The Cross as Perpetually United to Our Savior

September 14^th, Exaltation of the Holy Cross

We adore your Cross, O Lord, and we praise and glorify your holy resurrection: Behold by the wood joy has come into the whole world. (Antiphon from Morning Prayer)

The Catholic Faithful pay a special honor and veneration to the Holy Cross of our Lord. Indeed, we even speak to the Cross as though to Christ Jesus himself as we sing, Ave Crux, Spes unica! “Hail O Cross, our only Hope!”

The True Cross of our Lord, whose feast we celebrate this Sunday, is given such honor, love, and adoration by the Church on account of the marvelous union it shared with our Savior. Let us consider how the Cross was united to the Lord by comparing this union to the Hypostatic Union of Humanity and Divinity in Christ.

The beatitude of poverty, the gift of fear, the virtue of hope

22^nd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 14:1,7-14

Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.

The Savior speaks to those who were dinning at the house of a Pharisee, exhorting them to the practiced of true poverty of spirit. Not only humility, but also a certain poverty is praised – to take the lower place at table, and to invite the poor rather than the rich when holding a banquet.

What then is “poverty in spirit”? How does this relate to the gift of fear of the Lord and the virtue of hope? This question will also clarify the relation of the virtues, the gifts, and the beatitudes.

If Jesus doesn't die, how is the Mass a sacrifice?

Solemnity of Corpus Christi

In the sacramental theology of the Church, we must recognize a threefold distinction. In Latin: Res, Sacramentum, Res et Sacramentum. In English: Reality, Sacrament, Reality and Sacrament. The reality is that invisible grace given by the sacrament. The sacrament is that visible sign which is used in the rite. And the reality and sacrament is an invisible reality which is yet a sign of something further (like, for example, the way the sacred character of baptism is a reality in the soul of the baptized but is also a sacrament of the individual’s participation in Christ).

To properly understand the manner in which the Mass is a sacrifice, we must understand how each of these elements relates to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This will make clear how it is that, even though Jesus does not die upon the altar but remains living and glorified in the Holy Eucharist, the Mass is yet the very self-same sacrifice of the Cross.

Why it is significant that the Eucharist could not have been given before the Incarnation

Solemnity of Corpus Christi

As we prepare to celebrate the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, we do well to consider (in a number of shorter posts, and perhaps one longer) various points relative to the Blessed Sacrament.

We direct our reader to a number of previous posts on the Most Holy Eucharist and the Mass:

Why the bread of life discourse cannot be a metaphor [here]

Christ’s body in heaven and in the Eucharist [here]

The whole Christ is present under both species, but one is called the Body and the other the Blood [here]

Is the Host the flesh of the Sacred Heart? [here]

Does the real presence remain after a Eucharistic miracle? [here]

What makes the Mass to be a sacrifice? [here]

And now we turn to our current question – Could the Eucharist have been given before the Incarnation? And why is this question significant?

St. Thomas' roadmap to the New Testament

March 7^th, Traditional Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

At Fossa Nuova in the year 1274, having received Holy Viaticum and hearing read the Song of Solomon while commenting on the same sacred text which speaks of the love of Christ and the soul, passed into eternal life the Angelic Thomas, Common Doctor of the Universal Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas, known primarily for his systematic and dogmatic theology and, especially, for his supreme and most enlightened work the Summa Theologica, was in his own life recognized as a Master of Sacred Scripture. The primary work in which he was employed was not composition of dogmatic treatises like the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Summa Theologica, but rather lecturing to university students on the Bible.

The Angelic Doctor was a Scripture commentator and, if we admit (as do the Popes and saints) that the Doctor of the Angels is the greatest theologian in the history of the Church, we must likewise assert that he is the supreme biblical scholar of our tradition – for Scripture is the soul of all theology.

We do well then, on this day in which we remember our Saint, to consider how he read the New Testament. Perhaps his little outline will serve as a roadmap for our own study and prayer.

Why we call him "The Angelic Doctor"

January 28^th, Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

The Common Doctor, St. Thomas is often referred to as “Aquinas” after his hometown of Aquino. His most beloved title, however, is the “Angelic Doctor” – and it is this designation which inspires the greatest devotion to the saintly Dominican theologian.

Why is St. Thomas Aquinas properly called the “Angelic Doctor”, the “Angelic Thomas”, and the “Angel of the Schools”?

Christ did not grow in grace or in holiness

And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men. (Luke 2:52, Douay-Rheims)

This passage from the Gospel according to St. Luke is often interpreted (in a manner smacking of heresy) to indicate that there was a substantial growth of holiness and grace in our Savior. However, upon reflection, it will become abundantly clear that such could not have been the case. Jesus could not and did not grow in holiness, but was from the first moment of his conception perfectly and totally holy.

This is especially relevant as we celebrated the feast of the Baptism of the Lord last Sunday not as a moment of increase in grace in our Lord, but as an Epiphany or Manifestation of the fundamental fullness of grace and holiness which he had enjoyed from the moment of his conception.

