The New Theological Movement

Catholic schools and vocations to the priesthood - The example of Don Bosco

2012-01-31T03:22:00.000-08:00

January 31^st, Feast of St. John Bosco

This week, the Catholic Church in the United States of America celebrates Catholic Schools Week. The US Bishops ask us to consider the great blessing which Catholic schools are to our Church and to our community at large.

During Catholic Schools Week, we call to mind the fact that Catholic schools benefit not only the families who send their children there, but the whole Church and all society. Every Catholic, even if he has no children in Catholic schools (even if he has never had children in the schools), should see Catholic schools as his schools – every Catholic benefits from Catholic schools, and every Catholic has a duty of supporting Catholic schools.

Today, I would like to point out one way in which every Catholic benefits from Catholics schools: Catholic schools produce vocations to the priesthood and religious life. It is particularly fitting that we consider this benefit today, the feast of St. John Bosco – the schools which he founded produced over six thousand vocations to the priesthood during his life-time (and countless more since his death).

St. John Bosco inspired over 6,000 vocations to the priesthood before his death

St. John Bosco, the founder of the Salesian Society, was born in a small hamlet near Catelnuovo, Piedmont, Italy on 16 August 1815. He died on 31 January 1888, and was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1934.

Don Bosco was filled with a great charity for the poor boys of Turin and other cities, and so he dedicated his life to the education and care of street children, delinquents and other poor youths. His devotion to St. Francis de Sales (which led him to dedicate his society to this great Doctor of the Church) directed him to employ gentler teaching methods based on love and kindness rather than punishment.

In addition to providing good education, safety, and religious instruction to the boys, St. John Bosco’s schools provided the young men with the opportunity of discerning a vocation to the priesthood or religious life. The statistics are amazing:

“At the time of Don Bosco's death in 1888 there were 250 houses of the Salesian Society in all parts of the world, containing 130,000 children, and from which there annually went out 18,000 finished apprentices. […] Up to 1888 over six thousand priests had gone forth from Don Bosco's institutions, 1,200 of whom had remained in the society.” (From the Catholic Encyclopedia)

It is often said that a priest may be happy if he helps two young men to discern a call to the priesthood – one to replace himself, and another to serve for the expansion of the Church. St. John Bosco directly helped six thousand young men to answer the call! All this was possible only through the Catholic schools that Don Bosco founded. Who can doubt the importance of Catholic schools?

St. John Bosco was himself very pleased with this good work accomplished through his schools, and he wrote (in 1883, when there were still many more vocations to come): “I am happy now! I have careful statistics drawn up and we have found that more than two thousand diocesan priests [not counting the religious] have come from our houses. Let us thank the Lord and his holy Mother for having given us the means to do all this good.” Further studies after the Saints death confirmed that the number of vocations was even higher than he had realized!

An example: The Diocese of Great Falls – Billings (my diocese)

The role which Catholic schools play in helping a man to discover and answer the call to the priesthood hits very close to home for me. I myself first thought of becoming a priest through the influence of the Catholic schools in my home town of Billings, MT. Could God have used some other means? Surely. But, in point of historical fact, I (and the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings) owe my vocation to the Billings Catholic School System, and to Billings Central Catholic High School in particular. Thus, in my own life, the connection between Catholic schools and priestly vocations is most significant.

Further, though it is only a small example from a small diocese, I cannot help but mention the impact which Catholic schools have had on vocations to the priesthood in recent years for the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings, in eastern Montana. I will speak to this connection from my experience as a seminarian and priest for the Diocese.

It has been about ten years since I entered the seminary, and I have personally known every seminarian for the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings since that time. In the past ten years, twelve young men who had attended some level of Catholic schools entered the seminary for our Diocese. Now, some have left, some have been ordained, and the largest group of them are still in the seminary – but, the point is that twelve men have entered seminary to discern this call after having attended some level of Catholic school education.

While we would certainly desire this number to be greater, it will be good to compare this statistic with the number of men in the past ten years who have studied as seminarians for our diocese without having gone to any level of Catholic schools: Two. In the past ten years, there have only been two men who did not go to Catholic schools and who studied as seminarians for the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings.

Now, to be fair, I am not including in these statistics a couple of special cases. There have been a couple of older gentlemen who entered the seminary in their fifties, but these are obviously special cases (and, in point of fact, they may well have gone to Catholic schools in their youth, but I do not know for sure). Additionally, our diocese has ordained one man who used to be an Episcopalian priest.

However, setting these exceptional cases aside, the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings has a ratio of 12 to 2 in favor of Catholic schools, when it comes to vocational discernment in recent history. And this is all the more significant considering that our diocese has only a very limited number of Catholic schools!

Considering that there are far more than ten times as many Catholic boys in eastern Montana who attend public schools than those who attend Catholic schools, the fact that only two from the public schools have entered the seminary (as opposed to the twelve who had attended Catholic schools) is simply astonishing.

Who can reasonably doubt the positive impact which Catholic schools have had in producing priestly vocations in the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings? Can there be any doubt that promoting Catholic schools in this diocese will help to produce more vocations?

Catholic schools: A part of the solution to the priest shortage

Now, I’m not going to say that Catholic schools are the whole answer to gaining more vocations to the priesthood. Indeed, I do not even claim that the Catholic schools are the most important factor – other realities, like family life, have a far greater impact on a young man’s ability to discern a call to the priesthood.

Still, there can be no doubt that Catholic schools have played and will continue to play a significant role in producing priests for the Church. For this reason, we all should thank the good Lord for the gift of Catholic schools, and we should remember that (whether or not we have a child in the schools) every Catholic school is our Catholic school.

A better way of reading the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

2012-01-28T04:31:00.000-08:00

January 28^th, Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is, without question, the greatest work of theology ever written. And yet, because of the length of the treatise – some six hundred fifteen question of up to six or even eight articles, in three (or four) volumes – even the most avid fans of the Angel of the Schools find it difficult to read the whole Summa.

In this post, we intend to give an indication of not only how to read any particular portion of the Summa, but also of how to succeed in reading the whole work.

The structure of the Summa Theologica

St. Thomas’ Summa is divided into four parts: the first part, Summa Theologica I (ST I); the first part of the second part (ST I-II); the second part of the second part (ST II-II); and the third part (ST III), to this is added the “Supplement” completed by Reginald of Piperno from St. Thomas’ early writings.

1) The first part (ST I) considers God, the Trinity, and creation (especially men and angels).

2a) The first part of the second part (ST I-II) deals with morals in general – considering everything from happiness, to virtue and vice, as well as the gifts of the Holy Spirit and grace.

2b) The second part of the second part (ST II-II) is on specific moral theology – dealing with the virtues and vices in particular, and also with vocational callings.

3) Finally, the third part (ST III) considers Christ Jesus himself and also the sacraments he instituted.

4) Lastly, there is the “Supplement” which was added to the Summa, since St. Thomas never finished this work – the Supplement deals with some of the sacraments and also considers the end of time and the second coming of our Savior (it is made up from the commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard which St. Thomas made as a young man).

How to read a portion of the Summa

The Summa is divided into questions, which are sub-divided into articles. Thus, for example, the thirty-fourth question of the third part considers the perfection of the Christ in his conception and is divided into four articles [read the question here]:

ST III, q.34, a.1 – Whether Christ was sanctified in the first instant of his conception?

a. 2 – Whether Christ as man had the use of free-will in the first instant of his conception?

a. 3 – Whether Christ could merit in the first instant of his conception?

a. 4 – Whether Christ was a perfect comprehensor in the first instant of his conception?

When considering any particular article, we notice that there are essentially four parts: Objections (videtur), appeal to authority (sed contra), theological proof (respondeo), and replies to objections (dicendum quod).

Now, it is helpful to the modern mind that, when reading any particular article, we begin first by reading the first words of the first objection: In the case of ST III, q.34, a.2 [read the article here], the first objection begins, “It would seem that Christ as man had not the use of free-will in the first instant of his conception.” Because this is an objection which will be disproven, this means that the basic answer which St. Thomas gives is that our Lord did have the use of free-will even in his humanity from the first moment he was conceived in the womb of his Mother.

Then, without reading the rest of the objections, we proceed to the sed contra, or “On the contrary” (in which St. Thomas will appeal to an authority to settle the issue). In this particular case, St. Thomas appeals to St. Augustine (though really to St. Gregory the Great) who writes (Regist. Ix, Ep. 61): “As soon as the Word entered the womb, while retaining the reality of his nature, he was made flesh, and a perfect man.” St. Thomas concludes, “But a perfect man has the use of free-will. Therefore Christ had the use of free-will in the first instant of his conception.”

From this we clearly see the basic answer of St. Thomas: Our Lord, even as an embryo in the womb, was in full possession of his rational faculties including the freedom of his will.

Next, we consider the “I answer that”, which is the body of the argument. This is the most important portion of the article, since it is here that St. Thomas will explain the theological point in question.

Finally, we return to the objections and consider each together with St. Thomas’ replies.

Thus the over-all plan for each article is as follows:

1) First sentence of the first objection.

2) “On the contrary”

3) “I answer that”, or body of the article

4) Objections and replies

(those interested in a further discussion of the theological point of this article – that Christ, from the moment of his conception, had attained to the use of reason – may consider our previous articles [here] and [here])

Two methods of reading the Summa Theologica

There are two popular ways of attempting to read the Summa of St. Thomas, but neither is often successful.

First, there is the “curious” or “casual” approach to the Summa. This is the habit of picking up the Summa at random and opening to a particular question without reading anything of the immediate context. For example, one might hear that St. Thomas believes that war can sometimes be justified and so turns to ST II-II, q.40, without considering anything of the context of the question (that, for example, St. Thomas deals with war as a vice contrary to the theological virtue of charity).

Now, I do not intend to completely discredit this first approach to the Summa – even if it is a bit “curious” (which, according to the Angelic Doctor, is a vice contrary to temperance [cf. ST II-II, q.167]), at least the reader is exposed to something of St. Thomas’ thought!

There is a second approach which goes to the opposite extreme: Some will attempt to read the whole Summa by starting at the very beginning and reading word for word through the whole work. Generally, such an approach becomes extremely laborious, and the individual gives up somewhere around the discussion of man’s spirit and nature (in ST I, q.75 and following).

While this second approach respects the internal structure of the Summa, and is surely the best method, as following the system intended by St. Thomas himself; it can tend to be a bit dry and very tedious.

Another (better) way of reading the Summa

I would like to present one way of reading the Summa which combines something of a methodological system together with topics of interest to the modern man. It is possible to read the Summa from back to front – many would find the Summa much more interesting if they began with the end and read backwards to the beginning. Let me explain.

I would suggest starting with the third part, questions twenty-seven through fifty-nine, which deal with the life of Christ and are closely related to the Scriptures. This portion of the Summa (a part which many people do not even realize exists) deals with the various events and mysteries in our Savior’s life, death, and resurrection. Thus, it is far more interesting to the modern man than the more theoretical discussions of the first part.

Now, starting with the treatise on the life of Christ, one could read the Summa backwards by taking the time to look up all of the references which St. Thomas makes to earlier questions and articles – the Angel of the Schools regularly references earlier portions of the Summa and, when reading the questions dealing with Jesus’ life on earth, one could pause after each article and take the time to look up all the citations to earlier articles in the Summa.

In this manner, one would be reading the Summa backwards – but the study would be very interesting, since it would be driven by the Scriptural account of Jesus’ life. Each time an earlier portion of the Summa is cited, one could go back and read that article, and then could continue to go back further still to read any previous articles which are cited.

Let us take an example: ST III, q.34, a.2 – Whether Christ as man had the use of free-will in the first instant of his conception? In this article, St. Thomas refers to a.1 of the same question, as well as to ST III, q.33, a.2, and ST III, q.11, a.2. Taking the reference to the question immediately previous (q.33), which refers to an article in which St. Thomas shows that our Lord possessed a human soul from the first instant of his conception, we then are directed to ST III, q.6, a.1 and 2). In the second article of question six, one is directed to the first part of the Summa (ST I, q.62, a.8; q.64, a.2). Thus, we have been led from the consideration of the life of Christ to the treatise on the Incarnation (III, q.6) to the treatise on the angels (I, q.62 and q.64). From here, we could continue to proceed further back still!

A plan for reading the Summa

Personally, I would recommend beginning with ST I, q.1, a.1-10. This question serves as a prologue for the rest of the Summa and stands on its own.

After the first question, one might proceed to ST III, qq.27-59, which deal with the life of Jesus (and are particularly Scriptural in nature). Looking up the citations to previous questions in the Summa would cover well the treatise on the Incarnation (III, qq.1-26) and also a good portion of the first part of the Summa.

After the treatise on the Incarnation, I recommend proceeding to the treatise on the Sacraments: ST III, qq.60 – Suppl. q.68.

Then, fall back to the treatise on virtues: ST II-II. If one were to look up all the references in the second part of the second part of the Summa, the first part of the second part would be well covered.

After all of this, looking up references all along, it would be good to skim through the whole of the Summa from start to finish, taking extra time with any article or question which is unfamiliar.

Special attention should be given to the treatises on the Trinity (I, qq.27-43), on the angels (I, qq.50-64), on grace (I-II, qq.109-114), on the Incarnation (III, qq.1-16), and on the Eucharist (III, qq.73-83).These portions of the Summa contain the most significant insights of the Angelic Doctor.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Pray for us!

Christ taught as one having authority. But what does that mean?

2012-01-26T11:31:00.000-08:00

4^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Mk 1:21-28

The people were astonished at [Jesus’] teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.

Both here in Mark’s Gospel (which we will read from this Sunday) and in Matthew’s Gospel at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, the people are amazed at Jesus’ doctrine because he teaches as one having authority. But what does this mean? What was different about the way that Jesus taught? And, finally, how can priests today follow Christ’s example in their preaching?

Christ, prophet and professor

The Lord Jesus is the “new Moses”, the prophet spoken of by Moses in Sunday’s first reading (Deuteronomy 18:15-20): A prophet like me with the LORD, your God, raise up for you from among your kin; to him you shall listen.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) very clearly presents our Savior as the “new Moses”, the new Lawgiver. St. Mark does the same in this Sunday’s Gospel (which you can read [here]). The passage begins with Jesus teaching in the synagogue and the people being astonished at the authority with which he speaks. Then, after the exorcism of an evil spirit, the people are again astonished at our Savior’s teaching, saying to one another: What is this? A new teaching with authority.

Far too often today, people speak as though our Savior did not come to give any teaching or doctrine, but was only a “nice guy”. However, the Gospels clearly show that Jesus was known, during the time of his earthly ministry, as a great teacher and as a prophet.

Christ is truly the Prophet, the one promised by God to Moses and the people of Israel. And the very word “prophet” is related etymologically to the word “professor” – for a “prophet” is one who “speaks in the presence of others”, Latinized from the Greek “pro” (meaning, “before”) and “phanai” (meaning, “to speak”). And this is precisely the same etymology as the word, “professor” – “one who speaks in front of others” (namely, in front of students). The connection between the two words is more clearly seen in “professor” and “prophecy” (where the “t” has been softened to the “s” sound).

Christ is the Prophet, which means he is the teacher. Our Savior came to instruct us in doctrine, and salvation is more than just about being nice, it also requires true and orthodox belief in what our Lord has taught us.

The authority with which our Savior teaches

Christ was and is (through his Church) a teacher, but he does not teach as did the scribes; rather, he teaches as one having authority. But what does this mean? What set our Savior’s teaching aparat as being with authority?

St. Theophylus (cited in the Catena Aurea) tells us: “Again, Christ taught them by rebuke, not by flattery as did the Pharisees; wherefore it says, And they were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having power, and not as the Scribes. He taught them also in power, transforming men to good, and he threatened punishment to those who did not believe on Him.”

Further, St. Bede the Venerable adds: “The Scribes themselves taught the people what was written in Moses and the Prophets: but Jesus as the God and Lord of Moses himself, by the freedom of His own will, either added those things which appeared wanting in the Law, or altered things as He preached to the people; as we read in Matthew, It was said to them of old time, but I say to you.”

Commenting on Matthew 7:28, Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide gives seven points in which Christ taught with authority:

1) He taught important matters of the highest importance and which are necessary for salvation. But the scribes taught trifling matters of rites and ceremonies which were passing away, such as the washing of hands and of cups.

2) What Christ taught in word, he fulfilled in dead. Precisely because he is without sin, our Lord teaches with the greatest authority those things which pertain to holiness and salvation.

3) The Lord taught with great spirit and fervor, such that the words of Scripture could always be applied to him, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.

4) The Savior confirmed his teaching by miracles, which the scribes could not do.

5) The scribes were mere interpreters of the Law, but Christ is the Lawgiver sent from heaven.

6) While the scribes sought their own glory and the praise of men, our Lord taught solely for the glory of God and our salvation.

7) Not only by his words and example, but also by the hidden inspirations of his grace, the good Jesus illuminated the minds and inflamed the hearts of his hearers. Thus, he made the ignorant to become learned, and the wicked to become good.

Lessons for preaching today

In imitation of the Savior, the priest must preach neither for his own glory nor seeking to be accepted or thought well of, but for the glory of God and the salvation of his flock. He must preach with zeal, recalling that his sermon really will have an effect on the salvation of souls, either for good or ill. Further, the priest must not preach his own doctrine or opinion, but rather the doctrine of Christ which nourishes the Church.

Most importantly, the priest must live a holy life in accord with what he preaches – and, though he be not perfect, he must at least strive for perfection. Thus may what St. Gregory Nazianzen said of St. Basil the Great be said of all priests: “A sermon of Basil’s was like thunder, because his life was like lightening.” (Orat. 20)

Parish priests need to make the time to offer spiritual direction

2012-01-24T03:31:00.000-08:00

January 24^th, Feast of St. Francis de Sales

St. Francis de Sales is called the “Doctor of authors and of the Catholic press” on account of his great focus on making use of the tools of modern media in order to spread the Gospel. However, the Bishop of Geneva is most well known as one of the great spiritual writers of the Catholic tradition, due to the popularity of his classic, “The Introduction to the Devout Life”. [you can find this work on-line here]

Living from 1567 to 1622, and serving as bishop of Geneva in Switzerland, St. Francis de Sales had to face a very tumultuous and trying time in Europe. He was constantly at work in fulfilling his duties as a bishop in the counter-reformation period of the Church, and had scarcely a moments rest in the midst of his continuous labors.

And yet, this dedicated bishop insisted that it was his duty to provide spiritual direction to those souls who asked for his guidance and whom he believed would benefit from his personal care. What a witness St. Francis is to priests today! If he was able to serve as a spiritual director on top of his duties as a bishop, surely parish priests must find time to provide direction for their people as well. But how do I know whether I need a spiritual director? And what makes a priest to be a good director?

Should I find a spiritual director?

Speaking to the students of the Teresianum University in Rome, Pope Benedict stated that every Christian requires spiritual direction for at least some period of their life: “As she has never failed to do, again today the Church continues to recommend the practice of spiritual direction, not only to all those who wish to follow the Lord up close, but to every Christian who wishes to live responsibly his baptism, that is, the new life in Christ. Everyone, in fact, and in a particular way all those who have received the divine call to a closer following, needs to be supported personally by a sure guide in doctrine and expert in the things of God.” [see the full text here]

I have written before on whether spiritual direction is for everybody, you may read that article [here].

At least this much is clear, all Christians require some level of spiritual direction, even if that is primarily fulfilled through confession. Yet there are certain circumstances which would lead an individual to seek more formal direction: If we are considering religious life or a vocation to the priesthood; if we are a priest or a religious; or if we are experiencing supernatural visions or locutions. There are certainly other cases as well, but these seem to be the most essential times for direction.

St. Francis de Sales speaks to this question directly (Part I, chapter iv of the Devout Life): “When Tobias was bidden to go to Rages, he was willing to obey his father, but he objected that he knew not the way;—to which Tobit answered, Seek thee a man which may go with thee: [Tob. v. 3] and even so, daughter, I say to you, If you would really tread the paths of the devout life, seek some holy man to guide and conduct you.”

