2017-02-27T14:09:34-04:00

Last updated on: February 27, 2017 at 2:09 pm   By

. . .Including Replies to Reformed Baptist Anti-Catholic Polemicist James White

TempleHerod

Reconstruction of Herod’s Temple (at the time of Jesus), with Robinson’s Arch in the foreground [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license]

***

(9-2-04)
*****

This is a continuation of my series of responses to anti-Catholic luminary James White’s response to a talk I gave on Sola Scriptura on the radio show, Catholic Answers Live. [I offer a free download of this interview from 10-10-03]

I have decided to provide a lengthy response to White’s “rebuttal” of just one of the ten points I presented in that appearance. Remember (as I noted before), my talk was a mere summary. I estimated that I had about three minutes to elaborate upon each point, due to radio time constraints. So this was no in-depth analysis (which the extremely multi-faceted and complex topic of sola Scriptura ultimately demands). It doesn’t follow, however, that I am unable to provide a much more in-depth treatment of the topic.

White, after dodging my critiques of his work for nine years now, seized upon this great “opportunity” of my introductory talk on the radio to pretend, on his Dividing Line webcast, that I have “no clue” what I am talking about and “not a bit of substance” (his stock “responses” and insults where I am concerned). In his eyes, I am a complete ignoramus, a pretender, and utterly over my head in this discussion. White was trying to turn this into a half-baked “oral debate” and (as always, as with all his Catholic opponents) to embarrass me as a simpleton and lightweight apologist. We know he thinks this, because he made a statement like the following on his second show:

The problem, of course, is that this is, quite seriously, one of the things I’ve said about Mr. Armstrong and about many Catholic apologists, from the very beginning. They don’t do exegesis, and they don’t know how to. Um, of course, I could argue that they’re not allowed to.

Be that as it may, for my part, I replied that I have dealt with most or all these points (agree or disagree) in lengthy papers elsewhere, which he is most welcome to attempt to refute as he pleases. This one point is no exception. Here is the material upon which I based my radio presentation (I added just a little on the air, but rather than do more tedious transcription, I will cite the original “notes”: indented):

* * * * * 

In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians:

Acts 15:28-29: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that:

. . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)

This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding — with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council.

That’s it! Obviously, this is a bare-bones summary of one argument, that can be greatly expanded, with many aspects and facets of it examined. Also, it is important to note that I was writing a refutation of sola Scriptura, not an apologia for the full authority of the Catholic Church, and papal infallibility, etc. The two things are logically and categorically distinct. One could easily reject sola Scriptura without accepting the authority of Rome and the pope. Many Christians, in fact, do this: e.g., Anglicans and Orthodox. The subject at hand is “whether sola Scriptura is the true rule of faith, and what the Bible can inform us about that.” I made a biblical argument that does not support sola Scriptura at all (quite the contrary). But White, using his usual illogical, wrongheaded, and sophistical techniques, which he has honed to perfection, tried to cleverly switch the topic over to Catholic ecclesiology. 

Beyond that, he also foolishly (but typically) implied that my intent in this argument was some silly notion that I thought I had demonstrated all that (Catholic ecclesiology, the papacy and magisterium, etc.) by recourse to this reasoning. This is part of his opinion that I am so stupid that I am unaware of such elementary logical considerations. Vastly underestimating one’s opponent makes for lousy debates and embarrassing “come-uppances” when the opponent proceeds to demonstrate that he is not nearly as much of a dunce and clueless imbecile as was made out. The Democrats have used this tactic for years in politics. It is disconcerting to see anti-Catholic Baptists follow their illegitimate model in theological discourse.

He is way ahead of the game, of course, and this is a straw man, since I believe no such thing at all. Sola Scriptura means something. It has a well-established definition among Protestant scholars. In the next excerpt, we will see it defined by the well-known, influential Reformed Presbyterian R.C. Sproul. The question at hand is whether sola Scriptura is indicated in the Bible. I gave ten reasons in my talk which suggest that it is not. This particular case, in fact, offers not only non-support, but also direct counter-evidence.

