joseph sitting side by side on the bare earth with their feet under them. They did not speak, and seemed both to be sunk in meditation. On the carpet before Mary lay the newborn Jesus in swaddling clothes, a little Child, beautiful and radiant as lightning. Ah, I thought, this place enshrines the salvation of the whole world, and no one guesses it. Then they laid the Child in the manger, which was filled with rushes and delicate plants and covered with a cloth hanging over the sides. It stood above the stone trough lying on the ground, to the right of the entrance, where the cave makes a big curve towards the south. This part of the cave was at a lower level than the place where Our Lord was born: the floor slanted downwards in a step-like formation. After laying the Child in the crib, they both stood beside Him giving praise to God with tears of joy. Joseph then arranged the Blessed Virgin's resting-place and her seat beside the Crib. Both before and after the Birth of Jesus, I saw her dressed in white and veiled. I saw her there in the first days after the Nativity, sitting, kneeling, standing, and sleeping on her side, wrapped up but in no way ill or exhausted. When people came to see her, she wrapped herself up more closely and sat upright on her lying-in coverlet.

Isaiah's Other Lesser Known Prophecy of Christmas (Isa 66:7)

Painting: Michaelangelo's Prophet Isaiah

Dear friends,

We are all familiar with Isaiah's well known prophecy of Christmas:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

However, Isaiah made another (lesser known) prophecy of Christmas:

"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a Manchild" (Isa 66:7)

This verse is the basis for the Catholic teaching that Mary experienced no pain when she delivered Christ at Bethlehem. The Roman Catechism teaches that Christ passed through her "as sunlight passes through glass."

The reason for this is that Mary is the New Eve who gives birth to the promised Savior (see Gen 3:15). As New Eve, the Blessed Virgin Mary escapes the curse of Eve - labor pains.

This might be something interesting to discuss this Christmas with family or below in the comments. Keep in mind that all the Church Fathers before AD 600 believed that Mary's delivery was painless.

Merry Christ-Mass,

Taylor

The Nativity Story DVD - Why the Marshall Family Won't Watch It

The Nativity Story: A Blasphemous Movie

Every Christmas I try to show that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously teach that Mary was without pain on that first Christmas (see post: "Mary's Painless Delivery of Christ"). The reason for this is plain - Mary was without original sin and thus she did not experience the curse of Eve in painful childbirth. Mary is the New Eve and stands higher than Eve. It also inconceivable that the Christ would cause physical harm to his mother. Moreover, the Church Fathers cite Isaiah 66:7 as referring to Mary's painless delivery of Christ:

"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child" (Isa 66:7)

This year, I want to focus on something different. I recently listened to this sermon in which the priest demonstrated that the Nativity Story movie is both blasphemous and sacrilegious. The priest notes the following:

The Nativity Story film depicts Mary as experiencing pain in child birth and therefore depicts her as subject to original sin. In other words, the Mary of the Nativity Story is not the immaculately conceived Mary of Scripture, Tradition, and the Catholic Church. This is serious business when we recall what Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart (Ineffabilis Deus).

But that's not the worst part. The Nativity Story depicts the Blessed Virgin consenting to have her palm read by a medium or witch. This is a capital crime in the Old Testament law of Moses and anyone who engaged in divination (e.g. palm reading) received the death penalty by God's command. A good rule of thumb is that if a sin received the death penalty in the Old Testament then the same sin constitutes a mortal sin in the New Testament (when full consent and knowledge is present). The death penalty of the Old Law reveals the spiritual death that the soul receives through mortal sin - mortal sin meaning "deadly sin."

So would Mary have committed a mortal sin and allowed a medium to divine her palm? Absolutely not! If she had, she would have consented to Satan and she would no longer have held enmity with the infernal serpent as Scripture inerrantly teaches:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel (Gen 3:15).

So The Nativity Story explicitly depicts the Blessed Virgin Mary as 1) subject to original sin; and 2) committing a mortal sin of divination. This is the height of blasphemy and Satan grins as thousands of well-meaning Christians watch this film in preparation for the holidays.