Our Saint is clear – any who seek to live a life of true devotion must find a spiritual director.

Does a parish priest have time to offer direction?

Many priests are tempted to think that they do not have time for individual direction. With the priest shortage and the many demands of parish life (especially, in the mega-church model of city parishes) it seems at times that priests really do not have time to give direction – we are even led to wonder whether such priests are receiving direction themselves.

However, St. Francis de Sales shows this way of thinking for the lie that it is – every priest has time for spiritual direction, every priest must make time to offer spiritual direction. Let us listen to the words of this holy spiritual father [from the preface to the Devout Life]:

“This is a cavilling age, and I foresee that many will say that only Religious and persons living apart are fit to undertake the guidance of souls in such special devout ways; that it requires more time than a Bishop of so important a diocese as mine can spare, and that it must take too much thought from the important duties with which I am charged.

“But, dear reader, I reply with S. Denis that the task of leading souls towards perfection appertains above all others to Bishops, and that because their Order is supreme among men, as the Seraphim among Angels, and therefore their leisure cannot be better spent. The ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were, to say the least, as devoted to their duties as we are, yet they did not refuse to undertake the individual guidance of souls which sought their help, as we see by their epistles; thereby imitating the Apostles, who, while reaping the universal world-harvest, yet found time to gather up certain individual sheaves with special and personal affection. Who can fail to remember that Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Onesimus, Phekla, Appia, were the beloved spiritual children of S. Paul, as S. Mark and S. Petronilla were of S. Peter (for Baronius and Galonius have given learned and absolute proof that S. Petronilla was not his carnal but spiritual daughter). And is not one of S. John’s Canonical Epistles addressed to the ‘elect lady’ whom he loved in the faith?

“I grant that the guidance of individual souls is a labour, but it is a labour full of consolation, even as that of harvesters and grape-gatherers, who are never so well pleased as when most heavily laden. It is a labour which refreshes and invigorates the heart by the comfort which it brings to those who bear it; as is said to be the case with those who carry bundles of cinnamon in Arabia Felix. It is said that when the tigress finds one of her young left behind by the hunter in order to delay her while he carries off the rest of her cubs, she takes it up, however big, without seeming over-weighted, and speeds only the more swiftly to her lair, maternal love lightening the load. How much more readily will the heart of a spiritual father bear the burden of a soul he finds craving after perfection carrying it in his bosom as a mother her babe, without feeling weary of the precious burden?

“But unquestionably it must be a really paternal heart that can do this, and therefore it is that the Apostles and their apostolic followers are wont to call their disciples not merely their children, but, even more tenderly still, their ‘little children.’”

Yes, if St. Peter and St. Paul and the other apostles were able to find the time to serve as directors for individual souls, how much more must the parish priest (whose calling is not nearly so demanding as that of the apostles) make time for spiritual direction!

What is particularly telling is that St. Francis de Sales sees spiritual direction as part of the refreshment of the priest – it is a labor which brings him true recreation. In this, we are reminded of our Savior who, when he was hungry and thirsty, did not fail to offer personal direction to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob – and it was in this service that our Lord received the food of which the apostles did not yet know. So too must the parish priest find his spiritual food and nourishment in the individual direction of souls, both through formal spiritual direction and through the sacrament of penance.

What makes a good spiritual director? Study is necessary

But it will not be enough for a priest simply to make time for direction, he must educate himself to learn how to be a good director. Indeed, poor direction is far worse than no direction – especially for the priest offering the poor guidance! Giving bad spiritual direction (or bad advice in the confessional) is a path for a priest to lose his soul, and also to damn the souls of his sheep.

No, simply making time to give direction will not be enough, the parish priest must take time to study – he already ought to be making time for prayer. And what should he study? What sorts of resources should the parish priest look to in order to become a good director of souls? Simply relying on contemporary works (even if they are orthodox) will not be enough – the works of Fr. Thomas Dubay (for example) are a good start, but they are by no means sufficient.

It goes without saying that a priest must be familiar with Scripture and the teachings of the Church. Further, he must be an expert in Christian anthropology – and this is a point upon which St. Teresa of Avila insists: Most early errors in the spiritual life arise from a poor understanding of the nature of the soul. Put simply (by way of example), if a priest cannot clearly recognize and explain the categorical difference between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the infused virtues, he has no business serving as a director of souls. And to this, a hundred other points could be added. If he does not know what distinguishes a charism from a fruit of the Holy Spirit, or if he does not know how the acquired virtues relate to the infused virtues, he is not prepared to serve as a director of souls.

Let the priest be familiar with the sections on morals and on prayer in the Catechism, as well as St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica I-II and II-II. He would do well to read Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Three Ages of the Interior Life” (a two volume work of over one thousand pages – and if this seems too long, he can be sure that he has not the love and devotion requisite of a director). He should consider reading the “Dignity and Duties of the Priest” by St. Alphonsus Liguori.

Beyond this, a spiritual director must read the classics of Catholic spirituality. Of the modern works, we point especially to “The Introduction to the Devout Life” of St. Francis de Sales, “The Interior Castle” of St. Teresa of Avila, “The Dark Night” by St. John of the Cross, “The Imitation of Christ” by Thomas a’ Kempis, and other such works (especially, “The Spiritual Combat” by Lorenzo Scupoli).

From the more ancient tradition, we point to St. Athanasius’ “Life of St. Anthony”, St. Augustine’s “Confessions”, John Cassian’s “Conferences” (which St. Thomas Aquinas carried with him at all times), St. Benedict’s “Rule”, and St. Gregory of Nyssa’s “Life of Moses”. Of course, many other works could be joined to these – especially from the great medieval authors.

A priest, in order to serve as a spiritual director without putting his own soul and the souls of his sheep in grave peril, must be an expert in the spiritual life. He must dedicate time every day to the study of moral and spiritual theology, resisting the modern “fads” (even if they be orthodox) and preferring instead the classical works and especially the writings of Church Doctors. If a priest has not yet read the works of St. Alphonsus, he has no business reading Fr. Dubay (even though Fr. Dubay is good and orthodox, he is no Doctor of the Universal Church). If he is not intimately familiar with Sts. Francis de Sales and Teresa of Avila, how can he justify reading contemporary authors? As good as “Spiritual Combat Revisited” by Fr. Jonathon Robinson of the Oratory is, the director of souls is ought to read the original “Spiritual Combat” of Scupoli with greater attention.

What if I cannot find a good director?

Yet, it may sadly happen that a devout soul cannot find a good director – indeed, good directors are most rare. If such occurs, I would refer to a previous article on what to do when you cannot find a spiritual director [here]. Indeed, it would be better to have no director at all than to have a bad director.

St. Francis de Sales advises: “But who can find such a friend? The Wise Man answers:—He that feareth the Lord: [Ecclus. vi. 17] that is to say, the truly humble soul which earnestly desires to advance in the spiritual life. So, daughter, inasmuch as it concerns you so closely to set forth on this devout journey under good guidance, do you pray most earnestly to God to supply you with a guide after His Own Heart, and never doubt but that He will grant you one who is wise and faithful, even should He send you an angel from Heaven, as He sent to Tobias.”

And further, “In a word, such a friendship [as spiritual direction] should be strong and sweet; altogether holy, sacred, divine and spiritual. And with such an aim, choose one among a thousand, Avila says;—and I say among ten thousand, for there are fewer than one would think capable of this office. He must needs be full of love, of wisdom and of discretion; for if either of these three be wanting there is danger. But once more I say, ask such help of God, and when you have found it, bless His Holy Name; be stedfast, seek no more, but go on simply, humbly and trustfully, for you are safe to make a prosperous journey.” [Introduction to the Devout Life, I,iv]

Should lay people serve as spiritual directors?

While I make no absolute claims on this point, I will post my response to this question take from a comment to another article. This comment was given in response to a question regarding programs which claim to train lay people to be spiritual directors:

While I am not completely opposed to the idea of lay people being directed by other lay people, there are a couple of points I think should be made:

1) Priests ordinarily go to seminary school for eight years (or at least four years). The formation is academic (intellectual), spiritual, pastoral, and also human. This formation is almost continuous (literally, nearly 24 hours a day 7 days a week) for the whole eight years. And, even after all that training, very few priests are truly capable confessors or directors.

Does anybody really think that a three to four year program (which is not even live-in) suffices for training lay people as spiritual directors?

2) After this intense eight year seminary formation, newly ordained priests work with a more experienced priest for usually at least two years. Again, this is a 24/7 formation, as they live with the priest and receive constant guidance.

Is there anything like this for lay spiritual directors? No.

3) The priest's whole life is dedicated to his people (or at least it ought to be) – he has no family, no other work, no other obligations. But all he does is for the flock.

Even with that, many priests still find it difficult to dedicate the time needed for direction (since prayer for the people outside of actual meeting time is very important). How can we expect lay people, who have jobs and (perhaps) families, to be truly dedicated and serve as directors of souls?

Are there exceptions? Certainly! Are there lay people who are holier than priests? Many (perhaps most)! Are there even lay people who are more educated in the spiritual life than priests? Some.

But is it at all likely that even the most devout and holy lay person can, after a three to four year course, serve effectively as a spiritual director? I doubt it. (though, again, there are certainly some rare exceptions)

For my part, I can hardly think of a single situation in which I would recommend a lay person to go to another lay person for formal spiritual direction (and I would never recommend a priest or religious to take a lay person as a spiritual director).

Nuns and monks serving as directors is, of course, a different story all together. Though, personally, I would consider the case of permanent deacons to be pretty much the same as that with lay directors – rarely would a permanent deacon be capable of serving as a director.

Articles from NTM on spiritual direction

Here are a couple articles on spiritual direction which I have posted previously on New Theological Movement:

The importance of spiritual direction – Is spiritual direction really for everybody? [here]

A good spiritual director – What to look for in a spiritual director [here]

If there is no possibility of spiritual direction – When you cannot find a spiritual director [here]

And for priests:

Books every confessor should read – For priests: How to be a good confessor; The example of St. John Vianney [here]

How to be a good confessor – The good confessor, according to St. Alphonsus [here]

On giving advice in the confessional – Is confession a time for spiritual direction? An answer from St. Alphonsus [here]

St. Francis de Sales, Pray for us!

Were Peter and Andrew called before or after John the Baptist was arrested? Reconciling the synoptic gospels with John

2012-01-21T04:35:00.000-08:00

3^rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Mark 1:14-20

After John had been arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God.

In the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the vocation of not only Peter but also Andrew as well as of James and John occurs while the soon-to-be apostles are fishing and after John the Baptist has been arrested. However, St. John very clearly states that both Andrew and Peter (and perhaps John as well) were called by Jesus while they were with St. John the Baptist – at least, Andrew was with the Baptizer, and then he went and brought Peter to Jesus.

Now, at first glance, it would seem that these two accounts are incompatible; however, we will quickly notice that there were two occasions in which Christ called these men. The first calling of Andrew and (probably) John and Peter as presented in St. John’s Gospel occurred a full year before the second calling of the apostles which is given.

Were Peter and Andrew called by Jesus before or after the arrest of St. John the Baptist?

The historical truth of the Gospels

Consider the following words on the historicity of the Gospels, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, ‘whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.’” (CCC 126, Dei Verbum [Vatican II] 19)

The historical reliability of the Gospels is “unhesitatingly” affirmed by the Church, because they record what our Savior “really did and taught” during his life on earth. Note, especially, the choice of the word “unhesitatingly” – there is no qualification, delay or condition placed upon the Church’s affirmation of the historical verity of the Gospels.

As is the case with all of Sacred Scripture, the Gospels must convey that truth which the writers (whether the human beings or God himself) intended to convey – and that truth which the Gospels teach is the historical life of Christ. Hence, there can be no doubt that the Gospels accurately record Jesus’ historical life.

Finally, consider the following quote from Pope Pius XII:

“For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu)

Thus, if St. John tells us that Jesus called Andrew from the side of St. John the Baptist, then this must have indeed occurred. And, further, if the Beloved writes that Andrew led Peter to Jesus, so it was.

However, on the other hand, if the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) say that Peter and Andrew (as well as James and John) were called while they were fishing and after the arrest of St. John the Baptist, so it was.

Hence, we must reconcile these two (seemingly contradictory) accounts.

How many times did Jesus cleanse the Temple?

A further point which may give rise to confusion is the fact that St. John records the cleansing of the Temple to have occurred at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, even before St. John the Baptist has been arrested (cf. John 2:13ff.).

However, the synoptic gospels place the cleansing of the Temple in the final week of Jesus life on earth. It seems that this was the last straw which led the Sadducees to unite against our Savior and to conspire to put him to death.

How can we reconcile John with the other three Evangelists? The clear answer is that there must have been two cleansings of the Temple: The Lord Jesus cleansed the Temple once during his first year of public ministry, and he cleansed it a second time in the final days before his death.

As Alcuin says (in the Catena Aurea): “The Gospels mention two journeys of our Lord to Jerusalem, one in the first year of His preaching, before John was sent to prison, which is the journey now spoken of [by St. John]; the other in the year of His Passion.”

It was in his first journey in the first year of his ministry that Jesus cleansed the Temple the first time (as recorded by St. John). In the last week of his ministry he again cleansed the Temple (as recorded by Sts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

What Jesus did before and after John was arrested

There are times when the gospels are not entirely clear as to the historical order of events – when this occurs, we are not necessarily bound to assume that they are related in chronological order. However, at other times, the gospel writers specify chronology, and then we must affirm that the historical chronology given is true. When there is an apparent contradiction, we must try to understand how the gospels are all in harmony.

In Mark (as well as Matthew and Luke), it is very clear that John the Baptist had already been arrested when Peter and Andrew as well as James and John were called by Jesus: after John had been arrested (Mark 1:14). However, in John, it is equally clear that the Baptist had not yet been arrested when Andrew and Peter were called, since it is John the Baptist who says to Andrew, Behold, the Lamb of God.

The only logical conclusion must be that there were two vocations, two callings of these apostles. Jesus had called Andrew and Peter first when they were still disciples of John the Baptist and then, some time later, called them a second time while they were fishing (after the Baptist had been arrested).

This, however, means that some amount of time passed from Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan and fasting in the desert (cf. Mark 1:13) and the arrest of John and calling of the disciples (cf. Mark 1:14). So, just how much time did pass between Mark 1:13 and 14?

The time after Jesus’ baptism and before John’s arrest

A full year passes between the fast in the desert and the arrest of the Baptist. This time period is recalled only by St. John, comprising the first three chapters of St. John’s Gospel. Consider the commentary of Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide on Matthew 4:12:

“Matthew, Mark, and Luke all omit the embassy of the Jews to John the Baptist, asking him if he were the Messiah. To this first year of Christ’s ministry pertain also the turning water into wine, the driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, and the discourse with Nicodemus. These all took place before the imprisonment of the Baptist, and are related only by S. John. For before his imprisonment Christ had committed to John the work of preaching, but now He took that office upon Himself.”

And, speaking of the passage of a year between Mark 1:13 and 14, St. Bede the Venerable (cited in the Catena Aurea) writes:

“Let no one, however, suppose that the putting of John in prison took place immediately after the forty days' temptation and the fast of the Lord; for whoever reads the Gospel of John will find, that the Lord taught many things before the putting of John in prison, and also did many miracles; for you have in his Gospel, This beginning of miracles did Jesus; and afterwards, for John was not yet cast into prison. Now it is said, that when John read the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the text of the history, and affirmed that they had spoken truth, but said that they had composed the history of only one year after John was cast into prison, in which year also he suffered. Passing over then the year of which the transactions had been published by the three others, he related the events of the former period, before John was cast into prison.”

And thus, it is clear that there need be no contradiction between the calling of Peter and Andrew as related in the synoptic gospels and that of St. John – for there were two callings, which took place roughly one year apart. And it was fitting that our Savior should call these apostles twice, for they were disciples of the Baptist and did not begin to follow Christ publicly until after the Precursor had been arrested and so run his course.

Did you know? St. Sebastian wasn't killed by arrows

2012-01-19T03:50:00.000-08:00

January 20^th, Feast of St. Sebastian

Many of the early Christian martyrs were not killed straight away by the torments of their persecutors. Probably the two most well-known cases of surviving martyrdom are St. John the Evangelist and St. Philomena. While the Beloved was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, he came forth healthier than he went in – and so lived out his days as an exile on the isle of Patmos, where he received the vision recorded in the book of the Apocalypse. St. Philomena, the special patroness of the Curé of Ars, was tortured horribly by Diocletian and suffered several martyrdoms (including both being thrown into the Tiber river with an anchor bound to her neck so as to drown her, and having arrows fired upon her) before finally giving up her spirit at her beheading.

St. Sebastian, likewise, did not die immediately upon being shot with many arrows, but recovered and suffered a second martyrdom – hence, he is sometimes called the saint who was martyred twice (a reference which is shared by St. Isaac Jogues, closer to our own day).

St. Sebastian was martyred by beatings with rods

From the Roman Martyrology:

“At Rome, ad Catacumbas, St. Sebastian, martyr, who was in command of the first cohort under the Emperor Diocletian, was ordered to be bound in the middle of a plain, with the title of Christian over his head, and shot with arrows by the soldiers, and lastly to be scourged with rods till he died.”

St. Irene of Rome, widow of St. Castulus

The images of St. Sebastian’s martyrdom show him tied to a tree and pierced through with many arrows – and this is accurate enough, as far as it goes. However, the popular image leaves out what happened next: For, the soldiers presuming the saint to be dead, left his body hanging upon the tree. However, St. Irene of Rome came to bury the relics of St. Sebastian and found that was not quite dead. Owing partly to her care and partly to the divine assistance, St. Sebastian was restored to health.

From the Golden Legend

The “Golden Legend” was the most important and popular book of the Medieval Period on the lives of the early saints. It is called the “Golden Legend” or Legenda Aurea, not so much because the stories are mere “legends” in the modern sense of the term, but according the ancient meaning of the word which means the relating of a story or event (from the Latin legere, legenda meaning “things to be read”).

“Diocletian was much angry and wroth, and commanded [Sebastian] to be led to the field and there to be bounden to a stake for to be shot at. And the archers shot at him till he was as full of arrows as an urchin is full of pricks, and thus left him there for dead.

The night after came a christian woman for to take his body and to bury it, but she found him alive and brought him to her house, and took charge of him till he was all whole. Many christian men came to him which counselled him to void the place, but he was comforted and stood upon a step where the emperor should pass by, and said to him: ‘The bishops of the idols deceive you evilly which accuse the christian men to be contrary to the common profit of the city, that pray for your estate and for the health of Rome.’ Diocletian said: ‘Art thou not Sebastian whom we commanded to be shot to death.’ And Saint Sebastian said: ‘Therefore our Lord hath rendered to me life to the end that I should tell you that evilly and cruelly ye do persecutions unto christian men.’

Then Diocletian made him to be brought into prison into his palace, and to beat him so sore with stones till he died. And the tyrants threw his body into a great privy, because the christian men should make no feast to bury his body, ne of his martyrdom. But Saint Sebastian appeared after to Saint Lucy, a glorious widow, and said to her: ‘In such a privy shalt thou find my body hanging at an hook, which is not defouled with none ordure, when thou hast washed it thou shalt bury it at the catacombs by the apostles.’ And the same night she and her servants accomplished all that Sebastian had commanded her. He was martyred the year of our Lord two hundred and eighty seven.”

A prayer to St. Sebastian, patron saint of athletes

“Dear Commander at the Roman Emperor's court, you chose to be a soldier of Christ and dared to spread faith in the King of Kings – for which you were condemned to die. Your body, however, proved athletically strong and the executing arrows extremely weak. So another means to kill you was chosen and you gave your life to the Lord. May athletes be always as strong in their faith as their Patron Saint so clearly has been. Amen.”

Did Jesus misquote 1 Samuel 21, confusing Abiathar with his father Achimelech?