This argument concerning the Jerusalem Council was used in expanded form in my book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants. Here is that portion of the book, in its entirety (indented):

THE BINDING AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS, LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 15:28-29: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Acts 16:4: “As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.”

These passages offer a proof that the early Church held to a notion of the infallibility of Church councils, and to a belief that they were especially guided by the Holy Spirit (precisely as in Catholic Church doctrine concerning ecumenical councils). Accordingly, Paul takes the message of the conciliar decree with him on his evangelistic journeys and preaches it to the people. The Church had real authority; it was binding and infallible.

This is a far cry from the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura — which presumes that councils and popes can err, and thus need to be corrected by Scripture. Popular writer and radio expositor R.C. Sproul expresses the standard evangelical Protestant viewpoint on Christian authority:

For the Reformers no church council, synod, classical theologian, or early church father is regarded as infallible. All are open to correction and critique . . .

(in Boice, 109)

Arguably, this point of view derives from Martin Luther’s stance at the Diet of Worms in 1521 (which might be construed as the formal beginning of the formal principle of authority in Protestantism: sola Scriptura). Luther passionately proclaimed:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me, Amen. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.

(in Bainton, 144)

One Protestant reply to these biblical passages might be to say that since this Council of Jerusalem referred to in Acts consisted of apostles, and since an apostle proclaimed the decree, both possessed a binding authority which was later lost (as Protestants accept apostolic authority as much as Catholics do). Furthermore, the incidents were recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture. They could argue that none of this is true of later Catholic councils; therefore, the attempted analogy is null and void.

But this is a bit simplistic, since Scripture is our model for everything, including Church government, and all parties appeal to it for their own views. If Scripture teaches that a council of the Church is authoritative and binding, then it is implausible and unreasonable to assert that no future council can be so simply because it is not conducted by apostles.

Scripture is our model for doctrine and practice (nearly all Christians agree on this). The Bible doesn’t exist in an historical vacuum, but has import for the day-to-day life of the Church and Christians for all time. St. Paul told us to imitate him (see, e.g., 2 Thess. 3:9). And he went around proclaiming decrees of the Church. No one was at liberty to disobey these decrees on the grounds of “conscience,” or to declare by “private judgment” that they were in error (per Luther).

It would be foolish to argue that how the apostles conducted the governance of the Church has no relation whatsoever to how later Christians engage in the same task. It would seem rather obvious that Holy Scripture assumes that the model of holy people (patriarchs, prophets, and apostles alike) is to be followed by Christians. This is the point behind entire chapters, such as (notably) Hebrews 11.

When the biblical model agrees with their theology, Protestants are all too enthusiastic to press their case by using Scriptural examples. The binding authority of the Church was present here, and there is no indication whatever that anyone was ever allowed to dissent from it. That is the fundamental question. Catholics wholeheartedly agree that no new Christian doctrines were handed down after the apostles. Christian doctrine was present in full from the beginning; it has only organically developed since.

John Calvin has a field day running down the Catholic Church in his commentary for Acts 15:28. It is clear that he is uncomfortable with this verse and must somehow explain it in Protestant terms. But he is not at all unanswerable. The fact remains that the decree was made, and it was binding. It will not do (in an attempt to undercut ecclesial authority) to proclaim that this particular instance was isolated. For such a judgment rests on Calvin’s own completely arbitrary authority (which he claims but cannot prove). Calvin merely states his position (rather than argue it) in the following passage:

. . . in vain do they go about out of the same to prove that the Church had power given to decree anything contrary to the word of God. The Pope hath made such laws as seemed best to him, contrary to the word of God, whereby he meant to govern the Church;
This strikes me as somewhat desperate argumentation. First of all, Catholics never have argued that the pope has any power to make decrees contrary to the Bible (making Calvin’s slanderous charge a straw man). Calvin goes on to use vivid language, intended to resonate with already strong emotions and ignorance of Catholic theology. It’s an old lawyer’s tactic: when one has no case, attempt to caricature the opponent, obfuscate, and appeal to emotions rather than reason.