I wouldn't watch a movie in which my mother was slandered and depicted committing mortal sins. Why should we watch a film that depicts the Immaculate Mother of Christ in submission to Satan

Just say no to The Nativity Story.

ad Jesum per Mariam,

Taylor

PS: Here's a post in defense of the painless and intact nativity of Christ:

"Mary's Painless Delivery of Christ" from Scripture, Church Fathers, Popes, and Doctors of the Church

December 25 is the Historical Birthday of Christ: Mary and Tradition

In a post earlier this week, we examined a biblical argument from the chronology of Saint Luke's Gospel for identifying the birth of Christ our Lord in late December. 

See: Was Jesus Really Born on December 25? Yes - A Biblical Argument for the Birth of Christ in Late December.

Today, let us take a look at the same subject from the perspective of Sacred Tradition.

The argument for Christ's historical birth on December 25 has two parts. The first part relates to the Blessed Virgin Mary's role in the Apostolic Tradition. The second part explores the the early Fathers regarding the date of Christ's birth. By the way, I'm preparing another post that will briefly look at Pope Benedict XVI's argument for the Divine Nativity having taken place on December 25. Look for that on Christmas Day.

Immaculate Mary: Mothers Never Forget

Ask any mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, he length of the baby, and a number of other details. I'm the father of six blessed children and while I sometimes forget these details (mea maxima culpa), my wife never does. You see, mothers never forget these details.

Now ask yourself this: Would the Blessed Virgin Mary ever forget the birth of her Son Jesus Christ who was conceived without human seed, proclaimed by angels, born in a miraculous way, and visited by Magi? She new from the moment of His divine Incarnation in her womb that He was the Son of God and Messiah. Would she ever forget that day?*

Next, ask yourself this: Would the Apostles be interested in hearing Mary tell the story? Of course! Do you think the holy Apostle who wrote, "And the Word was made flesh" was not interested in the minute details of His birth? 

Whenever I walk around with our seven-month-old son, people always ask "How old is he?" or "When was he born?" Don't you think people asked this question of Mary?

So the exact birthday (Dec 25) and the time (midnight) would have been known in the first century. Moreover, the Apostles would have asked about it and would have, no doubt, commemorated the blessed event that both Matthew and Luke chronicle for us.

We Americans have a federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr on January 16. We also celebrate the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. If Americans so regard the birthday of a man who ended racial segregation, would not the Apostles regard the birthday of Christ our Savior?

In summary, it is completely reasonable to state that the early Chistians both knew and commemorated the birth of Christ. Their source would have been His Immaculate Mother.

The Church Fathers Testify to December 25

In the previous post, we showed that Christmas could not have been a Christian attempt to replace a pagan holiday with a newly minted Christian holiday. Further testimony reveals that Catholics claimed December 25 as the Birthday of Christ prior to the conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire.

Pope Saint Telesphorus (reigned A.D. 126-137) instituted the tradition of Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. Although the Liber Pontificalis does not give us the date of Christmas, it assumes that Christmas was already being celebrated by the Pope and that a Mass at midnight was added. I don't doubt the tradition at all.

If we move about 70 years later, Saint Hippolytus writes in passing that the birth of Christ occurred on a Wednesday on December 25. Saint Hippolytus wrote this sometime between A.D. 200 and 211! Here's the quote:

"The First Advent of our Lord in the flesh occurred when He was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, which is five thousand and five hundred years  from Adam. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls." 

- Saint Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel

Also note in the quote above the special significance of March 25, which marks the death of Christ (March 25 was seen to correspond to the Hebrew month Nisan 14 - the traditional date of crucifixion).** 

Christ, as the perfect man, was believed to have been conceived and died on the same day (March 25). In his Chronicon, Saint Hippolytus states that the earth was created on March 25, 5500 B.C.  Thus, March 25 was identified by the Church Fathers as:

• the Creation date of the World
• the date of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ
• the date of the Death of Christ our Savior

In the Syrian Church March 25 or the Feast of the Annunciation was seen as one of the most important feasts of the entire year. It denoted the day that God took up his abode in the womb of the Virgin. In fact, if the Annunciation and Good Friday came into conflict on the calendar, the Annunciation trumped it - so important was the day in the Syrian tradition! It goes without saying that the Syrian Church preserved some of the most ancient Christian traditions and had a sweet and profound devotion for Mary and the Incarnation of Christ.