2012-01-17T03:36:00.000-08:00

Achimelech gives David the sword of Goliath

Tuesday in the Second Week of Ordinary Time, Mark 2:23-28

And [Jesus] said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need, and was hungry himself, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him?

St. Mark specifies Jesus’ question to the Pharisees in a way that St. Matthew (12:1-8) does not, for St. Mark mentions that our Lord declared Abiathar to be the high priest when David came and ate of the hallowed bread. However, if we look to the text cited (1 Samuel 21:1-6) we see that Achimelech was the high priest and that Abiathar was his son who succeeded him shortly thereafter.

Jesus says that Abiathar was the high priest when David came and ate the bread of offering, but 1 Samual says that Achimelech was the high priest at that time. Could it be that our Savior misquoted 1 Samuel 21? Did Truth himself confuse the son with the father? Of course not!

Why then does Jesus say Abiathar instead of Achimelech?

David’s flight to Achimelech

In 1 Samual 21, when David goes to Nobe to the house of God (for it was in the days before the Temple had been constructed in Jerusalem), the son of Jesse is not yet the king of Israel. Rather, king Saul is seeking to kill David, on account of his jealousy over the fame which David won by slaying Goliath.

David flees from Saul and come to Nobe and begs the assistance of the high priest Achimelech – for his men were on the point of starvation and had no food. Now there was no bread there, excepting the bread of the offering which was hallowed to the Lord and which was not lawful for any but the priests to eat.

However, because David and his men had kept themselves pure, Achimelech gives the loaves to David so that he and his men may not collapse. Together with this bread, Achimelech also gave David the sword of Goliath.

Though David went his way, Doeg the Edomite (a secret enemy of David who was present that day) went and told all to Saul. The king then had Achimelech and all the priests killed (cf. 1 Samuel 22).

Achimelech and Abiathar

And the king said: Dying thou shalt die, Achimelech, thou and all thy father's house. […]But one of the sons of Achimelech the son of Achitob, whose name was Abiathar, escaped, and fled to David. (1 Samuel 22:16,20)

Abiathar was the son of Achimelech, and he alone escaped the brutal slaughter perpetrated by Saul and Doeg. Thus he fled to David and found safety. David then swore to Abiathar that he would protect him, since it was on David’s account that Abiathar’s father had been slain.

After David became king, Abiathar was elevated to become the high priest, and he plays an important role in David’s reign – especially in helping David during the time of the rebellion of his son Absalom (cf. 2 Samuel 15 and 20). He also served with Zadok as priest under Solomon.

Abiathar’s life and ministry as priest was very closely associated with David.

Two explanations

Still, the fact remains that 1 Samuel 21 says that Achimelech was the priest who gave David the bread, while our Savior (in Mark 2) says that it was Abiathar – hence, it appears that we have a contradiction.

Some have impiously claimed that Jesus misquoted this verse. Others (blaspheming) state that Mark erred in writing his text. But we know that Truth himself speaks truly, and that the Spirit of Truth cannot inspire falsehood. Hence, it must needs be that our Lord did not err but spoke truly when he said that Abiathar was the high priest – and this can be accounted for in (at least) three ways.

From Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide:

1) “I answer, first, that Abiathar was even then the pontiff together with his father, because when his father was absent, or sick, or otherwise engaged, he discharged the High Priest’s office; and he was shortly to succeed his father, at his death, in the pontificate. Listen to Bede: That the Lord calls Abiathar the High Priest instead of Ahimelech involves no discrepancy, for both were on the spot when David came and asked for and received the loaves. And when Ahimelech was slain by Saul, Abiathar fled to David, and was his companion through the whole of his exile. Afterwards, when David was king, he received the rank of the high-priesthood; and continuing in the pontificate during the whole of David’s reign, he became much more celebrated than his father, and so was more worthy to be called High Priest by the Lord, even during his father’s lifetime.”

And to this we add that Caiaphas is called the high priest at the time of the Crucifixion, though it was his father-in-law Annas who was the high priest that year.

2) “Second, and better, It is clear from Scripture that both father and son bore both names, and were called sometimes Abiathar, sometimes Ahimelech. This appears from 2 Sam. viii. 17, 1 Chron. xviii. 16 and xxiv. 6. So Jansen, Toletus, &c.”

2 Samuel 2:17 (and 1 Chronicles 18:16) – And Sadoc the son of Achitob, and Achimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests.

And I don’t mind adding that such is common even today – for a man may be named Leo Michael (jr) after his father. But while the family calls him “Mike”, we are not surprised to hear some call him “Leo”. Hence, while “Leo” sometimes refers to the father, it also can be used to refer to the son. And “Mike” could theoretically refer to either father or son as well.

A mystical interpretation

To these two excellent interpretations given by Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide, we add a third – which is really only meant as the hint of an explanation.

After the slaughtering of Achimelech and the priests by Saul, Abiathar flees to David who says: Abide thou with me, fear not: for he that seeketh my life, seeketh thy life also, and with me thou shalt be saved. (1 Samuel 22:23)

David here preserves a pure remnant from the priests. He proposes a union with Abiathar, such that the priest will be saved through remaining united to king David. Indeed, it is also important to recall that Abiathar was priest through the transition from the time when the Ark remained in the tabernacle in the country to the time when Solomon built the Temple.

Thus, the transition from Achimelech to Abiathar (and from Saul to David, and even to Solomon) seems to propose something of the promise of a new priesthood to be established with the new covenant which was to come through the Christ. Could it be that our Savior calls our attention to Abiathar the son of Achimelech in order to indicate that a new priesthood is being established?

The Lord refers to this passage in the midst of a dispute with the Pharisees over the interpretation of the Law. It would be a fitting time for him to direct our minds to contemplation of the new covenant, as he tells us: Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also. (Mark 2:28)

Why did Jesus call Andrew and John at the tenth hour?

2012-01-15T04:26:00.000-08:00

2^nd Sunday in Ordinary Time, John 1:35-42

It was about four in the afternoon.

As St. John tells us of his own calling (for he is surely that unnamed disciple called together with St. Andrew) and of that first conversation he had with our Savior, he specifies the time of day: It was the tenth hour (which is to say, about four in the afternoon).

Why does the Beloved Disciple add this detail? What is the significance of the time? What are we to learn from the hour of the day?

St. John is the unnamed disciple

Most probably, St. John is this unnamed disciple. Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide: “S. Chrysostom asks, ‘Why is not the name of the other given? Either because it was the writer himself, S. John the Apostle, or because it was a person of no note.’ The first idea is the more probable. And what favours the conjecture is that John and James were companions in fishing with Peter and Andrew (Matt. iv.), when, shortly after Andrew and Peter, Christ calls John and James. Lastly, the great purity, the virginity, and holiness of S. John the Evangelist seem to have been the result of the teaching, the purity, and holiness of S. John the Baptist.”

From the Navarre Bible: “We cannot be absolutely sure who the second disciple was; but since the very earliest centuries of the Christian era he has always been taken to be the Evangelist himself. The vividness of the account, the detail of giving the exact time, and even John’s tendency to remain anonymous seem to confirm this.”

The Jewish hours of the day

Modern man counts time from midnight to midnight, hence at 12am the hours of the day begin anew and continue through to 12pm (which is roughly mid-day) and until 11:45pm (or 23:59). The ancient Jews, however, counted not from mid-night but from sunrise. Thus, the hours of the day began at dawn (which was the first hour, called “Prime”) and continued through to the sixth hour (which was about mid-day) and until the twelfth hour (about sunset). The hours of the night were generally calculated according to four “watches”, though there were often only three watches in the summer months (when the night was shorter).

To recognize the relation of the modern method to the ancient we offer the following table:

*Modern method*	*Ancient Jewish method*
6am	First hour
9am	Third hour
12pm	Sixth hour
3pm	Ninth hour
6pm	Twelfth hour
9pm	First watch of the night
12am	Second watch of the night
3am	Third watch
Till about 6am	Forth watch

Hence, the tenth hour would be about four in the afternoon.

How long was that first meeting?

St. John specifies that it was late in the afternoon in order to imply both that our Lord was zealous to teach and instruct even at the end of a long day – thus, Theophylus writes “The Evangelist mentions the time of day purposely, as a hint both to teachers and learners, not to let time interfere with their work.” (From the Catena Aurea)

Further, we are to understand that this first meeting did not end abruptly with sunset (so as to last only two or three hours), but rather continued through the whole night. Thus, St. Augustine: “What a blessed day they spent, what a blessed night!” (Tractate vii on John)

How blessed indeed this first night which John and Andrew spent with our Lord, conversing with him, being taught by the Word of God who imparts all knowledge.

The mystery of the tenth hour

While it is true that the tenth hour does correspond to four in the afternoon, it is nevertheless unfortunate that the English lectionary converts the time. Indeed, there is a great mystery related to us in the signification of the number ten.

Consider the interpretation of St. Augustine:

“Do we think that it did in no wise pertain to the evangelist to tell us what hour it was? Is it possible that he wished us to give heed to nothing in that, to inquire after nothing? It was the tenth hour. That number signifies the law, because the law was given in ten commandments. But the time had come for the law to be fulfilled by love, because it could not be fulfilled by the Jews by fear. Hence the Lord says, I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill. [Matthew 5:17]

“Suitably, then, at the tenth hour did these two follow Him, at the testimony of the friend of the Bridegroom, and that He at the tenth hour heard Rabbi (which is interpreted, Master). If at the tenth hour the Lord heard Rabbi, and the tenth number pertains to the law, the master of the law is no other than the giver of the law. Let no one say that one gave the law, and that another teaches the law: for the same teaches it who gave it; He is the Master of His own law, and teaches it. And mercy is in His tongue, therefore mercifully teaches He the law, as it is said regarding wisdom, The law and mercy does she carry in her tongue. [Proverbs 31:26]

“Do not fear that you are not able to fulfill the law, flee to mercy. If you cannot fulfill the law, make use of that covenant, make use of the bond, make use of the prayers which the heavenly One, skilled in the law, has ordained and composed for you.” (Tractate vii on John)

Mark: The shortest but most detailed Gospel

2012-01-12T03:52:00.000-08:00

The Gospel according to St. Mark will be read in the Church throughout Ordinary Time this year, hence we will benefit from a brief consideration of certain points relative to this book.

Having already discussed the petrine authority of this Gospel (since St. Mark wrote what he learned from St. Peter [see our earlier article here]), we now turn to the amazing degree of detail contained in this book.

While the Gospel of St. Mark can easily be read within two hours (it is by far the shortest Gospel), surprisingly it contains far more details than do the other synoptic Gospels.

Unique miracles

There are only two miracles related only by St. Mark: The healing of the deaf and dumb man of Tyre (cf. Mark 7:31-37) and the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida (cf. Mark 8:22-26). Neither of these miracles are present in the other Gospels, and so there is nothing to which we may compare St. Mark’s attention to detail. Still, these miracles are a good sample of the general style of St. Mark who is focused so much on the details.

[31] And again going out of the coasts of Tyre, he came by Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis. [32] And they bring to him one deaf and dumb; and they besought him that he would lay his hand upon him. [33] And taking him from the multitude apart, he put his fingers into his ears, and spitting, he touched his tongue: [34] And looking up to heaven, he groaned, and said to him: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened. [35] And immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke right. (Mark 7:31-35)

Notice the focus on place (vs. 31), and on touch (vs. 33), and also the use of Aramaic (vs. 34, Ephpheta). This kind of detail is not often found in the other Gospels, but is common to Mark.

The details of touch, person, place, time and numbers

That this attention to detail is particular to St. Mark will be seen more clearly when we compare a single story as it is related in the three synoptic Gospels. We will take, as a nice sample, the healing of Jairus’ daughter (which is interspersed with the healing of the hemorrhaging woman).

First, notice that St. Mark relates this miracle in 5:22-43 (22 verses), while St. Matthew does so in 9:18-26 (9 verses), and St. Luke in 8:41-56 (16 verses) – St. Mark’s account is considerably longer than that given by the other Evangelists, and this is common to most parallels between Mark and the others.

Below we reproduce a parallel of the healing of Jairus’ daughter (setting aside the case of the woman with a hemorrhage).

Mark 5	Matthew 9	Luke 8
[22] And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue named Jairus: and seeing him, falleth down at his feet. [23] And he besought him much, saying: My daughter is at the point of death, come, lay thy hand upon her, that she may be safe, and may live. [24] And he went with him, and a great multitude followed him, and they thronged him. […] [35] While he was yet speaking, some come from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying: Thy daughter is dead: why dost thou trouble the master any further? [36] But Jesus having heard the word that was spoken, saith to the ruler of the synagogue: Fear not, only believe. [37] And he admitted not any man to follow him, but Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. [38] And they come to the house of the ruler of the synagogue; and he seeth a tumult, and people weeping and wailing much. [39] And going in, he saith to them: Why make you this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. [40] And they laughed him to scorn. But he having put them all out, taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. [41] And taking the damsel by the hand, he saith to her: Talitha cumi, which is, being interpreted: Damsel (I say to thee) arise. [42] And immediately the damsel rose up, and walked: and she was twelve years old: and they were astonished with a great astonishment. [43] And he charged them strictly that no man should know it: and commanded that something should be given her to eat.	[18] As he was speaking these things unto them, behold a certain ruler came up, and adored him, saying: Lord, my daughter is even now dead; but come, lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. [19] And Jesus rising up followed him, with his disciples. […] [23] And when Jesus was come into the house of the ruler, and saw the minstrels and the multitude making a rout, [24] He said: Give place, for the girl is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. [25] And when the multitude was put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand. And the maid arose. [26] And the fame hereof went abroad into all that country.	[41] And behold there came a man whose name was Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at the feet of Jesus, beseeching him that he would come into his house: [42] For he had an only daughter, almost twelve years old, and she was dying. And it happened as he went, that he was thronged by the multitudes. […] [49] As he was yet speaking, there cometh one to the ruler of the synagogue, saying to him: Thy daughter is dead, trouble him not. [50] And Jesus hearing this word, answered the father of the maid: Fear not; believe only, and she shall be safe. [51] And when he was come to the house, he suffered not any man to go in with him, but Peter and James and John, and the father and mother of the maiden. [52] And all wept and mourned for her. But he said: Weep not; the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. [53] And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. [54] But he taking her by the hand, cried out, saying: Maid, arise. [55] And her spirit returned, and she arose immediately. And he bid them give her to eat. [56] And her parents were astonished, whom he charged to tell no man what was done.

From this table, we can easily see the greater detail present in St. Mark’s Gospel. To name a few points present in Mark but left out in Matthew: The name of Jairus, the interjection by a servant with the news that the girl had died (Matthew reports this from the beginning), the discussion of how Jesus put everyone out of the house excepting the mother and father and his three disciples, Jesus’ words to the little girl (Damsel, arise), the age of the girl, and the fact that Jesus bid that she be brought food.

Compared with St. Luke, St. Mark gives a more detailed account of the words of Christ – almost every time that our Savior is quoted, St. Mark’s account is longer and more detailed. Further, St. Mark quotes our Savior’s words in Aramaic Talitha cumi, whereas St. Luke only gives the Greek translation. Likewise, at the beginning of the passage, where St. Mark gives the very words of Jarius, St. Luke only summarizes what was said.

The use of Aramaic

Beyond the great focus on details, especially details of touch, St. Mark’s Gospel is peculiar for offering original Aramaic words and phrases.

Only St. Mark relates the words Talitha cumi (“Damsel, arise” [5:41]), and Ephpheta (“Be thou opened” [7:34]). Further, it is only in this Gospel that we hear the Aramaic word Abba (“Father” [14:36]). These are the very words, in Aramaic, which Jesus himself spoke – and only St. Mark gives such detail.

Likewise, the word corban (in the dispute with the Pharisees over care for one’s parents [Mark 7:11]) is found only in Mark – though, St. Matthew uses a similar word corbona referring to the treasury of the Temple [Matthew 27:6]. Further, there are several proper Aramaic names found only in Mark: Bartimaeus [10:46], Boanerges [3:17].

Finally, it is likely that St. Mark’s account of Christ’s words on the Cross, Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachtani? [15:34] are more authentically Aramaic than St. Matthew’s rendering Eli, Eli (which could be more Hebraic) [27:46].

Additionally, it is surprising to note that St. Mark uses a good number of Latin words: speculator, sextarius, centurion, legion, quadrans, praetorium, caesar, census, flagello, modius, denarius. Though some of these are used also in other Gospels, St. Mark is peculiar in that he uses Latin more often than the others.

This indicates an eye-witness source: St. Peter

Given this particular focus on detail and the extraordinary use of Aramaic words and phrases, it seems very likely that St. Mark’s Gospel is based on eye-witness testimony. The Fathers, Doctors, saints, and theologians of the Church have consistently affirmed that this source is St. Peter, since there is no tradition that St. Mark was an eye-witness to these events.

The Gospel of St. Mark, the Gospel of St. Peter

2012-01-10T04:02:00.000-08:00

St. Peter preaches, while St. Mark writes his Gospel

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)

The second Gospel, that written by St. Mark, will be the primary Gospel used in the Church’s Liturgy (in the Novus Ordo) during the coming year. In the daily Mass readings, St. Mark’s Gospel is used consistently up till Lent; while, for the Sunday Gospel, Mark will be used throughout Ordinary Time (excepting this Sunday, January 15^th).

In preparation for the Church’s use of this Gospel in the Sacred Liturgy, we will consider first the Petrine authority of the Gospel, and then (in a later article) the structure and style of the book.

St. Peter’s Gospel

According to an ancient tradition, which is rooted in manifold sources and quite beyond dispute, the Gospel according to St. Mark is very much the Gospel of St. Peter. The Prince of the apostles did not compose his own Gospel, but instead left it to his close disciple St. Mark to put his preaching into text.

All the Gospels are founded upon the authority of one or other of the apostles: Sts. Matthew and John were themselves among the Twelve, while St. Luke wrote with the authority of St. Paul. St. Mark, then, not an apostle himself, writes what he heard preached by St. Peter.

The witness of the tradition

We reproduce (in an abridged form) the scholarship of the Catholic Encyclopedia [“The Gospel of St. Mark”, here]:

“All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. […] So Irenæus says: ‘Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter’ (Against Heresies III.1 and III.10.6). St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of ‘the elder presbyters’, tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark ‘composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it’ (Eusebius, Church History VI.14). Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him, and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark's work (Church History II.15).

“To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly; Tertullian, who states: ‘The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was’ (Contra Marc., IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches (De Vir. Ill., viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Ad Hedib., ep. cxx).

“In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter.”

The evidence in the text

Further, beyond the tradition of the Church, there is internal textual evidence which leads us to believe that the Gospel comes from the authority of St. Peter. As we shall shortly see (in a post later this week), this Gospel contains more details than any of the other Gospels (with the possible exception of St. John’s), and this indicates that an eyewitness was an immediate source for St. Mark (since no one claims Mark to have been an eyewitness himself). Further, this Gospel tells of the weaknesses of the apostles more clearly than any of the others, and particularly of the deficiencies of St. Peter – but, if any other than Peter had been the source, there would have been a tendency to brush these aside out of charity for the Prince of the apostles (just as St. Matthew alone states his name clearly as the tax-collector, while Sts. Mark and Luke give his other name Levi).

We do not claim that this textual evidence alone proves that Peter is the source for this Gospel, but we do say that it corroborates what has been maintained in the tradition of the Church, most probably from the later part of the first century (and no later than by Papias around the year AD 150).

St. Mark and St. Peter, Pray for us!

Myrrh is for dead bodies, so why give it to a baby?

2012-01-08T04:15:00.000-08:00

Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord

And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11)

The wise men offer the Christ Child the three gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. When considering what it was that the magi must have believed about the Savior, St. Fulgentius tells us “Consider what gifts they offered and you will know what they believed.”

It is more than a little shocking, and quite disappointing, that the Catholic Encyclopedia says of the gifts: “The purpose of the gold is clear; the Child was poor. We do not know the purpose of the other gifts. The magi probably meant no symbolism.”