Why were the heavens opened to Jesus at his baptism?

Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord, Luke 3:15-16,21-22

After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove.

By baptism, men are made to be true sons of God, washed from original (and any actual) sin, infused with the virtues and gifts, built into a true temple of the Holy Trinity, and joined to the mystical Body of Christ which is the Church.

Through baptism, heaven is opened to us. However, heaven was ever open to Christ. Even from the moment of his conception he was the Son of God (by nature), he had no sin, he was filled with the perfection of all the gifts and virtues (as well as of all knowledge), his human soul was indeed that place where the fullness of Godhead deigned to dwell.

Jesus obviously could not increase in grace, being perfect from the moment of his conception – what then is the meaning of the opening of the heavens?

Did Jesus really eat after the Resurrection?

3^rd Sunday of Easter, Luke 24:35-48

While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them.

Christ our Savior manifested the corporality of his glorified body through two principal proofs: First, he allowed his disciples to touch him; second, he ate in their presence.

While spirits, whether angels or separated souls, are indeed capable of appearing in a bodily form, the sight of our Lord eating was taken by the apostles as a certain manifestation of the truth of the resurrection of the flesh.

Yet, we might ask, was it fitting for Christ to eat food after having risen from the dead?

St. Thomas Aquinas, Master of the Sacred Page

March 7^th, 1274 – The Angel of the Schools, completing his earthly pilgrimage, is born to his eternal reward

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Common and Angelic Doctor, once called the Dumb Ox, is known today primarily as a dogmatic theologian. However, in his own time, St. Thomas was recognized as a Magister in Sacra Pagina, a “Master of the Sacred Page”, that is to say, a biblical scholar.

Considering that his primary work in the University of Paris was commentary on various books of the Bible – especially the Pauline Epistles – and recognizing that the true mark of a theological master in the Scholastic period (perhaps more then than in any period before or after) was the exegesis of Sacred Scripture, we are not surprised to learn of the pious legend (which, I believe, is also an historical fact) that, on his death bed, the greatest son of St. Dominic dictated a commentary on the Song of Songs.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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)?

When did Christ reach the "age of reason"?

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.

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

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.

What if the priest messes up the words of consecration?

This past Sunday, in the English speaking world, the new translation of the Mass was implemented. While there were certainly many of little mistakes – most notably, the struggle to say “And with your spirit” – we all can recognize that these are of no great consequence. Surely, we want to celebrate the Mass correctly, but a mistake is only a mistake, right?

However, there is one area where we recognize that a mistake could have serious consequences: What happens if the priest does not say the words of consecration correctly? What if he confuses one or two words, especially if he accidently says some portion of the old translation?

Why didn't Jesus tell us the day and the hour of his return?

1^st Sunday of Advent, Mark 13:33-37

Be watchful! Be alert! You do not know when the time will come.

As we enter upon the season of Advent, the Church with all her children looks to the coming of the Christ. There are, of course, three advents of our Savior: First, when he came as a child (and this is the mystery celebrated on Christmas); second, when we will come at the end of time (and this is the focus of Christ the King and of the first days of Advent); and then a “middle coming”, when he enters the soul by sanctifying grace.

This Sunday’s Gospel focuses on the second coming, the Parousia, the Final Judgment. Our Savior stresses that we do not know the day or hour of his return, and therefore we must watch and pray. Still, we may ask why it was that Jesus didn’t tell us when he would return in glory. Would it not be helpful for us to know the exact time of the judgment?

Can the poor souls pray for us?

In the month of November, it is fitting that we think on the poor souls in purgatory. While it is a matter of faith that the saints can pray for us, and likewise that we can pray for the poor souls, there is no little question as to whether the souls in purgatory can pray for us. While there is much popular devotion today – which seems also to be supported by the experiences of certain more recent saints (for example, St. Pio) – by which the faithful invoke the intercessory power of the holy souls, it is good to recognize that the majority of the tradition is decidedly against this possibility.

Granting that nearly every Church Doctor has either implicitly or even explicitly held that the poor souls cannot pray for us, is there any ground for imploring their intercession?

[Much of this article was occasioned by comments and questions regarding an earlier post on the nature of purgatory.]

The Universal Doctor (not St. Thomas, but his teacher)

Albertus Magnus, with his mitre

He is the Angelic Doctor, the Common Doctor, and the Angel of the Schools, but St. Thomas Aquinas is not the “Universal Doctor”. Rather this title, Doctor Universalis, has been given to the teacher and mentor of St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great – Albertus Magnus.

Personally, this has become one of my own pet-annoyances – so many people keep calling St. Thomas “Universal Doctor” rather than “Common Doctor”. Still, this error is nothing in comparison to the misquotation by which many credit the phrase “grace builds on nature” to St. Thomas (even prominent, conservative bishops say this), when he really said “grace perfects nature” – and this makes all the difference in the world to a true Thomist.

Why is St. Albert called the “Universal Doctor”? And how can we tell St. Albert from St. Thomas in Christian art?