Now then, March 25 was enshrined in the early Christian tradition and from this date it is easy to discern the date of Christ's birth. March 25 (Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost) plus nine months brings us to December 25 (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem).

Saint Augustine confirms this tradition of March 25 as the Messianic conception and December 25 as His birth:

“For Christ is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.” 

- Saint Augustine, De trinitate, Book 4, 5. 

In about A.D. 400, Saint Augustine also noted how the schismatic Donatists celebrated December 25th as the birth of Christ, but that the schismatics refused to celebrate Epiphany on January 6 since they regarded Epiphany as a new feast without a basis in Apostolic Tradition. The Donatist schism originated in A.D. 311 which may indicate that the Latin Church was celebrating a December 25 Christmas (but not a January 6 Epiphany) before A.D. 311.

Look for the third and final part tomorrow on Christmas (Pope Benedict on December 25 and Christmas). 

In the meantime, since it is December 24, let us contemplate Joseph and Mary arriving in Bethlehem walking about looking for shelter for the coming night. Then they are allowed to use the stable cave and around noon Saint Joseph begins to prepare the place for the miraculous event. Joseph and Mary must have been full of quiet expectation. May they pray for us as we also eagerly await the Christ Child.

Godspeed and Merry Christmas,

Taylor Marshall

* A special thanks to the Reverend Father Phil Wolfe for bringing the "memory of Mary" argument to my attention.

** There is some discrepancy in the Fathers as to whether Nisan 14/March 25 marked the death of Christ or his resurrection. Regarding this problem, here is an external post on Julius Africanus and the dating of Christmas and the meaning of March 25.

Was Jesus Really Born on Dec 25? Yes - A Biblical Argument for the Birth of Christ in Late December

It is now commonly assumed that our Lord Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th. I'm going to argue that this assumption is factually incorrect, and that Christ was born in late December. First allow me to counter a three common objections to the dating of Christ's birth to December 25.

Objection 1: December 25th was chosen in order to replace the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a popular winter festival and so that Catholic Church prudently substituted Christmas in its place.

Reply to Objection 1: Saturnalia commemorated the winter solstice. Yet the winter solstice falls on December 22! It is true that Saturnalia celebrations began as early as December 17 and extended till December 23. Still, the dates don't match up.

Objection 2: December 25th was chosen to replace the pagan Roman holiday Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of the Unconquered Sun").

Reply to Objection 2: Let's begin with the cult of the Unconquered Sun. The Emperor Aurelian introduced the cult of the Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") to Rome in AD 274. Aurelian found political traction with this cult, because his own name "Aurelian" derives from the Latin word aurora denoting "sunrise." Coins reveal that Emperor Aurelian called himself the Pontifex Solis or "Pontiff of the Son." Thus, Aurelian simply accommodated a generic solar cult and identified his name with it at the end of the third century.

Most importantly, there is no historical record for a celebration Sol Invictus on December 25 prior to AD 354. Even in AD 354, the date is simply designated as "Invictus" without mention of a birthday. The date only explicitly became the "Birthday of the Unconquered Son" under (drumroll please) the Emperor Julian the Apostate who had been a Christian but who had apostatized and returned to Roman paganism. History reveals that it was a former Christian Emperor (who hated Christ) that erected a pagan holiday on December 25. Think about that for a moment.

Why does all this matter? It means that the Unconquered Son was not likely a popular deity in the Roman empire. This entails that the Roman plebs did not need to be weened off of an so-called ancient holiday. Moreover, the tradition of a December 25th celebration does not find a place on the Roman calender until after the Christianization of Rome. The "Birthday of the Unconquered Son" holiday was scarcely traditional and hardly popular. Saturnalia (mentioned above) was much more popular, traditional, and fun. It seems, rather, that Julian the Apostate had attempted to introduce a pagan holiday in order to replace the Christian one!

Objection 3: Christ could not have been born in December since Saint Luke describes shepherds herding in the neighboring fields of Bethlehem. Shepherds do not herd during the winter. Thus, Christ was not born in winter.