We, guided by the light of the Church Fathers, are not left in such darkness. Thus, let us consider specifically the gift of myrrh – what it is, and what it signifies.

Myrrh is for death

Myrrh is a resin (really an aromatic oleoresin, a natural blend of oil and resin) which can be extracted from various trees native to Africa, Arabia, and India. Myrrh resin is a natural gum and, like frankincense, could be burned as a type of incense.

In ancient times, myrrh was so valuable as to be as or even more precious than gold. Beyond being used as incense, it was used also as perfume, and medicine. Most specifically, myrrh was commonly used (especially in Egypt) in the process of embalming.

The last great Jesuit biblical scholar, Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide, states: “The bodies of the dead are buried with myrrh, that they may remain incorrupt. Myrrh has the property of drying up moisture, and preventing the generation of worms.”

The meaning of the gifts

As St. Fulgentius says, we may learn the faith of the wise men from the gifts they offer, and so we consider the teaching of the Church preserved in her Sacred Liturgy: “The wise men came from the East to adore the Lord in Bethlehem. Opening their treasures, they offer him three precious gifts: gold for the great King, frankinsense for the true God, and myrrh for his burial, alleluia.” (Benedictus antiphon for the Monday after Epiphany)

This same teaching is preserved by both Gregory the Great and Augustine, the latter saying: “Gold, as paid to a mighty King; frankincense, as offered to God; myrrh, as to one who is to die for the sins of all.”

This is why the wise men offered the Christ Child the odd (but precious) gift of myrrh – they had come to believe that he would die for the salvation of the world. Already, from his infancy, it was known and believed by these men (and surely by Blessed Mary and St. Joseph) that the Savior would offer his life as a most pure sacrifice and that by his death he would gain for us eternal life.

How did the wise men know and believe such mysteries?

Some hold that the star itself imparted these mysteries to the wise men – containing visions of the Cross and other signs. This seems to be affirmed also by the mystical revelations given to certain saints (Bl. Emmerich, for example).

Others maintain that the wise men may have been familiar with certain of the prophecies contained in the Old Testament. Indeed, if the wise men were from Persia (as is commonly held), then it is possible that some of the Jews who had been exiled thither to Babylon may have passed on certain of the traditions and prophecies of the Christ who was to come.

What seems most probable, is that the wise men were given a supernatural knowledge of the mysteries of the faith through a divine infusion of wisdom. Indeed, the Holy Spirit (perhaps through the ministry of an angel) must have enlightened the minds of these men so that they might recognize the little Child to be the true God – for, as Matthew relates, they did not see him as only a frail child but, falling down they adored him as the Lord of heaven and earth.

What reason have we to doubt that knowledge of the future sacrifice of the Christ should have been revealed to the magi? It seems the only reasonable explanation as to why they offered a child that which is fitting for a dead body. It is, at least, the tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, maintained also in the Liturgy.

Who offered each gift?

The three wise men are traditionally called Gaspar (or Caspar), Melchior, and Balthasar. Thus it is that the faithful bless their homes with the sign: 20 + C + M + B + 12, signifying both the names of the wise men, and also “May Christ this Mansion Bless”.

According to Venerable Bede, Melchior gave gold, Gaspar frankincense, and Balthasar myrrh.

It is a mistake to try to discover which was the Star of Bethlehem

2012-01-06T04:08:00.000-08:00

January 6^th, Feast of the Epiphany

[The wise men] having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. (Matthew 2:9-10)

It is generally considered a more conservative and traditional position to believe that the star of Bethlehem was a real and historical star. Indeed, even many Catholics are excited about recent so-called “scientific” data which seeks to determine which star or astronomical event was the historical star of Bethlehem.

Thus, we might be surprised to realize that the overwhelming consensus of the Catholic tradition – from the Church Fathers, through the Scholastic Doctors (including St. Thomas Aquinas), and up to the great theologians of the counter-reformation period – maintains that the star of Bethlehem was not a real star. It was not an event in the heavens at all; that is, it was not in outer-space, but was another sort of reality. Indeed, the star of Bethlehem was a light brightly shining but low to the earth and within our atmosphere. It was no star, nor even a comet or any such thing – rather, it was much more like the pillar of fire which led the Israelites out of Egypt.

The Biblical Evidence

The star of Bethlehem is mentioned only in the first ten verses of the second chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew:

[1] When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. [2] Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to adore him. […] [7] Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of them the time of the star which appeared to them; [8] And sending them into Bethlehem, said: Go and diligently inquire after the child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I also may come to adore him. [9] Who having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. [10] And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

From the Gospel account, we notice several points about the star:

1) It came to be in connection with the birth of Christ. Whether this was on the very night he was born (as St. Thomas Aquinas believes) or perhaps as many as two years before his birth (according to Sts. Augustine and Chrysostom), the star most certainly came into existence in connection with the Nativity of our Lord. [this is why King Herod inquires the time of the appearance of the star – so as to determine the time of the birth of the Christ Child]

2) It was not as other stars, far above and away from the earth. Rather, it came down low near the earth and indicated the very house where the Child lay – hence we read (in verse 11), And entering into the house etc.

3) It did not move according to the pattern of the other stars, but guided the Magi and went before them.

4) This star shown both in the day and in the night, but at other times immediately vanished (as in when the Magi arrived in Jerusalem and so had to seek the guidance of the scribes there). The star also re-appeared all of a sudden and gave the wise men exceeding joy.

5) Finally, this star was exceedingly bright and much larger than any other stars – and, in this manner, it attracted the attention of the wise men and was able to show the way for them to Bethlehem.

The witness of the Church Fathers

To my knowledge, there is not a single Father of the Church who believes the star of Bethlehem to be a true and real star of the heavens. Even those who say that it is a “star” specify that it was not like the other stars, but was a “new star” created by the Christ Child to guide the wise men to him. Most certainly, the Church Fathers are unanimous in teaching that it was not one of the ordinary stars of the universe which could be mapped out by astronomers.

Here are some of the interpretations relative to the star given by the Fathers of the Church [quotes taken from the Catena Aurea]:

St. Augustine says that it is a “new star” and that it was “not of the number of those stars, which from the beginning of time observe their paths of motion according to the law of their Maker; but a star that first appeared at the birth”. And again, the same Doctor of Grace says, “It was first created at His birth.”

St. Leo the Great speaks of the “rise of a new star.”

St. Remegius puts forward the opinion of those who say that the star was no star at all but “the Holy Spirit: He who descended on the baptized Lord as a dove, appearing to the Magi as a star.” On the other hand, he also says it is possible that the star “was an Angel, the same who appeared to the shepherds.”

The ancient Gloss (glossa ordinaria) states that the star is called “His star” (i.e. the Child’s star) because it is “the star He created for a witness of Himself.” Again, it is put forward as the opinion of St. Fulgentius that the star was created when the Child was born and then disappeared after the wise men worship the Christ. Further, the Gloss also specifies that the star could not have been in the “heavens” (i.e. far above the earth in outer-space), but “must have been in the air” (i.e. within our atmosphere and not too far up, about the same height as the clouds) “and close above the house where the Child was, else it would not have pointed out the exact house.”

Finally, St. John Chrysostom is most explicit in maintaining that the star of Bethlehem was not what we would call a star when he writes: “This was manifestly not one of the common stars of Heaven. First, because none of the stars moves in this way, from east to south, and such is the situation of Palestine with respect to Persia. Secondly, from the time of its appearance, not in the night only, but during the day. Thirdly, from its being visible and then again invisible; when they entered Jerusalem it hid itself and then appeared again when they left Herod. Further, it had no stated motion, but when the Magi were to go on, it went before them; when to stop, it stopped like the pillar of cloud in the desert. Fourthly, it signified the Virgin's delivery, not by being fixed aloft, but by descending to earth, showing herein like an invisible virtue formed into the visible appearance of a star.”

St. Thomas Aquinas said that it wasn’t a real star

In Summa Theologica III, q.36, a.7, St. Thomas Aquinas asks whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system, and he replies “no”.

The Angelic Doctor relies heavily upon the patristic witness of Sts. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Leo (all cited above). He claims that “it is clear, for many reasons, that the star which appeared to the Magi did not belong to the heavenly system.” And he concludes that “it seems more probable that it was a newly created star, not in the heavens, but in the air near the earth, and that its movement varied according to God’s will.”

St. Thomas, like St. Augustine and others, does not really believe that the star was a newly created “star” (as in a burning ball of gas, billions of miles away in outer-space), but rather affirms that it was a newly created reality which was very close to the earth and certainly no higher than the clouds.

This “star of Bethlehem” is most certainly not something which modern-day astronomers could detect or discover – it was not even an astronomical reality! Rather, it was very close to the earth.

What then was this thing which is called the “star of Bethlehem”?

An explanation from Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide

The greatest Catholic biblical scholar since St. Thomas Aquinas, the Jesuit Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide, offers the best explanation of the star of Bethlehem.

He tells us that it was a newly created reality, a condensed mass of dust and air which was illuminated and moved about by angels. It appeared to the Magi to be something like a star, but particularly large and bright – hence, it amazed them and brought them great joy.

This “star” was not far above the earth and existed only for the thirteen days from Christ’s birth to the coming of the Magi. It left no historically or scientifically detectible traces, other than those preserved in the Scriptures and in Tradition.

Does this make the “star” to be less real or less important? Not at all! There is a long tradition of recognizing a connection between the star of Bethlehem and the pillar of fire. The star was much like the pillar which led for the Israelites, excepting that it was higher in the air (but not too far away). Just as the pillar of fire led the Jews from slavery into freedom, so too did the star of Bethlehem lead these gentiles from slavery to sin and ignorance into the freedom of Christ.

The error of those who seek to discover the “Bethlehem Star”

It has become popular (and “traditional”) to try to determine which star or which astronomical event in the universe was the historical star of Bethlehem. This study is terribly misguided and exposes the faith to ridicule. Further, this study is far removed from the Catholic tradition.

Here we see an example of well-meaning Catholics over-reacting to the modernist and rationalist tendencies of some historical-critical “scholars”. But this over-reaction itself does great damage to the faith, since we look like fools if we try to say that the Bethlehem star was a real star – in such a study, we dismiss our tradition, St. Augustine, St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. Thomas, and all the rest.

Further, those who claim that the star of Bethlehem was an astronomical reality in outer-space end up rendering the Gospel account unintelligible: How could a star out in the universe indicate the very house in which the Christ Child lay? How could such a star or other astronomic reality (be it a comet or supernova or otherwise) come to rest over the very place in which Jesus and Mary rested?

Finally, if the star was in outer-space, why was it noticed only by the wise men and not by others? Indeed, the reason why only the wise men (and perhaps a few others) saw the star was because it wasn’t far above the earth but only up in the clouds and so was only visible to those in the immediate vicinity of the Magi.

If we are going to read the Bible as Catholics (that is, if we are going to read the Bible authentically), then we must look at how the Church Fathers and Doctors have interpreted the texts, rather than running off after the latest fad.

What does IHS stand for? The meaning of the Holy Name of Jesus

2012-01-03T04:09:00.000-08:00

January 3^rd, Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus

In the Extraordinary Form, the feast of the Holy Name is of the “second class” (making it equal to Sundays throughout the year, complete with the recitation of the Gloria and the Credo), but in the Ordinary Form the memorial of the Holy Name was not even included in the calendar after 1970. Happily, the feast was re-instituted as an optional memorial by Bl. John Paul II – we should think that the Name deserves at least this much honor!

In fact, the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus is of comparatively recent origin, not having become popular until the Franciscan St. Bernadine of Siena preached this devotion in the 15^th century. It has been celebrated in numerous ways in the Latin rite – at first the feast was kept on the Second Sunday after Epiphany, then it was moved to the Sunday after the Octave of Christmas (the Sunday between January 2^nd and 5^th). It is desirable that this feast be celebrated closer to the day in which Christ historically received his name, the day of his circumcision (eight days after his birth, January 1^st), and thus the feast is kept on January 3^rd in the Novus Ordo.

The insignia “IHS" is associated with this feast, but what does IHS mean? Why is IHS a sign for the Name of Jesus?

What IHS really means – Jesus

The name “Jesus”, in Greek, is written ιησους which is transliterated as “ihsous” and pronounced iēsous. This is the Holy Name as it was written in the Gospels.

However, in Hebrew, the name “Jesus” is written ישוע which is transliterated as “yeshu‘a” and pronounced yeshūa.

Finally, in Latin, the Holy Name is written Iesus which gives us the English “Jesus”, since the “j” often replaces the “i” at the beginning of a word (as well as between vowels).

Chi (x) and Rho (p), CHRist

The insignia “IHS” comes from the Latinized version of the Greek ιησους, [UPDATE: In Greek capitals this would be ΙΗΣΟΥΣ or IHSOUS in Latin letters] taking the first three letters in capitals IHS(ous). Much as the popular “chi-rho” symbol (pictured right, X – P) comes from the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ, χριστος (Christos) – XPistos.

This is the true meaning of IHS, it is the first three letters of the Greek spelling of the Holy Name of Jesus. The insignia is nothing more (and nothing less) than the symbol of the Holy Name.

Iesus Hominum Salvator – Jesus the Savior of men

It is popular legend that the IHS stands for the Latin phrase Iesus Hominum Salvator, “Jesus the Savior of (all) Men”. While this is a fine devotion, it is not historically accurate.

The IHS symbol was so popular that it is not uncommon to find the Latin Iesus misspelled as IHeSus (with the “H” added, though in Greek this “h” is equivalent to the Latin “e”).

In fact, the first known use of the IHS abbreviation comes in the 8^th century: “DN IHS CHS REX REGNANTIUM”, the first three words being abbreviated from “DomiNus IHeSus CHristuS” – “The Lord Jesus Christ is the King of Kings”. For a further explanation of the history of the IHS, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article [here] and [here].

Still, although historically inaccurate, there is certainly nothing wrong with seeing in this insignia a testimony to the truth that there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Most certainly, Jesus alone is the Savior and without his grace we can neither attain nor even desire everlasting life.

In Hoc Signo vinces – In this sign, you will conquer

After three nails were added under the insignia (together with a cross above), some noticed that the inscription now contained a “V” below the IHS – so that we see IHSV. (see image on the side) In this form it was adopted by St. Ignatius as the symbol of the Jesuits.

IHSV was interpreted to mean In Hoc Signo Vinces, “In this sign, you shall conquer”. It was taken as a reference to the victory which Constantine won against Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312. Before the battle, the future Emperor saw a sign in the sky (probably the Greek chi-rho X-P, the symbol of “Christ”) and heard the words εν τουτω νικα, which is Greek for “In this [sign], you shall conquer”. The phrase was translated into Latin and it was noticed that the first letters of each word added up to IHSV – thus was born the legend that IHS stood for Constantine’s vision and the Christianization of Rome.

Most certainly, in the Holy Name of Jesus we shall conquer every enemy – and the last enemy to be destroyed is death itself.

Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus

St. Bernardine of Siena
popularized devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus

Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy.

Lord, have mercy, Jesus, hear us. Jesus, graciously hear us.

God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.

God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.

God, the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us.

Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.

Jesus, Son of the living God, have mercy on us (etc.)

Jesus, Splendor of the Father,

Jesus, Brightness of eternal Light,

Jesus, King of Glory,

Jesus, Sun of Justice,

Jesus, Son of the Virgin Mary,

Jesus, most amiable,

Jesus, most admirable,

Jesus, the mighty God,

Jesus, Father of the world to come,

Jesus, angel of great counsel,

Jesus, most powerful,

Jesus, most patient,

Jesus, most obedient,

Jesus, meek and humble of heart,

Jesus, Lover of Chastity,

Jesus, our Lover,

Jesus, God of Peace,

Jesus, Author of Life,

Jesus, Model of Virtues,

Jesus, zealous for souls,

Jesus, our God,

Jesus, our Refuge,

Jesus, Father of the Poor,

Jesus, Treasure of the Faithful,

Jesus, good Shepherd,

Jesus, true Light,

Jesus, eternal Wisdom,

Jesus, infinite Goodness,

Jesus, our Way and our Life,

Jesus, joy of the Angels,

Jesus, King of the Patriarchs,

Jesus, Master of the Apostles,

Jesus, Teacher of the Evangelists,

Jesus, Strength of Martyrs,

Jesus, Light of Confessors,

Jesus, Purity of Virgins,

Jesus, Crown of all Saints,

Be merciful unto us, spare us, O Jesus!

Be merciful unto us, graciously hear us, O Jesus!

From all evil, deliver us, O Jesus!

From all sin, deliver us, O Jesus!

From Thy wrath, deliver us, O Jesus! (etc.)

From the snares of the devil,

From the spirit of fornication,

From everlasting death,

From the neglect of Thine inspirations,

Through the mystery of Thy holy Incarnation,

Through Thy Nativity,

Through Thine Infancy,

Through Thy most divine Life,

Through Thy Labors,

Through Thy Agony and Passion,

Through Thy Cross and Dereliction,

Through Thy Sufferings,

Through Thy Death and Burial,

Through Thy Resurrection,

Through Thine Ascension,

Through Thine Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist,

Through Thy Joys,

Through Thy Glory,

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, spare us, O Jesus!

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, graciously hear us, O Jesus!

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us, O Jesus!

Jesus, hear us, Jesus, graciously hear us

Let us pray. O Lord Jesus Christ, Who has said: Ask and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: grant, we beseech Thee, to us who ask the grace of Thy most divine love, that we may love Thee with all our hearts, words and works, and never cease to praise Thee. Make us, O Lord, to have a continual fear and love of Thy holy Name; for Thou never ceasest to rule and govern those whom Thou doest solidly establish in Thy love. Who livest and reignest for ever and ever. (Amen.)

Do a virgin birth and perfect knowledge make Jesus less human? Or Mary less a mother?

2012-01-01T04:48:00.000-08:00

Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (CCC 499; Lumen Gentium [Vatican II], 57)

The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 75)

The Church teaches that Christ was miraculously born of a Virgin without causing his Mother any of the pains associated with labor. Further, the Catholic Church believes that our Savior knew all created things from the first moment of his Incarnation such that he even knew (for example) how to speak every language that had or ever would exist.

When some people hear of these doctrines, they have a tendency to respond: “But then Jesus wouldn’t be truly human! And Mary wouldn’t be a real mother!” Let us consider the foolishness of such a reaction.

Mary was a virgin during birth

There can be no doubt that the Church teaches that Jesus was miraculously born of Mary, her virginal integrity remaining wholly intact and unharmed. Mary was not merely a virgin before and after birth, but even “in birth” she remained a virgin – hence, “virginity” refers not merely to refraining from sexual pleasures but also to the physical and biological enclosure of Mary’s sealed womb. Christ came forth from Mary after the manner by which he walked through the walls of the sealed upper room after his Resurrection – he comes forth from his Mother as thought from intellect and as light through glass.

For a fuller explanation of this dogma, see our earlier article wherein many references are given [here].

Christ knew all created truths from the first moment of his conception

The Lord Jesus knew all things (that is, all that man can possibly know) both through the beatific vision (the union he had with the Father) and through infused knowledge (given by the working of the Holy Spirit). Our Savior was never ignorant, nor did he ever make a mistake in judgment. And, although he did gain knowledge through sense experience, we affirm that he already knew everything from the moment of his conception by virtue of the beatific vision – thus, he knew all things in his humanity (i.e. in his human intellect), though not necessarily from his humanity (i.e. through sense experience).

For a fuller explanation of this dogma, see our earlier article complete with many citations and references [here].

Jesus Christ is true God and true man

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis. (CCC 467, Council of Chalcedon [DS 302])

At the Incarnation, humanity was not absorbed into divinity, but was personally united to the divine nature. Thus, both natures (human and divine) remain unmixed and unconfused. However, neither are they separate or divided – for they are truly united.