Far more sensible and objective are the comments on Acts 15:28 and 16:4 from the Presbyterian scholar, Albert Barnes, in his famous Barnes’ Notes commentary:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost. This is a strong and undoubted claim to inspiration. It was with special reference to the organization of the church that the Holy Spirit had been promised to them by the Lord Jesus, Matthew 18:18-20; John 14:26.

In this instance it was the decision of the council in a case submitted to it; and implied an obligation on the Christians to submit to that decision.

Barnes actually acknowledges that the passage has some implication for ecclesiology in general. It is remarkable, on the other hand, that Calvin seems concerned about the possibility of a group of Christians (in this case, a council) being led by the Holy Spirit to achieve a true doctrinal decree, whereas he has no problem with the idea that individuals can achieve such certainty:

. . . of the promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church [cites Mt 28:20, Jn 14:16-17] . . . we are not to give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning.

(Institutes, IV, 8, 11)

But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true.

(Institutes, IV, 8, 12)

Calvin believes that Scripture is self-authenticating. I appeal, then, to the reader to judge the above passages. Do they seem to support the notion of an infallible Church council (apart from the question of whether the Catholic Church, headed by the pope, is that Church)? Do Calvin’s arguments succeed? For Catholics, the import of Acts 15:28 is clear and undeniable.

Sources

Bainton, Roland H., Here I Stand, New York: Mentor Books, 1950.

Barnes, Albert [Presbyterian], Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 1872; reprinted by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1983. Available online.

Boice, James Montgomery, editor, The Foundation of Biblical Authority, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1978, chapter four by R.C. Sproul: “Sola Scriptura: Crucial to Evangelicalism.”

Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 volumes, translated and edited by John Owen; originally printed for the Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1853; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1979. Available online.

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845 from the 1559 edition in Latin; reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1995. Available online.

Now let’s examine White’s reply to my argument on his Dividing Line webcast, and see if it can stand up under scrutiny. Let’s see how cogent and biblical it is, and how well the good, exceedingly-wise Bishop White can survive (what he calls a) “cross-examination” (he, of course, claims that I would utterly wilt under his sublime, brilliant questioning, which is supposedly why I refuse to debate him orally). I have given my argument in summary, in depth; I’ve responded to some historic Protestant objections to it; the argument is in print in a published book from a reputable Catholic publisher: Sophia Institute Press) and now I will counter-reply to White’s own sophistical commentary. Whether he wants to respond back, or flee for the hills as he almost always has before, for nine years, when I critique him, remains to be seen. Let his followers closely note his actions now, if they think he is so invulnerable and unable to be “vanquished.”

[White’s words below will be in blue. I am directly citing his words from the Dividing Line webcast of 8-31-04]:

[start from the time: 23:00. This portion ends at 25:00]

Hello, Mr. Armstrong! Acts 15, apostles are there; the Holy Spirit is speaking; the New Testament’s being written; hellooo! This is a period of inscripturation, and revelation! The only way to make that relevant is to say, “you still have apostles and still receive revelation,” but you all believe the canon’s closed, so that doesn’t work. This isn’t some extrabiblical tradition! This is the tradition of the Bible itself! It’s revelation! Uh, again, see why, as long as you don’t allow anyone to cross-examine you; remember Proverbs 18. The first one to present his case always seems right, until his opponent comes along and questions him. That’s what live debate allows to take place. [mocking, derisive, condescending tone throughout]

This is White’s entire answer. On the next Dividing Line of 9-2-04, which I just listened to live, he also added a few brief comments about the same argument:

. . . [the Jerusalem Council is binding] “as a part of Scripture.”

“The Church does have authority; not infallible authority.”

Now let’s see how this stands up, when analyzed closely. I shall respond to each statement in turn:

Hello, Mr. Armstrong!