Answer to Objection 3: This objection is the worst objection of all. Recall that Palestine is not England, Russia, or Alaska. Bethlehem has a latitude of 31.7. My city of Dallas, Texas has the latitude of 32.8 and it's still rather comfortable outside in December. As the great Cornelius a Lapide remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December...and Italy is geographically to the north of Bethlehem.

Now we move on to establishing the birthday of Christ from Sacred Scripture in two steps:

Step One: Determine the Birthday of John the Baptist
We can discover that Christ was born in late December by observing first the time of year in which Saint Luke describes Saint Zacharias in the temple. This provides us with the approximate conception date of Saint John the Baptist. From there we can follow the chronology that Saint Luke gives and that lands us right smack at the end of December.

Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served in the “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripture records as the eighth course among the twenty-four priestly courses (see Neh 12:17). Each course served one week in the temple for two times each year. The course of Abias served during the eighth week and the thirty-second week in the annual cycle.* However, when did the cycle of courses begin?

By consulting the scholarly research of Friedlieb (Leben J. Christi des Erlösers, Münster, 1887, p. 312), we  discover that the first priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the destruction of Jerusalem on the 9th day of the Jewish month of Av. Thus the priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the second week of Av. This means that without a doubt, the priestly course of Abias (the course of Saint Zacharias) was serving during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri - the very week of the Day of Atonement on the 10th of Tishri. In our calendar, the Day of Atonement on 10th Tishri lands anywhere from September 22 to October 8.

Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. This entails that Saint John the Baptist would have been conceived somewhere around the end of September, placing John's birth at the end of June, confirming the Catholic Church's celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The second-century Protoevangelium of James also confirms a late September conception of the Baptist since the work depicts Saint Zacharias as High Priest and as entering the Holy of Holies—not merely the holy place with the altar of incense. This is a factual mistake because Zecharias was not the high priest, but one of the chief priests.** Still, the Protoevangelium regards Zecharias as a high priest and this associates him with the Day of Atonement, which lands on the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (roughly the end of our September). Immediately after this entry into the temple and message of the angel Gabriel, Zacharias and Elizabeth conceive John the Baptist. Allowing for forty weeks of gestation, this places the birth of John the Baptist at the end of June—once again corresponding to the Catholic date for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

Step Two: Determine the Birthday of Christ
The rest of the dating is rather simple. We read that just after the Immaculate Virgin Mary conceived Christ, she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. This means that John the Baptist was six months older that our Lord Jesus Christ (Lk 1:24-27, 36). Add six months to June 24 and it reveals December 24-25 as the birthday of Christ. Subtract nine months from December 25 and it reveals that the annunciation was March 25. All the dates match up perfectly.

So then, if John the Baptist was conceived shortly after the Jewish Day of the Atonement, then the traditional Catholic dates are essentially correct. The birth of Christ would be about or on December 25.

Look for two more posts in the next several days:

Part II: Why the Virgin Mary assures us that December 25 is the Birthday of Christ.


Part III: Why Pope Benedict XVI favors December 25 as the historical birthday of Jesus

Merry Christmas,
Taylor

PS: I realize that Anne Catherine Emmerich states that Christ was born in November. There are three ways to account for this. First, she may have got it wrong (I don't like this option). Second, the man who wrote down her visions got it wrong. Third, she confused the Jewish months since they do not correspond to our months. It's probably the second or third.

* I realize that there are two courses of Abias. This theory only works if Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist after Zacharias' second course - the course in September. If Saint Luke refers to the first course, this then would place the birth of John the Baptist in late Fall and the birth of Christ in late Spring. However, I think tradition and the Protoevangelium substantiate that the Baptist was conceived in late September.