Jesus was not “just a man”, nor was he “just God” – rather, he is both man and God. Neither is there a part of Jesus which is man and a part which is God; but he is fully man and fully God. Whenever we speak of Jesus, we speak of the God-man and of the single divine Persons who is God the Son. The Eternal Word is the sole subject of both natures, there is not a human person but only one divine Person – hence, whatever we predicate of Jesus is predicated of the Eternal Son of the Father.

Is a painful birth required in order to be truly human?

Some will say that (if Jesus was born miraculously of Mary, without causing her any pain, but coming forth from her womb as light through glass and as thought from intellect) then Jesus wouldn’t be truly human. Some will say, “I feel separated from Christ if he didn’t share in the painful (and bloody) birth which is common to the human race. Then he wouldn't be truly human.”

The response to this is simple: Is a child only human after birth? Shall we say that babies aren’t human when they are in the womb, but only when they are given a natural and ordinary birth?

And what about children delivered through c-section? Are they any less human for having been “born” in a way different from the ordinary mode? Further, we can mention children formed in test-tubes – are they not truly human because they do not share in the ordinary process of gestation and birth which is common to the human race?

Finally, consider the creation account – while many may not accept the historicity of this portion of Genesis (and this is not our concern here, so we set the question aside), I have never met any who claim that Adam and Eve wouldn’t truly be human for not having been born in the normal way!

Indeed, if Christ can be conceived of a virgin, he can most certainly be born of a virgin in a miraculous way. The mode of our birth has no effect whatsoever on whether or not we are truly human. Like all of us, Jesus is true man because he possessed a human nature.

Is an ordinary delivery necessary to be a true mother?

Others will say that (if Jesus came forth from Mary as thought from intellect and light through glass) the Blessed Virgin would not be a true mother. “If she didn’t go through the pains of labor,” say such persons, “then she wasn’t truly Jesus’ mother.”

We reply: Is a woman only a mother when she gives birth? Is she not a mother at the moment of conception? And what (again) of the case of a c-section – shall we say that women who go through this abnormal means of delivery are not true mothers? Further, shall we say that a test-tube baby has no mother? Of course not!

All that is required of motherhood is to provide the material necessary for generation (i.e. the egg). This is why, from the very moment of conception, Mary was the true and natural Mother of Jesus.

A miraculous birth does not negatively affect Mary’s Motherhood any more than does the miraculous and virginal conception of the Child.

Does more knowledge make a man less human?

“If Christ knew everything, then he wouldn’t be truly human”, some will say. In one, very restricted sense, there is truth to this – for, in his human intellect, it is impossible that Jesus should know and comprehend the totality of the divine Essence (i.e. the Trinity is still a mystery to Jesus in his humanity, though in his divinity he fully comprehends) and also to know all the possible worlds that God could have created.

However, when the Church teaches that Jesus was perfected in wisdom and knowledge, she means to say that our Savior knew all things past, present and future – i.e. he knew all created truths. Jesus knew you and I and all that we would ever do, and he loved us with his Sacred and human Heart.

“But,” they say, “if Jesus knew every language, he wouldn’t really be human!” How foolish this is! Does a man become less human when he learns to read Latin? Is a man less human when he gains knowledge? Of course not!

If knowledge does not make us mere men to be less human, why should it diminish the humanity of Jesus? Indeed, we may well say that knowledge perfects our humanity – insofar as, the more we know, the more elevated is our human intellect. Therefore, for Christ to be a perfect man (as he surely is), his intellect must be perfected with all the knowledge of which man is capable. If he is truly the perfect man, then Jesus must have known all things which a man can know!

Finally, regarding the knowledge of all languages, we must admit that the Apostles did not lose their humanity when filled with the Holy Spirit and given the gift of speaking in all languages – why then should we suppose that the Christ, who is perfectly filled with the Spirit, would not know all languages? Surely, if infused knowledge did dissolve the humanity of the Apostles, neither did it diminish the humanity of our Savior.

Did Jesus leave his divinity with the Father, and empty himself of the divine nature?

What is really at the heart of the modern objections to the virgin birth and the perfect knowledge of Christ is this silly idea that Jesus “left his divinity with the Father” and “emptied himself of the divine nature” when he became man. These persons try to present a merely human Jesus. This is pure heresy.

Christ our Savior is both God and man – he was not simply man on earth, just as he is not now only God in heaven. Everything that Christ did during his time on earth was the action of the God-man, the activity of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity.

If Jesus had left his divinity with the Father, then he would not truly be Emmanuel, God-with-us. We must be on our guard against this most pernicious heresy, this perfidious blasphemy.

If Mary is the Mother of Jesus, why isn't the Holy Spirit called his father?

2011-12-30T03:44:00.000-08:00

January 1^st, Solemnity of Mary the Holy Mother of God

The generation of Christ was in this wise. When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph etc. (Matthew 1:18)

St. Matthew makes it very clear that Mary is truly the Mother of Jesus, and this is affirmed also in the other Gospels many times over. Throughout the Gospels and in the Church’s Tradition, Mary is called the Mother of Jesus. Indeed, we know that (because Jesus is one divine person) Mary is truly said to be the Mother of God.

However, given that Mary is the Mother of Jesus with respect to his humanity, why do we not call the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus? Since it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived, and since Mary is called the spouse of the Holy Spirit, why does the Church refuse to say that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Spirit in his humanity?

Mary is truly the Mother of Jesus

A handful of times in the Gospels, St. Joseph is called the “father” of Jesus – by St. Luke (2:33), and even by Mary herself (Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing, Luke 2:48) – but it is quite clear that the term “father” is not used literally in these cases. St. Luke himself specifies that St. Joseph was only thought to be the father of Jesus, since the Holy Family kept the mystery of the Incarnation hidden from the public and most thought that the marriage between Joseph and Mary was a natural one – [Jesus] being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23).

However, when we come to the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is quite clear that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament (as well as the prophecies of the Old Testament) present her as the true and natural Mother of our Savior. The Lord Jesus was truly born of the Virgin Mary, and this is affirmed also by St. Paul – God sent his Son, made of a woman (Galatians 4:4).

Christ’s body was not brought down from heaven, nor was it formed of the earth, but rather (by the power of the Holy Spirit) he took flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Indeed, we ought to suppose that (on the part of the Woman) all was natural – St. Thomas Aquinas held that Christ was formed of the blood of Mary, but by that he meant that the Savior came from the normal reproductive material of his Mother (for, in those days, it was thought that the blood of the woman filled something of the role we assign to the egg). What is most important to hold is that Christ took his flesh from the body of his Mother Mary; accepting this, any explanation will suffice.

The angelic St. Thomas specifies that, in respect to what belongs to the woman, Christ’s conception was in accord with the laws of nature – hence the Blessed Mary supplied the matter just as any mother would. Now, in regards the working of the Holy Spirit, Christ’s conception was above the laws of nature – hence, he was conceived and born of the Virgin. [cf. ST III, q.31, a.5, here]

Now, all that is required for motherhood is that the woman supply the matter (i.e. the egg), and this Mary did. Further, she nurtured him through the process of gestation and gave birth to him – and, although this birth was miraculous (since it did not harm her virginal integrity, but rather Christ passed through her as light through glass), it was nevertheless a true and real birth. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is truly Christ’s mother in relation to his humanity. [cf. ST III, q.35, a.3, here]

Further, though the birth of our Savior was miraculous, this can in no way be said to reduce the motherhood of Blessed Mary – indeed, a woman who brings forth a child through c-section is still called a mother; hence, the violent passage of the infant body through the birth canal is not necessary for motherhood. In any case, the virginal birth of our Lord is still a true birth, though it exceeds the laws of nature and is a most wondrous and unique miracle.

All that being said, Mary is the “Mother of Jesus” not simply because she gave him birth, but most especially because she conceived him in her most pure womb, nourished him with her body, and bore him for nine months in her virginal cloister.

Still, we must be very careful to point out that the Savior existed before his Mother, for he did not begin to exist when he was conceived, but rather assumed to himself a human nature in that moment – remaining what he was (God), he became what he was not (Man).

What “father” and “mother” mean

Before continuing, it will be helpful to briefly state what we mean when we employ the words “father” and “mother” as well as “son” and “daughter”.

These words, says the Angel of the Schools (St. Thomas) “result from generation; yet not from any generation, but from that of living things, especially animals. For we do not say that fire generated is the son of the fire generating it, except, perhaps, metaphorically; we speak thus only of animals in whom generation is more perfect.

“Nevertheless, the word ‘son’ is not applied to everything generated in animals, but only to that which is generated into likeness of the generator. Wherefore, as Augustine says (Enchiridion xxxix), we do not say that a hair which is generated in a man is his son; nor do we say that a man who is born is the son of the seed; for neither is the hair like the man nor is the man born like the seed, but like the man who begot him.” [ST III, q.32, a.3, here]

Jesus is the “Son of God”

Now, any man can be called the son of God in two respects: First, on account of the fact that man is created in the image of God; second, on account of the regeneration of the soul through grace by which the likeness to God is restored in man. And in this respect also, the angels are (in Sacred Scripture) occasionally called “sons of God” – for they bear the image of God in an even more excellent manner, and they have greater grace as being among the blessed than do we who are still on earth.

However, a man is called a “son [or child] of God” in an imperfect sense, for he is not a perfect image of God, but is a mere creature. Yet, a man is called the son of his natural human father in a perfect sense, for he is truly of the same nature as his human father.

But Christ alone is called the “Son of God” in the perfect sense, for he is equal and co-eternal with the Father, the two being of one nature. Hence, in respect of his divinity, Jesus is rightly called the Son of God, meaning the Son of God the Father – for the one Person (the Word) was begotten of the Father from all eternity.

The Holy Spirit is the author of Christ’s conception, but is not his Father

St. Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): “Christ was born of the Holy Ghost not as a Son, and of the Virgin Mary as a Son.”

Now, Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, but we do not say that the Holy Spirit supplied male seed (such would be an impious blasphemy). Rather, by divine power, the Blessed Trinity took matter (i.e. the egg) from the Blessed Virgin and made it to become man (forming the matter by the infusion of the rational human soul), assumed at that very moment by the person of the Word.

But, in his humanity, Christ is not of the same nature as the Holy Spirit – for neither his body nor his soul is consubstantial with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be said to be the “father” of Jesus in the way that a man is the father of his son.

Further, since Christ is already the perfect Son of God the Father, we do not predicate of him a secondary sonship according to grace – while we are “sons” by adoption through grace, Jesus is “Son” by nature; since he is only one person (the Word and Son of the Father). Thus, not even according to grace, do we call Jesus the son of the Holy Spirit – since, he is already perfectly the Son of God.

Put simply, by St. Thomas

The Common Doctor states all this in the simplest terms [ST III, q.32, a.3, ad1, here]

“Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary, who supplied the matter of His conception unto likeness of species. For this reason He is called her Son. But as man He was conceived of the Holy Ghost as the active principle of His conception, but not unto likeness of species, as a man is born of his father. Therefore Christ is not called the Son of the Holy Ghost.”

Why does the Church celebrate Christmas with greater solemnity than the Annunciation?

2011-12-27T11:18:00.000-08:00

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

The mystery of the Incarnation was effected by the Annunciation, nine months before Our Savior’s Nativity. The Word was made flesh with our Lady’s fiat, and at that moment humanity was joined to divinity in a personal union. The Child conceived is already a perfect man, meriting the salvation of the whole world, praying in our behalf and offering to God perfect worship. Further, Blessed Mary was already the “Mother of God” at the Annunciation, for women are mothers from conception even before giving birth.

Why, then, does the Church celebrate the Birth of our Savior with greater solemnity than the Incarnation itself (at the Feast of the Annunciation on March 25^th)?

Christ was conceived a perfect man, lacking in nothing

We have already discussed [in an article last week, here] that the Christ Child was conceived as a perfect man – thus were fulfilled the words of Jeremiah: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN (Jeremiah 31:22). The Incarnation was already perfected and fully accomplished at the moment of Jesus’ conception of the Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There was nothing lacking to the Annunciation, there was no delay or gradual assumption of nature – but, all at once, in an instant, the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumed a human nature to himself. Certainly, the body of the Child needed to grow and be formed in the womb of his Mother (we presume, according to the natural process of gestation), but the human nature itself did not gradually grow, but was wholly complete at the moment it was assumed.

The point here is that, as in all men, Christ did not slowly become human over the weeks of gestation in the womb, nor did he become man only after his birth, but rather he was fully human from the moment of his conception. [and it is worth noting that even St. Thomas and St. Augustine, who thought (due to faulty science) that ordinarily a baby is not truly human until several days after conception, held that Christ was fully and wholly man in the first instant of Mary’s fiat at the Annunciation]

Our point here in stressing this is to say that the Incarnation was already complete even before the Nativity of our Lord. Christmas is not truly the feast of the Incarnation; rather, the Word became flesh at the Annunciation. Why, then, does the Church celebrate Christmas with greater solemnity than the Annunciation?

Christmas is not a response to pagan holidays

Some may claim that Christmas is celebrated so solemnly as an historical response to certain pagan holidays. Whether the pagan feast of “Saturnalia” or that of “The Birthday of the Unconquered Son”, it has become stylish to say that the December 25^th Christmas celebration was simply adopted as a practical means of Christianizing Rome.

Dr. Taylor Marshall has recently posted an excellent article which utterly destroys these pop-theories [read it, here] and has shown also that the Church Father’s had adopted a December 25^th Christmas even before the pagan holidays existed! [read the second article, here]

The main point is that the pagan feast of Saturnalia was celebrated at the Winter Solstice which cannot even fall on December 25^th (the latest is December 23^rd) – hence, if Christmas was to replace the Solstice feast, it would have been celebrated at least a few days earlier.

Regarding the “Feast of the Unconquered Sun” – this pagan feast was not created or popularized until after Rome had been Christianized. It is quite ironic, this pagan feast was created under the anti-Christian Emperor Julian the Apostate as a means to Paganize the Christian feast in a last effort to return the now Christian Rome to its pagan roots. Thus, the history is the exact opposite of what the pop-theory claims!

Therefore, as we can see, Christmas has not come to its high degree of prominence in the Church calendar as a mere response to pagan feasts. There must be a theological reason why Christmas is celebrated so solemnly, and with even greater honor than the Annunciation.

The Nativity is the manifestation of the Incarnation

Here I will give a speculative answer to this question – I do not claim this as a dogmatic certainty, but I offer at least two reasons why the Nativity is celebrated with greater solemnity than the Annunciation.

When St. Thomas Aquinas discusses infant baptism, he asks whether the Church should make a practice of regularly baptizing children while in the womb before birth [cf. ST III, q.68, a.11 - here]. Obviously, in cases of emergency, St. Thomas says that (if possible) the child should be baptized – though there certainly technical difficulties, since the child would be contained in the womb and could scarcely be reached to be baptized [cf. ST III, q.68, a.11, ad 4].

St. Thomas says that, ordinarily, children in the womb ought not to be baptized not only because of the objective difficulty (indeed, the near impossibility) of applying water to a child in the womb of his mother, but because “children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men.” [ad 1] The point here is that there is a real sense in which a child in the womb is not yet “in the world” in the way that other men are “in the world” – of course, children are fully human from the moment of conception, but St. Thomas holds to this idea that the union of child and mother in pregnancy makes a real difference in the way the child relates to the world.

Indeed, while a child is in the womb, he relates to the world through the medium of his mother. Unborn children are not “among men” in the way that others are. Certainly, they are in the world, but only insofar as their mother is in the world. Thus, an unborn child is not manifested to the world in himself, but through his mother.

Now, from this, we turn to the mystery of Christ’s Nativity. Jesus, while in the womb, certainly was praying for us and was meriting our salvation. Still, there is a real sense in which Christ came into the world to live among other men only in his birth. While in the womb, Christ’s manifest relation to others was only through his Virgin Mother – thus, St. John the Baptist was sanctified through Mary’s words. When Jesus was born, he was manifest to others and lived among men in his own right – though, certainly, he still maintained this close union with his Mother and she remained united to him in his work of redemption.

If we maintain that children only manifestly come into the world to live among other men at their birth, then we say the same also for the Christ Child. Thus, while it is true that the Word was made flesh at the Annunciation, there is a real sense in which he dwelt among us after his Nativity. Certainly, we saw his glory only after his birth into the world.

And this is one reason why the Church celebrates Christmas with greater solemnity than the Annunciation – though Christ was fully man at the Incarnation effected at the Annunciation – for there is a real sense in which Christ dwelt among us manifestly only after his miraculous Birth.

The Birth from Mary, the Birth from the Father

Briefly, we point out another reason why the Nativity is so solemn a feast. The mystery of the Nativity does not point simply to the temporal birth of Christ from his Mother Mary, but also gives us to consider the mystery of his eternal birth from the Father. As Jesus was born of Mary in time (without any harm to her virginal integrity), so too is he born of the Father in eternity (without any harm to or division of the divine Essence).

Thus again, we look to the words of the Evangelist: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

At the Annunciation, with Mary’s fiat and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, the Word was made flesh – for the Eternal Word, at that moment, became man and assumed a human nature to himself.

At the Nativity, when Christ was born of Mary and came forth into the world to live among other men, he dwelt among us, and we saw his glory.

Finally, when meditating on Jesus’ birth of Mary, we come to understand something of the mystery of his eternal birth from the Father – we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father.

And for many reasons besides, the Church celebrates the Nativity of our Lord with the highest solemnity.

The Birth of Jesus, revealed to St. Bridget

2011-12-25T07:05:00.000-08:00

Over the past week, we have posted a few articles related to the temporal generation of the Son – on Mary’s pregnancy [here], on the miraculous birth itself [here], and on the rational perfection of the Child conceived [here].

In these articles, we showed that our Lady did not suffer any pain when giving birth to her Son, that the physical closure of her virgin womb remained intact even in the very act of giving birth (for Christ passed through without causing any harm to her virginal integrity), and that the Christ Child already knew all created things and loved each of us in his humanity from the very first moment of his conception (thus, while an infant, he was already a rational man).

While all of these articles were firmly rooted in the magisterial teachings of the Church and in the doctrines of the Church Fathers, it is always good to compare our theological insights with the lived faith of the great saints. We will not be the least surprised to discover that the mystical revelations given to St. Bridget of Sweden (surely, one of the greatest saint-mystics of the Church) wholly confirm all that the saint-theologians have taught and all that the Magisterium has declared.

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about

The following is taken from the revelations given to St. Bridget regarding the Nativity of our Lord – for a biblical proof that Christ really was born in late December, please look to the excellent article by Dr. Taylor Marshall [here].

“When I was present by the manger of the Lord in Bethlehem I beheld a Virgin of extreme beauty wrapped in a white mantle and a delicate tunic through which I perceived her virginal body. With her was an old man of great honesty and they had with them an ox and ass. These entered the cave and the man having tied them to the manger went out and brought in to the Virgin a lighted candle which having done he again went outside so as not to be present at the birth. Then the Virgin pulled off the shoes from her feet, drew off the white mantle that enveloped her, removed the veil from her head laying it beside her, thus remaining only in her tunic with her beautiful golden hair falling loosely over her shoulders. Then she produced two small linen cloths, and two woollen ones of exquisite purity and fineness which she had brought to wrap round the Child to be born, and two other small cloths to cover His head, and these too she put beside her. When all was thus prepared the Virgin knelt with great veneration in an attitude of prayer; her back was to the manger, her face uplifted to heaven and turned toward the East.

“Then, her hands extended and her eyes fixed on the sky she stood as in an ecstasy, lost in contemplation, in a rapture of divine sweetness. And while she stood thus in prayer I saw the Child in her womb move; suddenly in a moment she gave birth to her own Son from whom radiated such ineffable light and splendour that the sun was not comparable to it while the divine light totally annihilated the material light of St. Joseph's candle. So sudden and instantaneous was this birth that I could neither discover nor discern by what means it had occurred. All of a sudden I saw the glorious Infant lying on the ground naked and shining, His body pure from any soil or impurity. Then I heard the singing of the angels of miraculous sweetness and beauty. When the Virgin felt she had borne her Child immediately she worshipped Him, her hands clasped in honour and reverence saying: ‘Be welcome my God, my Lord, my Son.’

“Then, as the Child was whining and trembling from the cold and hardness of the floor where He was lying, He stretched out His arms imploring her to raise Him to the warmth of her maternal love. So His Mother took Him in her arms, pressed Him to her breast and cheek, and warmed Him with great joy and tender compassion. She then sat down on the ground laying the Child on her lap and at once began to bestow on Him much care tying up His small body, His legs and arms in long cloths, and enveloped His head in the linen garments, and when this was done the old man entered, and prostrating himself on the floor he wept for joy. And in no way was the Virgin changed by giving birth, the color of her face remained the same nor did her strength decline. She and Joseph put the Child in the manger, and worshipped Him on their knees with immense joy until the arrival of the Kings who recognized the Son from the likeness to His Mother.”

Lessons from the Revelations of St. Bridget

1) Though the unborn Child did truly weigh something in her womb and also he took up space (so that she was “heavy” and “showed), the Blessed Mary was not under a heavy burden in her pregnancy. Notice that, even in the moments just before giving birth, our Lady was able to prepare things herself and needed no assistance.

2) Mary was awake, aware, and at prayer when the Child was born. She did not suffer any contractions or the other pains associated with delivery. Neither was she exhausted or wearied.

3) Christ came forth from our Lady in such a way as to cause no harm whatsoever, for he did not damage the integrity of her womb’s virginal cloister.

4) The exact manner of the miraculous birth of our Savior is beyond man’s comprehension, but can be compared to light. We ought not to seek too specific an understanding of the mechanics of this mysterious birth – “So sudden and instantaneous was this birth that I could neither discover nor discern by what means it had occurred.”

5) The birth of our Savior was not bloody or violent, there was no afterbirth or defilement, but he came forth in all purity and cleanness. In a later place, St. Bridget specifies that, throughout his infancy, the Child never had tangled hair or any other such defect.

6) The Christ Child is truly man, for he was cold and shivered – he longed for the touch of his Mother. St. Bridget is by no means so carried away with Christ’s divinity as to forget his humanity, through the whole revelation the Child is seen to be both perfect God and perfect man.

7) Mary and Joseph recognize the Child as true God and worship him. Indeed, the theologians and mystics emphasize this point – Mary and Joseph knew who Jesus was all along, and they did not receive him as only a frail child but (as he truly is) the Son of God.

The revelations given to the mystic-saints confirm what the theologian-saints have taught and what the saintly popes have defined. How can any doubt the wondrous miracles associated with Christ’s Incarnation and Nativity?

When did Christ reach the "age of reason"?

2011-12-24T03:39:00.000-08:00

Femina circumdabit virum.

How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN. (Jeremiah 31:22)

St. Thomas Aquinas, following the tradition of the Fathers (especially St. Jerome) reads this verse from Jeremiah as a prophetic sign that the Christ Child, from the first moment of his conception and while yet enclosed within the womb of the Woman Mary, will be a “perfect man” – which means that he will have perfect use of both reason and will.

Though, in general, by the “age of reason” we refer to around six or seven years of age, the real meaning of the phrase is to specify the point in which a child attains to the use of reason and free-will. When a child is capable of making morally significant decisions, we say that he has reached the “age of reason”.

Some will be quite surprised to realize that the Church has taught, in her ordinary Magisterium, that Christ our Savior had use of reason from the very first moment of his conception. While yet in the womb, our Lord was a rational man in regard to the powers of his human intellect, though his body was yet that of a tiny child.

Magisterial texts

I have already written several articles regarding the doctrine of Christ’s universal and unlimited knowledge with regard to all created things, past, present and future [n.b. his knowledge was not absolutely unlimited, but was unlimited in relation to created realities]. The Church teaches that Jesus knew all things (even the hour of his Second Coming) while he was on earth, in his human intellect. Read the article [here – Why Jesus had to know all things] or another one [here – Jesus knew the day and the hour] (and, see [here] for why Jesus didn’t tell us the day and hour of the Last Judgment).

In these previous articles you will see numerous papal documents which affirm that Jesus knew all created things, and you can consider something of why it is so important for us to hold that Jesus did know all things in his humanity.

Here, I will simply reproduce two very clear magisterial quotes which affirm that Jesus knew all things from the first moment of his conception, even while he was yet in the womb.

The following proposition is rejected: “The opinion cannot be declared certain, which holds that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing but from the beginning knew in the Word everything, past, present and future, that is to say everything which God knows with the ‘knowledge of vision’.” (Pope Benedict XV, Decree of the Holy Office of 1918)

“The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 75)

The Church has taught that, even in his human intellect and soul, Christ Jesus knew – with an unlimited, universal, and infallible knowledge – all things, past, present and future. Further, the popes do not say that this knowledge came little by little or that there was any time in which he was ignorant – rather, it is affirmed that our Savior possessed this knowledge from the first moment of his conception.

The Christ Child, living in the womb of Mary his Mother, already had perfect use of reason and will – he was able to know each of us, and he loved us all not only as God but even as man. The unborn Child yet had a Sacred Heart with which he loved us even in his humanity.

The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, the defender of Christ’s human knowledge

Now, we do believe that Jesus grew in knowledge, but this refers only to his acquired knowledge (gained through sense experience). However, our Savior had use of reason not merely through acquired knowledge but also through the beatific vision (for his human was intimately united with the Divine Essence and knew all things through this union, just as the saints in heaven [no, in a manner yet more perfect still]). Further, our Lord had infused knowledge, like the angels.

From the first moment of his conception, Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit – shall we not affirm that he knew all created things (all that has been, is, and will ever be) through this grace? If the apostles knew many languages through the Spirit, can we doubt that the Infant (from the moment of his conception) knew every language through the gift of tongues? If St. John Vianney could read hearts through the power of the Spirit, shall we doubt that the divine Infant (yet in the womb) knew all that was in the heart of the holy Curé? All grace comes through the humanity of Jesus, thus (in his humanity) he must possess all gifts and all knowledge and all love in a most excellent and perfect degree. None have been more gifted than Jesus – and who would not blush to claim to be more excellent than our Savior, even in his infancy?! The greatest of men is yet nothing compared with this little Baby!

St. Thomas Aquinas shows that the Savior had the use of free-will and had attained to the age of reason in the first moment of his conception – see ST III, q.34, a.2 [here]. The Angelic Doctor makes his proof from the fact that Christ did not grow in spiritual perfection through his life, nor did he progress from an imperfect state to a perfect state. Thus, it is clear that he must have been perfect even in his conception, which requires that he had the use of free-will and reason so as to co-operate perfectly with the fullness of grace which he possessed even in his humanity.

St. Thomas credits St. Augustine as teaching that Christ did not increase in merit through his life (“Increase of merit was absolutely impossible to the soul of Christ” – Paterius, Expos. Vet. et Nov. Test. super Ex. 40) and concludes that this requires that Christ merited all things in the very first moment of his conception. Upon coming into the world, our Savior merited our salvation – but one must be rational in order to merit, therefore it is clear that Christ (in the moment he was conceived) had the use of reason. Even in the womb, the Christ Child made morally significant decisions (indeed, he merited our salvation and his glory), he had already reached the “age of reason”.

Christ increased in knowledge with respect to experiential knowledge gained through the senses. But, of course, our Savior knew all created things through the beatific vision and through the infused knowledge given by the Holy Spirit. There can be no doubt that Jesus, from the first moment of his conception, knew all things that had been or would ever be, and that he had the use of reason. The Infant in the womb is already a “perfect man”, insofar as he has the perfect use of reason and will – he is no irrational child, but the Everlasting Man.

What do we mean when we say that Jesus was rational while in the womb

When we say that Jesus was rational while in the womb, we mean to say that he had perfect use of reason, and his intellect was in no way hindered – he was not ignorant, nor did he slowly come into the age of reason. However, his body was yet tiny and he could not always manifest the rational powers of his intellect – from the first moment of his conception we may well presume that his process of gestation was similar in many respects to ours; thus, our Savior was an embryo for a time and it is likely that his body did not begin with hands and feet, but (like our own) developed while in the womb.

When Jesus was still a small embryo, he was rational and capable of making morally significant decisions (he already knew you, loved you, and was praying for you, in his humanity - as an embryo, he already consecrated the unborn St. John the Baptist), but these rational actions could not be manifested through his body. What seems reasonable to conclude is that, in the same time that ordinary babies are able to act instinctively, Christ was able to manifest the rational powers of his soul. Thus, for example, when an unborn child is able to move around within his mother’s womb, Christ was able to go to and fro as he willed. As an unborn child reaches a point of bodily maturation in which he is able to “kick” and push the enclosure of the womb forcefully enough that his mother can feel it, Christ was able to caress his Mother and express his love for her through gentle rubs. Finally, at the time when an unborn babe develops fingers and is able to suck his thumb, our Savior would have been capable of sign-language (at least, as soon as he had developed the synapses and nerve endings etc. which would allow him to move his fingers at will, he was able to sign).

[To think of this from Mary’s perspective, you may consider our earlier article on what it was like to be pregnant with Jesus, here]

It was Christ’s body which needed to develop, together with his senses; but his rational soul was not limited by his body, for he had knowledge which did not depend on mere sense experience. Thus, even before he had a brain (that is, brain tissue), our Savior was praying for you and for me; even before he had hands and feet, he was accomplishing our salvation; even before the cells of his body had developed into flesh tissue, he made the rational choice to offer his body upon the Cross; even before his body had developed heart tissue, each of us were held in a loving embrace within his Sacred Heart - Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me. (Hebrews 10:5)

Why this is important

There was never a moment in our Savior’s life when he did not know and love each and every one of us. There was never a moment when he was simply the victim of external events, but he always offered whatever he did and whatever he suffered for our salvation. Even as a child, an infant, an embryo, our Savior loved us (not only as God but in his humanity, with his Sacred Heart).

There is a wonderful prayer which speaks to the Child in the womb of his Mother. This prayer is no mere sentiment, for Jesus was a rational man when he was first conceived – he knew all the prayers we would offer and he received them, and he loved us.

“O Jesus living in Mary, come and live in Thy servants. In the spirit of Thy holiness, in the fullness of Thy might, in the truth of Thy virtues, in the perfection of Thy ways, in the communion of Thy mysteries. Subdue every hostile power, in Thy spirit, for the glory of the Father. Amen.”

The infant Jesus, living in the womb of his Mother, is already our Redeemer and our Lord. Already he knew and loved us. He is no mere child without control of reason, but already he hears our prayers and prays for us – for, by virtue of his union with the divinity, this Child knows all things past, present and future, and his soul is not limited by his tiny and sacred body.

I will not enter into the discussion of the powers of the Christ Child in the early years of his youth – it should be fairly clear that, when growing up, even as a toddler, our Lord was a rational man with perfect use of reason and free-will. Thus, he certainly never had a “tantrum” or a “fit”, he never had to be “taught”, he never made a mistake – though physically a young boy, he already was wise beyond all men.

Still, we must be very clear on this point, Christ did not necessarily act wholly differently from other young children. Rather, it is quite certain, that he chose to hide his glory. Our Savior did not speak foreign languages as a child (though he could have), nor did he solve problems of calculus or discuss the future (though, again, he could have). Indeed, it is most likely that our Lord (until the time of his public ministry) generally chose to manifest only what he knew from acquired knowledge gained through sense experience, which would be age-appropriate [a certain exception to this could be his quasi-public teaching in the Temple at the age of twelve]. Thus, as a three-year-old, he would have acted in many ways like a three-year-old (like a perfect three-year-old).

You have professed this doctrine yourself, though you may not have noticed!

Lest you think all this is far beyond what you can accept. Lest you should believe that this is unbelievable. I would point out that – if you are a native English-speaker – I am certain that you have already asserted many times (and in public) that the Child Jesus reached the age of reason when yet an infant. For you have certainly sung the popular Christmas carol “What Child is this?” by William Chatterton Dix (ca. 1865). In that carol, we hear the following:

“Why lies He in such mean estate / Where ox and ass are feeding? / Good Christian, fear: for sinners here, / The silent Word is pleading.”

The carol sings that the newborn Babe is “pleading”, that is “praying” for us poor sinners. How can an infant pray, if he is not yet rational? How can a child plead – that is “plead” in such a way as to truly merit our salvation – if he has no free-will? Indeed, the Christ Child was already praying for us when laid in the manger, and so too he was praying for us from the first moment of his conception.

This is why we must hold that Jesus had the use of reason from the first instant of the Incarnation: There was never a moment when our Savior was irrational, never a moment when he did not know us and love us, never a moment when he was simply a passive observer; but all along, from the beginning to the end, our Lord knew and loved each of us, he merited our salvation, and he prayed in our behalf.

This is no “hard teaching”, but a wonderful proclamation of the love of our Savior. How consoling it is to look upon the Christ Child and know that he already understands me, knows me, and loves me!

The virgin birth of Christ - What the Church really teaches

2011-12-21T03:34:00.000-08:00

Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (Lumen Gentium [Vatican II], 57)

The Church teaches de fide that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ our Savior. She conceived as a virgin, she gave birth as a virgin, and she remains a virgin forever. Yet, we ask, What does the Church mean when saying that Mary was a virgin “during birth”? What is the mystery we contemplate in the third joyful mystery of the Rosary? Why do the Popes and Church Fathers (together with the Doctors) insist that Christ’s birth was “miraculous”?

While we will briefly consider a few points from Scripture, our primary goal in this little article will be to describe just what exactly it is that the Church means when she professes that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.

What does the Church mean by “virginity”?

In modern speech, we use the term “virginity” and “virgin” to refer to refraining from sexual intercourse. “Virginity” is considered entirely in moral terms, and is not related so much to a physical description of the womb of a woman. This is often called, “sex-act” virginity – a “virgin” is one (male or female) who has never had sexual relations.

The Church, however, does not use the word “virgin” in this sense, when speaking of our Lady. Certainly, we mean all that the modern usage means – our Blessed Mother never engaged in sexual relations – but we mean even more still. When the Church says that Mary is a “virgin”, we mean that Mary’s womb has never been opened.

Mary is a “virgin” because, speaking in very plain terms, the closure of her virginity (i.e. her hymen) has never been ruptured [I know it is a bit difficult to speak of such things in regard to our Mother, but we must be clear and there is no other way around using the biological terms]. The womb of Mary is a sealed fountain, an enclosed garden, a cloister.

We may be a bit surprised to hear this – that “virginity”, in Mary’s case, means more than simple moral “virginity” but includes also this sense of physical integrity. Let us consider what this teaching would mean and why we must hold it.

Virgin “during birth”

The Church teaches that Mary was a virgin “in birth” (the Latin phrase is virginitas in partu). Consider the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.” (CCC 499) This paragraph of the Vatican II Catechism sites seven magisterial sources, from the Quamvis Patrum of Pope Zosimus (418) to the Cum quorumdam hominum of Pope Paul IV (1555).

Most notably, the Catechism continues with a citation of a dogmatic constitution from Vatican II: “In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’” (CCC 499, Lumen Gentium 57) Further, the post-Vatican II reformed Liturgy of the Hours explicitly professes that Mary remained a virgin in giving birth to her Son when, in the Advent antiphon for the mid-afternoon prayer time of “none” we read that the “closure of [Mary’s] virginity” will not be violated by the birth of the Savior [this is utterly lost in the English translation … yet another reason why priest should be praying the breviary in Latin].

This is the meaning of in partu virginity – Mary was a virgin even during the act of giving birth to her Son. This is the faith of the Church, we are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus our Lord.

But what can this mean: Mary was a virgin in giving birth? Can this possibly refer to “moral, sex-act virginity”? Would it be anything at all to claim that our Blessed Mother did not engage in sexual relations during the act of giving birth to her divine Son? Why such is utter nonsense and blasphemy!

Rather, it is clear that, when the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin in giving birth, we mean to say that our Lady retained her physical integrity – the womb of the Blessed Virgin was not opened even in the act of giving birth to her Son. There was no rupture to the virginal cloister of Mary’s womb, when Christ our God came forth.

How Christ was born

The Savior, rather, passed through the womb of the virgin Mary without causing any damage whatsoever. Indeed, as he passed through the closed walls of the room after his Resurrection (without breaking the walls themselves), so too did he pass through the closed wall of our Lady’s virginity (without causing any rupture or break).

This is the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church and of the Popes and Councils. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Apostles’ Creed specifically names the virginity of Mary in relation to the birth of our Savior: “Born of the Virgin Mary”.

By his power as God, the Savior passed through the closed womb of the Virgin Mary as light passing through glass, as thought proceeding from intellect. He did no harm to the physical integrity of our Lady’s virginal cloister, but rather consecrated it!

It is this reality, that Jesus came forth from the womb of Mary without rupturing her virginity, which is the miracle of the birth of Christ. Pope Pius XII (in 1943) refers to this miracle in the encyclical Mystici Corporis, paragraph 110.

If Jesus was born according to the ordinary mode, then we may wonder what exactly is the “mystery” of the third joyful mystery?! But Jesus was not born in the ordinary way, rather he was born in a marvelous and miraculous manner – for he passed through the walled enclosure of his Mother’s virginity causing neither rupture nor pain unto the Virgin.

For more on how this could happen, please consider our article on how Christ came forth from the tomb at his Resurrection (by walking through the walls) – [read it here].

Some biblical evidence, and an objection

The principal proof from the New Testament is that our Lady, immediately after giving birth, rises and wraps the Child in swaddling clothes and lays him in a manger. Now, of course, such activity would generally be far beyond the powers of any woman who had just given birth. Thus, from this, it is reasonable to conclude that the birth of our Savior was miraculous and (involving no pains for his Mother) Christ came forth from the womb without doing any harm to the physical integrity of our Lady.

Some, however, will object that Luke 2:23-24 seems to affirm that our Savior did indeed open the womb of our Lady. For, when Mary and Joseph presented Jesus in the Temple according to the Law, St. Luke points out that this action fulfilled the Law, “Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pare of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Indeed, it is quite ironic that any would cite this passage as a proof that Jesus opened the womb – since, it is clear that he had no need of being redeemed (and certainly not by any precept of the Old Law!), so too it should be clear that in fulfilling the precepts of the Law he was not bound by them and thus he most certainly did not open the womb as did all others before and after him.

Beyond this, there are many prophecies in the Old Testament which we will not name here.

The greater mystery

And the miraculous birth teaches us that, just as Christ came forth from his Mother without causing any rupture or physical harm, so too does the Eternal Word proceed from the Father without any rupture or separation of the divine Nature. The birth of the Lord from the Virgin Mary is a sign of his eternal birth from the Father.

Why did God send Gabriel for the Annunciation?

2011-12-18T04:50:00.000-08:00

4^th Sunday of Advent, Luke 1:26-38

The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Familiar as we are with the narrative of St. Luke’s Gospel, we are tempted to take it for granted that God sent the archangel Gabriel to announce the joyful news of the Incarnation to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.

Yet, of course, it did not need to have happened that way. God could have forgone the Annunciation all together. Or one of the Persons of the Trinity could have appeared to Mary rather than sending an angel. Further, even granting that God chose to send an angel – he could have sent a seraphim rather than an archangel, or he could have sent Michael rather than Gabriel.

Why then did God choose to send an archangel? And why did he send Gabriel?

Why it was fitting for God to send an archangel

It was right that God should announce to the Blessed Virgin the plan of salvation so that she might fully conform her will to the work which was to be effected in her. Indeed, though the Almighty did not have any absolute need of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that (in choosing her) he should allow her to participate in the Incarnation through her obedient “yes”, her perfect fiat (let it be). And this is why our Lord announced the Incarnation to Mary in the first place, so that she would know the mystery before it was brought about, in order that she might be both a truly obedient handmaid (freely co-operating with God’s plan) and also a more perfect witness to the power of God.

Now, since the Lord desired to reveal the Incarnation to Mary before overshadowing her, it was fitting that this revelation should be announced by an angel, rather than by God himself – and this on three accounts (as St. Thomas says, ST III, q.30, a.2).