** The Greek tradition especially celebrates Saint Zacharias as "high priest." Nevertheless, Acts 5:24 reveals that there were several “chief priests” (ἀρχιερεῖς), and thus the claim that Zacharias was a “high priest” may not indicate a contradiction. The Greek tradition identifies Zacharias as an archpriest and martyr based on the narrative of the Protoevangelium of James and Matthew 23:35: “That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.” (Matthew 23:35, D-R)

Indian Food Tonight for Saint Thomas' Feast Day

Back in my Anglican seminary days, we started a tradition of always eating Indian food (which we love!) on the feast of Saint Thomas - the Patron Saint and Apostle of India. For we Anglicans, the feast day of Saint Thomas fell on December 21. It was always a fun "pre-Christmas" tradition for us to have spicy Indian food on the evening of the first day of winter. Fortunately, December 21 is still the feast of Saint Thomas in Latin Mass parishes.*

Saint Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, traveled to India and evangelized that nation. To this day, Indian Christians claim Saint Thomas as their founder and patron.

So tonight we're again eating Indian food for dinner: Tiki Masala, Vindaloo, Veggie Korma, Naan, Rice, etc.

Last year I tried to share my enthusiasm for Saint Thomas of India with the Indian take-out girl. She didn't seem impressed...Hindu perhaps.

Godspeed,

Taylor

* December 21 is the feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle in the pre-Vatican 2 calendar and in the calendar Episcopal Church (from my pre-Catholic days). It became somewhat complicated when we became Catholic, because in the current Catholic Novus Ordo calendar (post-V2) has Saint Thomas' feast day on July 3. Our little "pre-Christmas" tradition didn't quite work so well liturgically. Now that we're at a Latin Mass parish, it was great to see the red vestments and hear a solid homily on Saint Thomas...and have some Indian food!

Saint Thomas, Apostle of India, pray for us!

Daniel's Literal 70 Weeks: From St Zacharias till the Presentation

Father Erlenbush at New Theological Movement has a great post on Saint Gabriel and Daniel's seventy weeks. Please check it out. Father explains how Catholic tradition identifies these "70 weeks" as the 490 years from "the going forth of the word" of King Artaxerxes to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem until the ministry of Christ our Lord. 

By the way, the medieval Rabbis forbade Jews to calculate the years of Daniel? Why? The answer is obvious - by calculating the dates of Daniel, Jews would discover that Daniel's Son of Man would have begun his ministry in the first half of the first century...that is, they would discover that Jesus is the Messiah.

There is another mystical reading to the seventy weeks of Daniel. There are approximately seventy weeks (490 days) from the prophecy of Saint Gabriel in the Temple to St Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, until the presentation of Christ in the Temple.

Here's the math in case you're skeptical:

Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant when Mary conceived (24 weeks)

Mary was pregnant 9 months (40 weeks)

Christ presented at Temple 40 days after birth (6 weeks)

24 + 40 + 6 = 70 weeks

I'm not at all claiming that the traditional reading of the "490 years" is incorrect. No, in fact, this is the authoritative reading. But there is something interesting going in Luke's Gospel since both Daniel and Luke record the ministry of Saint Gabriel, and Saint Luke records a nativity-temple-chronology that comes to about "seventy weeks."

St Gabriel, pray for us.

Daniel the Prophet, pray for us.

St Zacharias, pray for us.

PS: In the next few days I'll be writing a post to show how Saint Luke's chronology means that Christ HAD TO BE BORN IN LATE DECEMBER! Stay tuned. Please subscribe for free via reader or by email.

 Subscribe to Canterbury Tales Feed
 Receive CTales by Email

Did Jewish Temple Virgins Exist and was Mary a Temple Virgin?

Mary's Presentation as a Temple Virgin

Previously we examined the tradition and biblical foundation for the Catholic teaching that Mary was consecrated as a Temple virgin at the age of three and lived in the temple precincts till the age of fourteen when she was married to Saint Joseph and there after virginally conceived the Son of God.*

See post: The True Presentation of the Virgin Mary (Foretold in the Book of Sirach)

This school of Temple virgins in Jerusalem formed an altar guild that fulfilled the necessary tasks at the Temple. This included sewing and creating vestments, washing the vestments of the priests which would be stained regularly by animal blood, preparing liturgical linen, weaving the veil of the Temple, and most importantly, liturgical prayer. The Jewish and Catholic tradition holds that this school for Israelite virgins was completed by marrying age of about 14 and that they were dismissed at this time. There were also older women, perhaps widows such as the prophetess Anna, who served as teachers and governesses for the virgins under their care.

There has been some doubt as to whether their were really consecreated Jewish virgins at the Temple. In my previous post I referenced the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in support of "Temple virgins" in Jerusalem, but I fear that this cannot be substantiated. Jimmy Akin asked me for the citation and I cannot find it. One would assume that it would be in Book 5 of the Jewish Wars of Josephus. There Josephus mentions cloisters, but he does not tell us who lived in them. That's as close as Josephus gets.

There are, however, three Scriptural accounts that are used by Catholics to demonstrate that there were special women who ministered at the Temple complex. 

Exodus 38:8 mentions women who "watch (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle."

The second is in 1 Samuel:

“Now Heli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all Israel: and how they lay with the women that waited (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle:” (1 Samuel 2:22, D-R)

In both of the verses above, Hebrew verb for "watch" and "waited" is the same. It is the Hebrew word צָבָא, which is the same verb used to described the liturgical activity of the Levites (see Num 4:23; 8:24). This corresponds to the Latin translation in the Clementine Vulgate, which relates that these women "observabant" at the temple doors - another liturgical reading.

So these women are not simply hanging out around the Temple, looking for men, gossiping, or chatting about the weather. These are pious women devoted to a liturgical function. In fact, the Court of Women might exist formally for these special "liturgical women."

The third and final reference to these liturgical females is in 2 Maccabees:

And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to {High Priest} Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20)

Here are virgins that are shut up. In the Greek it is "αἱ δὲ κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων" or "the shut up ones of the virgins." In this passage the Holy Spirit refers not to all the virgins of Jerusalem, but to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest and address him. It's rather ridiculous to think that young girls would have general access to the High Priest of Israel. However, if these virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear that they would both address the High Priest Onias and would also be featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple at this moment of crisis.

There is further testimony of temple virgins in the traditions of the Jews. In the Mishnah, it is recorded that there were 82 consecrated virgins who wove the veil of the Temple:

"The veil of the Temple was a palm-length in width. It was woven with seventy-two smooth stitches each made of twenty-four threads. The length was of forty cubits and the width of twenty cubits. Eighty-two virgins wove it. Two veils were made each year and three hundred priests were needed to carry it to the pool" (Mishna Shekalim 8, 5-6).

We find another reference to the "women who made the veils for the Temple...baked the showbread...prepared the incense" (Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a). 

Rabbinic Jewish sources also record how when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70, the Temple virgins leapt into the flames so as not to be abducted by the heathen soldiers: "the virgins who were weaving threw themselves in the flames" (Pesikta Rabbati 26, 6). Here we also learn that these virgins lived in the three-storey building inside the Temple area. However, it is difficult to find any other details about this structure. The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich placed the cloisters of the Temple Virgins on the north side of the Temple (Emmerich's Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary 3, 5).

Even more, the first century document by the name of the Apocalypse of Baruch (sometimes called "2 Baruch") describes the Temple virgins living in the Temple as weavers of the holy veil: 

"And you virgins who weave byssus and silk, and gold from Ophir, in haste pick it all up and throw it in the fire that it will return it to its Author, and that the flame will take it back to its Creator, from fear that the enemy might seize it" (2 Baruch 10:19).

So then, there is ample evidence for the role of consecrated women, especially virgins at the Temple. If one were to accept the passages above, we have plenty of testimony for cultic women in the time of Moses' tabernacle, in the time of David, in the Second Temple era, and in the first century of Our Lord.

This substantiates the claims of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who claim that the Blessed Virgin Mary was presented to the Temple and served there from the age of three until the age of fourteen. To claim that Temple virgins are a myth of celibacy-crazed Catholic bishops does not hold up. Scripture and Jewish tradition records that there were specially commissioned virgins associated with the Temple. We may not know much about them, but we know that they existed.

That the most holy human girl of all time, the Mother of the Messiah, should live as a temple virgin should come as no surprise. This also accounts for the vow of virginity she had taken since she "knew not a man" even though she was already espoused to Joseph.