First, God sent an angel to Mary in order that the general order established by God, according to which the Divine things are brought to men by means of the angels, might be maintained. Throughout the Scriptures, God willed that the greatest events be revealed through the medium of angels; and so too was the Incarnation revealed in this way.

Second, as the redemption was brought about in such a manner as to show that the fall had been overcome in Christ, it was fitting that the same instrument which brought about the first sin should likewise announce man’s redemption. But the fallen angel Satan had first tempted Eve to eat of the tree, therefore it was fitting that an archangel be sent to direct Mary’s heart and mind to the mystery of man’s redemption.

Thirdly, as the angels are signs of purity – since, in their angelic nature, they know no lust and, by grace, are wholly free from any stain of sin – it was fitting that an angel announce this mystery to the Immaculate Virgin Mary. Indeed, she is more pure even than the angels; her virginal purity caused the angels to exclaim to one another, Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array? (Song of Solomon 6:9)

Finally, it was right that God should send an archangel rather than one of the seraphim, even though the seraphim are higher than the archangels, because the seraphim do not minister directly to men but rather the archangels are those sent to bring the most important messages. And, although there is room for debate within the tradition as to whether the archangels are among the lower choirs of angels, we recall that St. Thomas is called the “Angelic Doctor” on account of his wisdom in writing on the angels, and he tells us that the archangels are lower and that Gabriel was much lower than the seraphim while at the same time being among the greatest of those angels who are sent with messages to men. Thus, it is best to follow the Church in trusting St. Thomas’ wisdom in this matter (especially since, the Angel of the Schools [i.e. the same St. Thomas] bases his own theory on the teachings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite and also of St. Gregory the Great).

Gabriel’s prophetic proclamation in the Old Testament

Granting that God chose to send an angel and even one of the archangels, it is not yet clear why he would choose to send Gabriel rather than Raphael or Michael or another of the archangels. Considering Gabriel’s role in the Old Testament, we will gain some insight.

Gabriel has a prominent role in the book of Daniel, where he is seen to direct and oversee the wars of men. He appears at least in Daniel 8 and 9, and probably also in chapter 10 (though there is some uncertainty, since he does not explicitly state his name there).

In Daniel 9:21-25, the archangel Gabriel gives a most wondrous prophecy of the coming of the Christ. Consider the words of Scripture:

[21] As I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, flying swiftly touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice. [22] And he instructed me, and spoke to me, and said: O Daniel, I am now come forth to teach thee, and that thou mightest understand. [23] From the beginning of thy prayers the word came forth: and I am come to shew it to thee, because thou art a man of desires: therefore do thou mark the word, and understand the vision. [24] Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the saint of saints may be anointed. [25] Know thou therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls in straitness of times.

Gabriel speaks of the “seventy weeks” and of the “sixty-nine weeks”, which refer to “weeks of years”, that is four-hundred ninety and four-hundred eighty-three years, respectively – (“weeks of years”, as in Leviticus 25,8: Thou shalt also number to thee seven weeks of years, that is to say, seven times seven, which together make forty-nine years). On this passage from Daniel, the commentary in the Douay-Rheims Bible states:

Seventy weeks: Viz., of years, (or seventy times seven, that is, 490 years,) are shortened; that is, fixed and determined, so that the time shall be no longer.

From the going forth of the word: That is, from the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, when by his commandment Nehemias rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, 2 Esd. 2. From which time, according to the best chronology, there were just sixty-nine weeks of years, that is, 483 years to the baptism of Christ, when he first began to preach and execute the office of Messias.-- Ibid.

Whether we accept the precision of the chronology, it is quite clear that the archangel Gabriel gives one of the most precise prophecies of the coming of the Christ. Hence, it was fitting that he who had announced the mystery of old, should announce the same when the fullness of time had come.

“The Power of God” and “The Man of God”

Finally, to understand why it was that God chose Gabriel both in the Old Testament and in the fullness of time to announce to men the good news of the Incarnation, we consider the meaning of his name and the particular role which he has among the other archangels. We look to the great Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide:

“S. Jerome remarks on Daniel viii. that there are three angels, Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, who are especially mentioned in Scripture; of whom Michael presides over the prayers and offerings of the faithful and is therefore called Michael (that is, ‘who is like God’); for it is the prerogative of God alone to hear the prayers of penitents: while Raphael presides over the healing of men’s bodies, and he therefore restored sight to Tobias when he was blind; whence he is called Raphael (that is ‘the Healer or the Healing, of God’); and thirdly Gabriel (or ‘the strength of God’) presides over the conflicts and wars of the faithful (as is clear from Dan. xii. &c.). Wherefore he is sent to announce the birth of Christ, who was to carry on a most severe war against Lucifer, and the rest of the demons and impious men.

“Again Gabriel in Hebrew means ‘man of God’; the meaning of which is that God will be incarnate, and will be a child as to nature and age; but yet He will also be a man, because from the first instant of His conception His soul will be full of all knowledge, grace, and strength, according to the saying of Jer. xxxi. 22, a woman shall compass a man.”

Biblical proof that Mary (and Joseph) made a vow of virginity

2011-12-15T11:53:00.000-08:00

4^th Sunday of Advent, Luke 1:26-38

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

The Gospel text recounting the Annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary contains the biblical evidence and proof that she had made a vow of virginity prior to her conception of the Christ Child. Further, as we consider the historical circumstances of her betrothal to Joseph, it will become quite clear that he also had vowed perpetual continence as the spouse of our Lady.

Rather than discussing the universal and emphatic teachings of the Fathers of the Church – all of whom assert that Mary had made a vow of virginity – because such texts will often be ignored by Protestants (to their eternal ruin), we will look simply at the Gospel text itself and shall assert only those things which are affirmed also by the Evangelist.

The account of the Annunciation, the words of Mary

After the archangel Gabriel tells our Lady that she is to be the Mother of the Messiah, she responds with a simple question: How can this be? We must not think that Mary doubted the words of the angel or the plan of God – far be it from us to impute sin to our Mother! Rather, it is clear (also from the context, since the angel does not rebuke Mary as he had rebuked Zechariah for his doubt) that the Virgin believes that God’s word will be fulfilled, but simply does not understand how this will take place – hence, she asks How can this be?

And what is it that confuses Mary? She says How can this be? Since I have no relations with a man. Mary does not doubt that she will indeed conceive and bear a son, but what she does not understand is the mode of conception. We will consider why she was confused in a moment – first, let us look at the words of the Gospel.

The New American Bible offers a loose translation of this verse (Luke 1:34) – Since I have no relations with a man. The more literal translation is: Since I do not know man. The original Greek: ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

Of course, the phrase “do not know man” refers to sexual relations, as is common throughout the Bible. What I want to point out is that Mary does not say, “Since I have not yet known a man” or “Since I have never known man” – i.e. she does not speak in the past tense. Rather, our Lady uses the present indicative: Since I do not know man. She does not merely affirm that she has been a virgin, but implies that in the moment she intends to remain a virgin.

This is what confused our Lady: That she was a virgin, and yet the angel said she would conceive and give birth to a son.

Proof of the vow of virginity

Now, our Lady was already betrothed to St. Joseph (cf. Luke 1:27) – she had not yet come into his home, but she was soon to do so (cf. Matthew 1:18,24). If the Blessed Virgin Mary had intended to have sexual relations with Joseph – according to the ordinary mode of married life – how can we think that she would have been confused by the words of the angel?

Mary did not say simply: “How can I bear a son? Since I have not yet known a man but intend to soon enter into relations with Joseph.” This would not even make any sense! For she would have presumed then that the child would be the son of Joseph.

The only way we can account for Mary’s confusion, and also for her use of the present (rather than past) tense verb I do not know man, is if we admit that she had no intention of entering into sexual relations with Joseph or with any other man.

Mary could only ask this question of the angel, if she had some good reason for thinking that the child would not be the son of Joseph. And the only good reason she could have to think that Jesus would not be the biological son of Joseph is if she had no intention of ever giving up her virginity to Joseph. Hence, it is clear, that Mary must have made a vow of virginity to God.

Joseph’s betrothal to our Lady

Now, given that we must conclude that our Lady had no intention of entering into sexual relations with Joseph to whom she was betrothed and whom she would soon marry, how can we fail to believe that Joseph must have made the vow of continence together with Mary?

Could we possibly presume that our Lady would enter into a marriage with St. Joseph without telling him that she intended to remain a virgin?! Why, even on a natural level, we know that this would never happen! Of all the things which would have to be discussed before marriage, certainly a vow of perpetual virginity would have to be at the top of the list!

But, if Mary had told Joseph of her vow of virginity (as surely she must have), then we are led to conclude that, since Joseph agreed to marry her, he too must have made a vow of perpetual continence (i.e. to refrain from all sexual relations even within marriage).

We do not say necessarily that Joseph was a virgin – for it is possible that he had been married before and had been widowed – but we are sure of this much at least: After his betrothal to the Virgin Mary, he had forsook all sexual relations. Joseph had no intention of engaging in relations with the Mother of God. Further, we know that this vow must have taken place even before the Annunciation, since our Lady would have had to discuss the matter with Joseph BEFORE the betrothal – it would be quite a surprise to spring it on him only after they were committed to marriage!

Thus, from the text of Scripture itself, it is clear that both Mary and Joseph had made a perpetual vow to abstain from all sexual relations – there can be no doubt that the Mother of God remained a virgin throughout her entire life.

Replies to objections

Here we will briefly consider only the most popular objections to Mary’s perpetual vow of virginity. The objections will be written in italics, followed by the answers in normal font.

But Jesus had “brothers and sisters”. This objection is very easy to answer, since it was common to call cousins “brothers and sisters” – indeed, there was no word specific to “cousin” in ancient Aramaic, hence the New Testament writers felt no need to differentiate between cousins and closer relatives. This same use of the term “brothers and sisters” referring rather to “cousins” is found in Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22. If Jesus really had brothers and sisters who were sons and daughters of Mary, why did he entrust his Mother to John the Beloved at his death? Would she not have been cared for by the other children? [further, it is possible that these “brothers and sisters” where children of Joseph by a previous marriage of which he was widowed]

But Matthew 1:18 says, “BEFORE Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.” And it would not say BEFORE, if they did not have relations after. The response is simple: We often say things like, “I left the city BEFORE I was able to visit my friend” and we by no means imply that we visited our friend AFTER we left.

But Jesus is called the “first-born son”, which implies that there were others. Rather, the words “first-born” are a title which is applied even if there are no other children. It was of great significance in Jewish culture to be the first-born son, and this title was given even before any other children were born and was retained even if no other children were born.

But Matthew 1:24-25 says, “And [Joseph] took unto him his wife [Mary]; and he knew her not TILL she brought forth her first-born Son.” And Matthew would not have said TILL or UNTIL, if Joseph had not had relations with Mary after the birth of the Christ. This is certainly the most complicated objection and it requires wisdom to see the truth. St. Jerome explains that, in the Scriptures, the word “until” is sometimes used to designate a fixed time, but also can designate and indefinite time. Hence, Psalm 122:2 states, “Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, UNTIL he have mercy on us” – but from this we are not to suppose that we turn our eyes away from the Lord after he is merciful! Rather, our eyes are fixed on the Lord until he shows us his mercy and, after he is merciful to us, our eyes remain fixed upon him all the more! And St. Jerome concluded, “Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards.” (Adversus Helvid. v) And this interpretation is required by the other texts of Scripture (namely, her reply at the Annunciation) which indicate that Mary was indeed always a virgin.

What was it like to be pregnant with the Savior?

2011-12-13T05:08:00.000-08:00

For nine months, the Blessed Virgin Mary carried the Christ Child within her own body. She was “with child”, pregnant. The body of our Lord grew within her over those nine months, and he was sustained by the nourishment which was given him through her most pure body.

St. John of the Cross, whose feast we celebrate on Wednesday, writes beautifully of this mystery:

Del Verbo divino

La Virgen preñada

Viene de camino

¡si le dais posada!

With the divine Word

The Virgin heavy

Comes down the way

If only you'll give her welcome!

During the season of Advent, we await the Nativity of our Savior; and it is only natural that, meditating upon the time before Christ’s birth, we should begin to ponder what the pregnancy was like. In such matters as these – which touch upon the most intimate union of our Lord and our Blessed Lady – we must write with great tenderness, caution, love, devotion, and dignity.

The dogma of the miraculous birth – Mary suffered no pains

It is a dogmatic teaching of the Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary suffered no pains in giving birth to her Son. Any who wish to be saved must believe this truth. Those modernists who claim that our Lady suffered pain and rupture in bearing forth the Son of God are impious blasphemers, fools and heretics, children of Satan – so state the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Church (most especially St. Epiphanius).

In the days before he gave up his arms, St. Ignatius Loyola very nearly killed a Moor who claimed that the Blessed Lady suffered pains in giving birth. The Church has always maintained that she gave birth without any pain and with no rupture or injury to physical integrity of her virginal womb.

We will write more about this in the future, but for now I only desire that the dogma be presented (without any significant defense), so as to give us some context for a discussion of the pregnancy.

If any doubt that our Lady could give birth to a Son without any pain or physical rupture, let such a one recall that the same Savior walked through the walls of the upper room after his Resurrection. Can the God who took flesh to himself without the seminal power of any man, not come forth from the Virgin’s womb as light passing through glass, as thought proceeding from intellect? If all things are possible to God, is it not madness and sacrilege to deny this Christmas miracle?

NOTA BENE: In the comment box, no comments disputing the miraculous birth of our Savior from the Virgin will be permitted. The mystery will be considered in a post next week. I refer to it here only to set the stage for a consideration of the pregnancy itself.

Natural properties of the pregnancy

Christ took his flesh from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and was nourished by her body according to the natural mode. Indeed, there is no doubt that our Lady had to eat more food (for example), just as any pregnant mother must. Anything which is connected to the nature of pregnancy is to be affirmed of the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son, excepting those things which are the result of sin rather than of nature per se (and also excepting anything which may have been effected by a special miracle).

The Christ Child had weight and took up space in our Lady’s womb. Thus, the Virgin would have “shown” and would have been “heavy”. Certainly, she would have become tired more quickly and would have had decreased mobility (as is the case with all pregnant women). We may even suppose that she would have suffered the various hormonal variations which are part of the natural process of pregnancy.

Morning sickness and other physical sufferings?

In considering the matter of morning sickness (and other such physical “ailments” associated with most pregnancies), I am quite disinclined to believe that our Lady would have suffered such things. While, at first, it may seem that she would have – since, after all, the Child did have weight and pressure within her; and, further, it is almost certain that her body reacted to pregnancy according to the natural hormonal changes – a brief consideration will lead us to conclude that it is more likely that she suffered neither morning sickness, nor painful “quickening” (i.e. the kicking of the Christ Child), nor any other such pains.

The Blessed Virgin endured pregnancy according to the manner in which Eve would have endured it before the fall. Thus, our Mother did not suffer the pains which are a punishment for sin. Further, her pregnancy would be the most peaceful and gentle of all pregnancies – she would suffer intensely at the foot of the Cross, and so was spared any unnecessary suffering in pregnancy.

Hence, since not all women suffer morning sickness, nor do all women have severe pains from prenatal “quickening”, neither should we suppose that our Lady suffered such things. And, though both morning sickness and quickening may well often be good signs of healthy pregnancy (some doctors suppose that morning sickness helps to keep the baby from any toxins present in most normal foods, while quickening is a sign that the baby is progressing in his development), such signs are not necessary nor would they have to be present in our Lady in a manner which would bring great discomfort – while our Lady would have felt the Child moving within her, we need not think that this would have been particularly painful.

Further, we must consider that the Christ Child would not will that his first act in the world would be to cause harm to his Mother. Therefore, while he certainly weighed her down and enlarged her womb, we ought not think that he would have caused any discomfort beyond what is absolutely necessary.

We may well presume that our Lady would have been tired at times and suffered some level of stiffness in her muscles – for, of course, she carried the physical weight of the Child in her virginal womb. Obviously, the Virgin’s feet would be sore from carrying the additional weight – hence, she is often pictured riding on a donkey during the trip to Bethlehem.

Moodiness and other mental changes?

We must not suppose that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God would have suffered from any disorders of soul. By the grace of the Immaculate Conception and also by the additional graces given to our Lady throughout her life, every impulse of the lower powers of the soul was directed and wholly ordered by reason.

Mary, like her Son, never suffered from any interior temptation. She was never angry without reason, nor sad without reason, nor upset or distressed or anxious in a manner contrary to reason. Our Lady’s emotions never raged against the power of her reason – for such is the result of sin, but she was entirely preserved from all sin.

Most certainly, our Lady would become tired and sleepy. At times she would not be able to think things through as quickly – though, we must affirm, she never made an error in judgment; for error is a result of sin. But to think that our Holy Mother could have been moody during her pregnancy?! Why, if any should say such a thing, let such impiety be answered with a strike upon the foul mouth which bore it! It is a blasphemy worthy of hell!

Did our Mother have “cravings” for particular foods? Perhaps, but again we affirm that these would not be of the same sort as most women – for the “cravings” for food which the Mother of God would have had would not have overpowered her reason, but would have been entirely subjected to the higher faculties of her soul.

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son

How great the mystery of our Lord’s Incarnation! What tender love and devotion we must have when we consider it! To think on such things, and to meditate upon them in our hearts will not fail to inspire true and holy love for God the Almighty.

“In such things, the whole ground of the mystery is the might of God who permits it to happen.” (St. Augustine, Epistle 137, 2,8)

Virgin conceived without sin, Pray for us who have recourse to thee!

Whether St. John the Baptist is Elijah?

2011-12-10T04:44:00.000-08:00

Third Sunday of Advent, John 1:6-8,19-28

So they asked him [John], “What are you then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.”

In this Sunday’s Gospel, its seems quite clear that St. John the Baptist is not Elijah – he even specifically denies it saying, “I am not Elijah”. Hence, we ought to think that John is not Elijah.

However, we may become confused if we consider the Sunday Gospel in relation to the Saturday morning Gospel (Matthew 17:9a,10-13) where Jesus says, “Elijah will indeed come and restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come” … Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

The Savior makes this same point even more explicitly when he says: For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who is to come. He who has ears, let him hear. (Matthew 11:13-15)

So, was or was not John the Baptist Elijah? John denied it, but Jesus seems to affirm it.

Elijah and Advent

Numerous prophesies in the Old Testament indicate that Elijah should come to prepare the way for the Messiah. We will consider two:

Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with anathema. (Malachi 4:5-6)

Thus was Elias magnified in his wondrous works. And who can glory like to thee? … Who art registered in the judgments of times to appease the wrath of the Lord, to reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob. (Ecclesiasticus 49:4,10)

First, note that Elias is simply another rendering of the name Elijah. Second, see that Elijah is said to precede the advent (coming) of the Messiah not as a means of condemnation, but rather to provide an opportunity for repentance.

Elijah will come to prepare the way for the Lord, so that we might be found worthy to receive him.

The two comings of Christ

However, it should be clear from the passages in Malachi and in Ecclesiasticus that the advent coming which is spoken of is not the coming of Christ as a Child (i.e. not the incarnation and Christmas), but rather the second coming and the day of judgment. This is why Malachi calls it the great and dreadful day of the Lord and Ecclesiasticus says that Elijah will come to appease the wrath of the Lord.

But we know that there is not only one coming of the Messiah, there is more than just the final judgment. For, first he came as a man (indeed as a Child) so as to redeem us. And if there are two comings of the Christ, we may well expect that there would be two “Elijahs” – and such is the opinion of the Fathers of the Church (namely, of Jerome, Remigius, Chrysostom, and others).

The literal Elijah (who was taken up in the chariot of fire) will come again to prepare and announce the second coming and the day of judgment. But the figurative Elijah (who is John the Baptist) has come already and he prepared and announced the first coming of the Lamb of God as our Redeemer.