Now then, there is also a tradition that Mary was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. This seems absurd to us. Moses stipulated that the High Priest and only the High Priest be allowed to enter the Holy of Holies and that only once a year. It was the greatest privilege in Israel. Why was the Holy of Holies so special? It was the inner room that housed the ark of the covenant.

Yet remember that this is the Second Temple, not the original Temple of Solomon. The Ark of the Covenant was hidden by Jeremiah and it had been lost ever since. The Second Temple, therefore, had an empty Holy of Holies. It was an empty room. No Ark of the Covenant. Nothing. In a sense, the Second Temple was a sham. It was like an empty suit. The Temple was built to house the Ark of the Covenant, but Ark was not there.

So then, the Temple in Jerusalem was empty. It did not contain the ark of the covenant. And yet we Catholics know from Revelation 11:19-12:1 that the Mother of Christ is truly the Ark of the New Covenant. The wood ark of old contained the Word of God engraved in stone. The stainless womb of Mary contained the Word of God made flesh.

Perhaps by a singular inspiration, the High Priest of that time had been inspired to lead this immaculate virgin into the inner sanctum of the Holy of Holies. My heart leaps when contemplating this. The angels of heaven would rejoice to see the true Ark of the Covenant restored into the earthly Temple of Jerusalem. In fact, it would be a foretaste of the glorious assumption of Mary. The Temple represented a new Garden of Eden and, of course, Mary is the New Eve. Thus, her entry into the Temple reveals that the fullness of time has come. The New Eve will soon bring forth the New Adam to reverse the curse and lead the faithful into the presence of God. 

This is speculation and I do not want it to obscure the purpose of this post, which is to defend the existence of Temple virgins in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the presence of the New Eve at or in the Temple certainly is fitting since it hearkens back to the prophecy that the virgin mother will crush the head of the serpent. This is an exciting new perspective at the meaning of Christmas.

Immaculate Mary, dutiful at the Temple, pray for us.

*It is blasphemy to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was an "unwed mother" or that she conceived Christ "out of wedlock." Joseph and Mary were married before the angel Gabriel came to her in the Annunciation, and thus she conceived Christ after she was married to Saint Joseph. "The angel Gabriel was sent...to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph." Joseph and Mary were "spouses."

Which Act of Contrition Should We Pray in Confession?

Saint Pio Hearing Confessions

When I first became Catholic, I would alternate between saying the official Act of Contrition (see below) and one that I would make up by myself.

For those that are not Catholic, when a Catholic goes to confession, it goes like this:

Bless me Father for I have sinned, it has been (2 weeks) since my last confession and I accuse myself of the following sins:

Here we list sins by kind and number

For these sins and those I cannot now remember and for my sins against charity toward God and neighbor, I humbly repent and ask for counsel, penance, and absolution.

Here, the priest gives advice or exhortation and imposes a penance (e.g. "say 3 Our Fathers and 3 Hail Marys").

And then the priest says, Now if you'll make an Act of Contrition I will give you absolution. This proves that we really are sorry and not just going through the motions.

We say the Act of Contrition and then the priest absolves us by saying: "I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Now the "Act of Contrition" is a prayer that we say to God and the priest listens to us while we say it. This act of the will "proves" to the priest that we are seeking reconciliation with God. The priest stands as a legal and sacramental witness to this repentance. If someone said, "I don't want to pray the Act of Contrition," then the priest would say, "I will not absolve you." As the Council of Trent teaches (Session 14), contrition is a necessary component of the sacrament of Penance. No sadness for sin, no grace.

Now this should reveal the absolutely important role of the Act of Contrition. It becomes the heartfelt prayer of the penitent to God. We list our sins to the priest as God's representative, but we make our act of contrition directly to God.

Here's the traditional Act of Contrition:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell;

but most of all because they offend Thee, my God,

Who are all good and deserving of all my love.

I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace,

to sin no more and avoid the near occasions of sin. Amen.*

Now I used to make up a "custom" Act of Contrition some times in confession. However, a holy priest told me not to do this. I was shocked and I asked him why. 