This is specified by Holy Scripture when the angel Gabriel announced the conception of John and said of him: And he shall go before him [i.e. the Messiah] in the spirit and power of Elias; that he may turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the incredulous to the wisdom of the just, to prepare unto the Lord a perfect people. (Luke 1:17)

St. John the Baptist is the figurative Elijah, insofar as he prepared for the first coming of the Christ in the power and spirit of Elijah. For we obviously cannot believe that the Baptist was Elijah re-incarnated or any such nonsense – and this is why John himself said, “I am not Elijah”. Rather, it is clear that he was the figurative “Elijah” – and this is why our Savior said that John was Elijah if you are willing to accept it (namely, if you are willing to be converted by his words and prepare the way for my coming into your heart, then St. John the Baptist has been Elijah for you).

Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide explains

Below, I will reproduce a number of quotations from the excellent Gospel commentaries of Fr. Cornelus a’ Lapide – perhaps the last great biblical scholar before the rise of the modern age and the downfall of Western civilization.

It seems to me that the most important point in understanding this difficulty is this: “For the Scribes did not distinguish between the two Advents of Christ, even as the Jews fail to do so still. [...] Christ therefore, that He might, in His condescension, give a full explanation to the Scribes, concedes that an Elias would be a precursor of both His Advents; but that in the first it would be the typical [i.e. the figurative Elias], in the second the literal and real Elias.”

On Mtt 11:14 — “‘And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, &c.’ That is if ye wish to receive John, and to believe him, as ye ought to do. Whence the Syriac translates by the imperative—If ye wish, receive ye. For he shall be Elias unto you, because he being endowed with the spirit and power of Elias, shall convert you to God and Christ, in the same way that Elias shall convert your children and descendants at the end of the world by a like zeal and purity of life to the same Christ. Thus S. Jerome says, ‘John is Elias which is for to come, not because the same soul was in both, as the heretics think, but because they had the same grace of the Holy Spirit. John was girded as Elias was. Like Elias he lived in the desert. He suffered from Herodias as Elias did from Jezebel. And as Elias shall be the precursor of the Second Advent, so was John of the Lord when He came in the flesh to save us.’

“There is a reference to Mal. iv. 5, ‘Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet.’ The Jews even to this day are eagerly expecting Elias from this prophecy of Malachi, that he may shew Christ unto them, and explain all the doubtful matters of the Law; and therefore they hold him in great account. This was why Christ compared and equaled John to him.”

On Mtt 17:12-13 (after the Transfiguration) — “‘But I say unto you, &c.’ Christ passes at once from the literal to the mystical Elias, i.e., John the Baptist: for concerning John, the angel Gabriel had foretold to his father Zacharias, in S. Luke: ‘And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.’ (i. 17.)

“Falsely do the Calvinists refer all these things to the first Advent of Christ, and explain both mentions of Elias—viz., in verses 11 and 12—to mean John the Baptist. For they think that Elias, whom Malachi predicted shall come as the precursor of Christ (iv. 5), is John the Baptist, and that there is no other who shall come with Enoch before Christ’s second Advent. I have refuted this error at length on Malachi iv. 5.

“For it was Christ’s intention in this place only to explain that saying of the scribes, derived from Malachi, ‘Elias shall come, and shall show you Christ,’—that what Malachi had spoken of Christ’s second Advent might be applied mystically to His first. For the Scribes did not distinguish between the two Advents of Christ, even as the Jews fail to do so still. For they deny that Christ has come, and are expecting Him as still about to come, because Elias has not yet appeared to point Him out. Christ therefore, that He might, in His condescension, give a full explanation to the Scribes, concedes that an Elias would be a precursor of both His Advents; but that in the first it would be the typical, in the second the literal and real Elias. And He means to say that it was not because Elias had not yet come that the Jews persisted in not believing Him to be the Messiah, but because they were perverse and obstinate in their wickedness. For that Elias, who had, been promised before Christ’s first Advent, namely John the Baptist, had already come, and had already pointed out Christ to the Scribes, that He was the Messiah; and they would not believe him. Therefore Christ adds, and they knew him not, i.e., they refused to recognize him, as the precursor of Christ. And they did unto him whatsoever they listed, i.e., when he reproved their vices, they hated and persecuted him, and delivered him up to Herod, who sought his life.

“Then understood, &c. Viz., that John the Baptist was the mystical Elias, and the forerunner of Christ.”

Finally, on John 1:21 (where John denies that he is Elijah) — “‘And they asked him, &c.’ When John denied that he was the Christ, the messengers asked him if he were Elias. For him God took away, that he might be the forerunner of Christ. And of him they were then in expectation, according to the words of Malachi (iv. 5), ‘Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord come,’ meaning the day of judgment, when Christ shall return to be the judge of all. But the Scribes did not understand this. They thought that there would be but one advent of Christ, and that a glorious one, the precursor of which would be Elias. Thus the Jews think even now that Christ has not yet come, but is about to come with Elias. And yet they ought to have known from the same Malachi (iii. 1) that there would be another precursor of Christ’s first coming in the flesh, even John the Baptist. ‘For I,’ saith the Lord, ‘do send My messenger, and he shall prepare My way before My face.’”

Was Jesus immaculately conceived?

2011-12-08T03:59:00.000-08:00

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers, as we know, to the blessed Virgin Mother of God as having been preserved from all sin (including the stain of original sin) from the first moment of her conception. The dogma, of course, is about the Immaculate Conception of Mary – even though many Catholics mistakenly think it refers to the virginal conception of the Christ Child.

Still, this common misconception about the Immaculate Conception leads us to a further point of reflection: Was Christ immaculately conceived? Our answer to this Christological question will help us to understand the Marian dogma in a new light.

What do we mean by “Immaculate Conception”?

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not simply that our Lady was without all sin (including original sin), but specifically that (in view of the merits of Jesus Christ) God preserved her from contracting the stain and guilt of original sin.

Without this singular grace, Mary would have been conceived in sin. Thus, it is clear that Mary needed to be redeemed – but her redemption is unique insofar as it took place at the very instant in which she was conceived. Hence, she has been preserved from both the stain and the guilt of original sin (though she still incurred the debt of sin and had need of a Redeemer).

Thus, in regards to our Blessed Lady, we say that she would have been conceived maculate (with the stain of sin) excepting for the grace of God in view of the foreseen merits of Christ. And this is what the Church means by “Immaculate Conception” – Mary was redeemed by Christ her Son in a preservative (rather than a reformative) manner. According to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was redeemed at the first moment of her existence and was preserved from the guilt of original sin.

Did Christ need to be redeemed?

Our Savior did not need to be redeemed, since he was conceived in grace on two accounts: First, as a divine Person it is clear that no sin (not even original sin) could possibly accrue to him; second, since original sin is passed on through the process of generation and since Christ was conceived without any active generative power on the part of man (for he was conceived of the Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit), it is clear that he did not inherit original sin from Adam.

The Lord Jesus did not need to be redeemed, but was himself the Redeemer. While it is true that all (and even the Blessed Virgin, in one sense) “died” in Adam, the Lord Jesus most certainly did not die in Adam, nor did he contract original sin from him – for his human nature was actively generated by the power of the Holy Spirit and not according to the seminal power of man (thus, he did not and could not inherit original sin).

Unlike the Blessed Virgin Mary, there is no sense in which the Christ had need of a redeemer.

Only Mary received this singular grace – Christ did not require it

When defining the dogma, Pope Blessed Pius IX states that the Immaculate Conception was a “singular grace” given only to our Lady – hence, it is clear that the Lord Jesus did not have need of the grace of the Immaculate Conception.

Beyond the nature of the incarnation itself, there was no need of any additional grace to preserve the Christ Child from contracting original sin from Adam. And this is the great difference between the Savior and his Mother: Mary would have had original sin without a special preservative grace; but the Lord could not possibly have had original sin, since he was God himself and was not conceived according to the mode of human generation.

The difference between Jesus and Mary

And this is the great difference between Jesus and Mary: She required a special grace to preserve her from the stain of sin, but our Savior (by virtue of the Incarnation itself, and on account of his divinity) could not possibly have contracted the guilt or debt of original sin in any respect.

While our Blessed Lady, even though Immaculately Conceived, required a Redeemer (namely, her own Son, Christ Jesus), the Lord did not have any need of a Redeemer. No special grace was required (beyond that of the Incarnation itself) to keep the Christ Child from original sin – he could not possibly have contracted it.

In this sense the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is seen to be fitting and true while (in itself) not absolutely necessary, but the sinslessness of the Lord Jesus is absolutely necessary and super-eminently fitting. Thus, there can be no comparison between the Savior and our Mother Mary, for she was only a creature and was in great need of a Redeemer, but the Lord Jesus was in no way subject original sin and had no need of redemption himself (since his humanity was created by the Holy Spirit and not by the propagation or generation [thus, he did not inherit original sin]).

The dogma Immaculate Conception declares that our Lady was preserved from the stain of sin which she would have ordinarily contracted, but Jesus was conceived in such a manner as to be absolutely free from original sin such that there was no possibility of him contracting it.

Did St. Thomas deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

2011-12-06T04:03:00.000-08:00

As we prepare for the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Thomists are forced to face the rather popular criticism: “You know, St. Thomas doesn’t know everything. After all, he denied the Immaculate Conception!”

Beyond the obvious fact that no good Thomist would ever hold that St. Thomas knew literally everything in the first place, and the fact that nearly every person in St. Thomas’ day who held the Immaculate Conception held the dogma in a heretical way (claiming that our Lady did not need a Redeemer), and also the further point that most of the best theologians of the 12^th and 13^th centuries also seem to have denied the doctrine (including Sts. Bernard, Anselm, Albert the Great, and Bonaventure, as well as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor); beyond all of that, there is this little point: St. Thomas did not (most probably) deny the Immaculate Conception after all.

St. Thomas’ teaching in the Summa Theologica

In the Summa (ST III, q.27, a.1-2), fighting against the false idea of some who held both that Mary was conceived without sin and also that she did not need to be redeemed by the merits of Christ, St. Thomas refuses to commit himself to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It seemed to most theologians (and also to St. Thomas) that, if Mary were conceived without sin, then she would not need a Redeemer – just as Adam would not have needed a Redeemer if he had not sinned. However, we know by faith that Mary was indeed redeemed by Christ, therefore, it seemed to St. Thomas that she could not have been conceived immaculate.

Still, in the Summa, he very clearly states that she was cleansed from sin shortly after conception and while yet in the womb. He holds that her sanctification was preeminent and singular.

While there is certainly some theological confusion in his thought, a good deal of the error in St. Thomas’ consideration of the Immaculate Conception stems from a mistaken understanding of the process of generation and the formation of the child in the womb. St. Thomas (together with others) believed that the body was conceived before the rational soul was created. Hence, his main argument is to prove that our Lady could not have been sanctified before the creation and infusion of her rational soul – and this we can still hold today, Mary was not sanctified before her animation because she was not immaculately conceived before her conception.

However, St. Thomas errs when he goes further and states that Mary was sanctified after her conception – for she was, in fact sanctified in the moment of her conception. Still, even here, St. Thomas' main point is to show that Mary incurred the debt of original sin (which is correct), though he mistakenly also gave her the stain of original sin as well (which is incorrect).

Thus, even in the Summa, St. Thomas is not entirely wrong – and he very clearly wants to place the sanctification of our Lady as close to the very moment of her conception as possible, but he does not yet see how to hold the Immaculate Conception while at the same time holding that our Lady needed to be redeemed by Christ.

Three stages in the Angelic Doctor’s thought

What most people do not know is that St. Thomas’ thought on this issue developed over three stages. The Summa (where he seems to deny the dogma) is the second stage, but in the first and third stages it seems that he believed in the Immaculate Conception.

As a young theologian, St. Thomas commented on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. In that commentary he wrote: “Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.” (I Sent., d.44, q.1, a.3, ad 3) From this, it is quite clear that St. Thomas affirmed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception when he was first beginning his theological career.

The third stage came in the final period of his life, when St. Thomas commented on the Angelic Salutation (around 1272 or 1273) he wrote: “For she (the Blessed Virgin) was most pure in the matter of fault and incurred neither original nor mental nor venial sin.” There is some textual variance among manuscripts, but sixteen out of the best nineteen manuscripts read as above and show that St. Thomas did indeed end his life holding to the belief in the Immaculate Conception. Further, there are several other places in the later works of the Common Doctor where it seems that he affirms the dogma.

At least this much is certain, St. Thomas ended his life leaning much closer to a belief in the Immaculate Conception and was convinced that our Lady received a singular grace in being free from all sin, both actual and even original sin. Therefore, it is ridiculous and quite unfair (not to mention uncharitable) for people to claim that St. Thomas denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

For a further study of St. Thomas’ view on the Immaculate Conception, consider the excellent book by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “The Mother of the Savior” – particularly Part I, Chapter II, Article II: The privilege of the Immaculate Conception (it is here that he discusses St. Thomas’ thought on the matter).

Why was John baptizing?, and John Paul II: When confession is need before communion

2011-12-03T06:00:00.000-08:00

2^nd Sunday of Advent, Mark 1:1-8

John the Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

St. John the Precursor is a central figure of the Advent season and his baptism is set before us not only this Sunday but also the following. But why was John sent to baptize in the first place?

What was the value of John’s baptism? Was it a sacrament? Did it forgive sins? Did it confer grace? Why did John baptize? We will see that our answer directs us to the devotion with which we must receive our Lord in Holy Communion, and the role that confession plays in preparing the way of the Lord.

Four reasons for John’s baptism

St. Thomas Aquinas, following the Church Fathers, enumerates four reasons for John’s baptism (ST III, q.38, a.1):

1) Since it was through being baptized by John that Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism, it is clearly necessary that John should have baptized. Nor would it have been sufficient for John to baptize the Savior alone, since this would make the baptism of John seem to be more precious than that of Jesus – since, John’s baptism would have been applied solely to the God-man, but the baptism of Christ would be applied to many. Further, John led others to the baptism of Christ through his baptism; and thus, it was necessary that others than the Lord should be baptized by him.

2) John baptized in order that Christ might be manifested, for it was through his baptism that the Savior was shown to all as the Beloved Son of the Father. Further, John announced to the crowds who came to him that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and that it was upon our Savior that John saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and remain upon him.

3) John baptized that, by his baptism, he might accustom people to the baptism of the Lord. Indeed, in contrast to the ritual cleansings of the Pharisees, John’s baptism emphasized spiritual conversion. And thus, by gradual steps, the Lord led the people from the purely exterior rituals of the Old Law, to the Sacraments of the New which confer interior grace by the exterior words and actions. (though, to be clear, some of the sacraments of the Old Law did indeed confer grace; but that is another discussion).

4) Finally, John baptized in order that he might induce men to do penance and so to prepare themselves to receive the baptism of the Lord.

John’s baptism did not give grace or forgive sin, but it did prepare the way of the Lord

Still, as valuable as the baptism of John was, it must be admitted that it did not confer grace or forgiveness of sins. Certainly, the repentance that often accompanied the baptism did bring about grace and redemption; but the baptism itself was utterly void of any and all conferral of grace. It is for this reason that St. Thomas states that, “The baptism of John was not a sacrament properly so called, but a kind of sacramental, preparatory to the baptism of Christ.” (ST III, q.38, a.1 ad 2)

Bl. John Paul II: On preparing for communion

The baptism is John is presented to us in order that we might head his words to prepare the way of the Lord in our hearts. Indeed, the best way to be prepared for the second coming is to be united with Christ now; and the best way to succeed in meditating upon Christ in the mysteries of his conception and birth, is to welcome the Savior’s hidden advent (coming) into our hearts now.

Most especially, we want to receive communion with particular devotion during this holy season – since communion is the most precious and intimate moment of receiving Christ into our hearts (not only by grace, but according to substance).

In regard to making worthy communions (and, we add, especially during Advent), Pope John Paul II offers advice regarding the preparation and repentance necessary to approach the sacrament:

“And keep in mind that the teaching of the Council of Trent on the need for confession of all mortal sins still holds and will always hold (sess. XIV, chap. 5 and can. 7). The norm taught by St. Paul and by the same Council of Trent, according to which the worthy reception of the Eucharist must be preceded by the confession of sins when one is conscious of mortal sin, is and always will be in force in the Church (sess. XIII, chap. 7 and can. 11)” (Address to penitentiaries of the four major basilicas in Rome, 30 January 1981).

Thus, it is very much in imitation of St. John the Baptist that the pastors of the Church often offer numerous penance services during the season of Advent – for it is through the sacrament of confession in Advent, that the soul is most well prepared for a fruitful Christmas communion.

If you would like to comment on the format and layout of this blog, please visit our earlier article [here], and leave a comment.

Who was the first disciple of Jesus?

2011-11-30T07:55:00.001-08:00

November 30^th, Feast of St. Andrew

The Church begins her liturgical year with the disciple called first by the Lord. For, while it is true that the Blessed Virgin, St. John the Baptist, St. Elizabeth, and St. Joseph (in that order) all believed in the Messiah before him, St. Andrew is the Protokletos, the first-called.

St. Andrew was the first disciple of Christ Jesus in his public ministry – and in this sense, it is fiting that his feast be celebrated at the first of the Church’s year.

However, there is a difficulty: St. John tells us that Andrew was called in the place where John was baptizing, but St. Matthew specifies that Andrew and Peter were called together while cleaning their nets on the sea of Galilee. How are these two accounts to be reconciled?

The account from St. John

[1:36] And beholding Jesus walking, he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. [37] And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. [38] And Jesus turning, and seeing them following him, saith to them: What seek you? Who said to him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? [39] He saith to them: Come and see. They came, and saw where he abode, and they stayed with him that day: now it was about the tenth hour. [40] And Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John, and followed him.

[41] He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. [42] And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Here we see that Jesus calls Andrew and “the other disciple” (i.e. John the Evangelist) while they were yet disciples of John the Baptist. The vocation of Andrew, according to St. John, occurs south of Galilee on the Jordan River, where John was baptizing. Further, Andrew is called before Peter and he leads his younger brother to the Lord.

The calling of Peter and Andrew, from St. Matthew

[4:18] And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishers). [19] And he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men. [20] And they immediately leaving their nets, followed him.

According to St. Matthew, Jesus calls Andrew together with Peter (and Peter is named first). The two apostles are called while they were fishing on the sea of Galilee. Further, John is called after both Peter and Andrew. Hence, St. Matthew’s Gospel seems to be quite different from St. John’s.

A vocation harmony

The Fathers of the Church labored to prove the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospels. They were especially keen to consider various places where the Gospels seemed to be in contradiction and, when they reconciled this apparent contradiction, they created what came to be called a “Gospel harmony” – to show how the four Gospels, though four voices, make a beautiful harmony singing in unison.

When considering the two accounts of the vocation (i.e. calling) of St. Andrew, the Church Fathers admit that the differences are significant. Therefore, the obvious conclusion must be: St. John is speaking of one calling, and St. Matthew is speaking of another.

Indeed, what we ought to conclude is that St. John discusses the first occasion in which Andrew was called – and, at that moment, he became the Protokletos (first-called). Together with St. John the Beloved, Andrew was the first disciple of Christ in his public ministry.

After this first calling, according to our Savior’s will, Andrew (together with John and Peter) returned to his home and took up again his labor of fishing. Some time later, Christ Jesus returned to Galilee and (after the wedding feast at Cana) he sought out him whom he had first called, together with Peter and John (and James, the brother of John). And this was the second vocation of the apostles – it is recorded in Matthew’s Gospel.

Not only does this reconcile the two Gospel accounts, but it also helps to explain something of the human element in the calling of the apostles at the sea of Galilee. At first, we might be a bit perplexed as to understand how it was that Sts. Peter and Andrew knew to abandon all and follow Christ – simply from St. Matthew’s account, it seems as though they would not know anything at all about our Savior. But, according to this Gospel harmony, we understand that the two had already met Christ and come to know much about him, for (Andrew, at least) had heard St. John the Baptist say of our Lord, Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world; and both had followed him briefly in the area near the Jordan where John was baptizing.

St. Andrew, Pray for us!