The holy priest explained that the more contrite we are, the more sanctifying grace we receive in the sacrament of Penance. Father also stated that a greater contrition remits more temporal punishment (crudely: remits more time off in purgatory). Most importantly, Father stated that most "custom Acts of Contrition" do not make explicit the essential elements of an Acts of Contrition.  Such custom Acts of Contrition can be ambiguous and my not mention love of God or an the explicit intention to avoid sin and the occasion of sin "to sin no more."

The official Act of Contrition contains the necessary part of contrition stipulated by the Council of Trent, and so the words can excite in us the right and proper sentiments, thoughts, and most importantly, movement of the will toward God.

This, of course, does not forbid you making a "custom" Act of Contrition with all the right components. However, you might be flustered and forget it. Shoot, some of us still get flustered saying the traditional memorized version that we've been saying for years and years.

So as the holy priest said, if you want to make sure that you cover all the elements of contrition and that you excite your will to a true contrition with all the attending extra graces, use the Church's recommended Act of Contrition...that's they way all the saints did it.

PS: A great way to memorize the Act of Contrition (and have your children memorize it) is to begin the Rosary every evening with the Act of Contrition. 

* An alternative version of the Act of Contrition substitutes "just judgments" for the "the loss of heaven and the pains of hell." As far as I can tell, the version above is more official. The version with "just judgments" usually appears in children's catechisms (e.g. Baltimore Catechism). Perhaps someone knows the origin of this difference. Please share it with us.

Can Natural Law be erased from the human heart?

Can you become so evil that you strike the "delete" button and erase the natural law from your heart? In order to answer this question, we must first define "natural law."

Natural law relates to the inclination in human nature that inclines us to the good. Saint Thomas defines the first precept of natural law as" "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided."

It would seem that natural law could in fact be erased from the human heart since we can lose the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace - both of which are greater than natural law. However, this is not the case because the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace are granted to human nature - they are not natural to man. Natural law, on the other hand, is just that: natural. So long as a person has "human nature" his nature is oriented naturally to the good. We all still have human nature and so we all still have natural law - no matter how evil you are.

Now then, the tragedy of original sin has introduced into us concupiscence. Concupiscence is the "law of sin" that Saint Paul speak of in Romans 6-7. Our passions (e.g. desire, hate, etc.) are no longer rightfully submitted to our intellect and will. And so we often follow our passions in an unreasonable way. For example, our disordered passions lead us to eat too much pizza, drink too much alcohol, hate our neighbor, lust, etc.

By the way, Saint Thomas Aquinas identifies 11 passions in human nature. The passions are not evil. They just need to be guided by reason:

1. love (amor)
2. hatred (odium)
3. desire (desiderium)
4. aversion (aversio or fuga)
5. joy (delectatio, gaudium, or laetitia)
6. sorrow (tristitia)
7. hope (spes)
8. courage (audacia)
9. despair (desperatio)
10. fear (timor)
11. anger (ira) 

In Adam and Eve before the fall, and in Jesus and Mary, the human passions were perfectly submitted to the intellect and will. It looked like this: Intellect > Will > Passions. After the fall of our first parents, our passions have been trying to run the show. Saint Paul refers to the passions collectively as "the flesh."

No then, Saint Thomas holds that our inordinate passions do not destroy our human nature. We are not strictly "totally depraved." We are disordered. Since human nature is preserved, so also, natural law will always be preserved. This, by the way, is the explicit teaching Saint Augustine:

"Thy law is written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." -Augustine Confessions 2.

Oh if Protestants would return to this Augustinian teaching. It's at the center of the Catholic doctrine of salvation. There is something still good in man, but this is not a moral goodness (we are conceived with original sin). Rather, it is a natural inclination to the good. The problem is that our passions lead us to think that beer, sex, fame, money, or whatever is "the good" and there is where we get into trouble.

The gift of sanctifying grace given at justification allows for the human person to be transformed and renewed. In short, it allows the intellect to pick up the reigns and start whipping those passions into the shape.

Thomas grants that the secondary precepts of natural law can be erased from the human heart (i.e. sodomy is sinful), but the general or abstract principle (pursue and do the good) cannot be erased. See Summa theologiae I-II q. 94, a. 2 resp.