Hello, Your Eminence, the Right Reverend Bishop Dr. James R. White, Th.D.!

apostles are there

So what? How does that change anything? Are not apostles models for us? Of course, they are. St. Paul tells us repeatedly to imitate him (1 Cor 4:16, Phil 3:17, 2 Thess 3:7-9). White would have us believe that since this is the apostolic period and so forth, it is completely unique, and any application of the known events of that time to our own is “irrelevant.” He acts as if the record of the Book of Acts has no historical, pedagogical import other than as a specimen of early Christian history, as if it is a piece of mere archaeology, rather than the living Word of God, which is (to use one of Protestants’ favorite verses) “profitable for teaching . . . and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16-17). So now the historical passages of the New Testament are “irrelevant”? Only the straight-out doctrinal teaching can be used to ascertain correct doctrine? If so, then where is that taught in Scripture itself, etc.? Passages like Hebrews 11, which recount the deeds of great saints and biblical heroes, imply that they are a model for us.

White’s viewpoint as to the implications of the Jerusalem Council is theologically and spiritually naive or simplistic because it would force us to accept recorded, inspired apostolic teaching about the Church and ecclesiology (whatever it is), yet overlook and ignore the very application of that doctrine to real life, that the apostles lived out in that real life. We would have to believe that this council in Jerusalem had nothing whatsoever to do with later governance of the Church, even though apostles were involved in it. That, in effect, would be to believe that we are smarter and more knowledgeable about Christian theology than the apostles were. They set out and governed the Church, yet they were dead-wrong, or else what they did has no bearing whatsoever on later Christian ecclesiology. Since this is clearly absurd, White’s view that goes along with it, collapses.

Moreover, this is a foolish approach because it would require us to believe that Paul and other apostles were in error with regard to how Christian or Church authority works. The preached a certain thing in this instance. If they believed in sola Scriptura (as models for us), then they would have taught what they knew to be Scripture (in those days, the Old Testament), and that alone, as binding and authoritative (for this is what sola Scriptura holds). If they didn’t understand authority in the way that God desired, how could they be our models? And if the very apostles who wrote Scripture didn’t understand it, and applied it incorrectly in such an important matter, how can we be expected to, from that same Scripture? A stream can’t rise above its source.

Lastly, White implicitly assumes here, as he often does, that everything the apostles taught was later doctrinally recorded in Scripture. This is his hidden premise (or it follows from his reasoning, whether he is aware of it or not). But this is a completely arbitrary assumption. Protestants have to believe something akin to this notion, because of their aversion to authoritative, binding tradition, but the notion itself is unbiblical. They agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching would be “extrabiblical” (i.e., not recorded in Scripture). The Bible itself, however, teaches us that there are such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (Jn 20:30, 21:25, Acts 1:2-3, Lk 24:15-16,25-27). The logic is simple (at least when laid out for all to see):

1. Apostles’ teaching was authoritative and binding.
2. Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not.
3. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later “inscripturated” or not.
4. Therefore, early Christians were bound to “unbiblical” teachings or those not known to be “biblical” (as the Bible would not yet be canonized until more than three centuries later).
5. If they were so bound, it stands to reason that we could and should be, also.
6. Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2).
7. Scripture informs us that much more was taught by Jesus and apostles than what is recorded in it.
8. Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole rule of faith or that what is recorded in it about early Church history has no relevance to later Christians because this was the apostolic or “inscripturation” period. Those are all arbitrary, unbiblical traditions of men.

One could go on and on about the falsehood of White’s opinion here. His view is simply wrongheaded and not required by the Bible at all. It is an unsubstantiated, unbiblical tradition within Protestantism, that has to exist in order to bolster up the ragged edges of another thoroughly unbiblical tradition: sola Scriptura. As the latter cannot be proven at all from Scripture, it, and all the “supports” for it such as this one, are all logically circular.

. . . the Holy Spirit is speaking . . .

Exactly! This is my point, and what makes the argument such a strong one. Here we have in Scripture itself a clear example of a Church council which was guided by the Holy Spirit. That is our example. It happened. White can go on and on about how these were apostles, but the apostles had successors. We know from Scripture itself that bishops were considered the successors of the apostles.

There was to be a certain ecclesiology. The New Testament speaks of this in relatively undeveloped ways (just as it speaks of fine points of Christology and trinitarianism in an undeveloped sense, which was developed by the Church for hundreds of years afterwards).

If the Holy Spirit could speak to a council then, He can now. Why should it change? This doesn’t require belief in ongoing revelation. That is another issue. The disciples were clearly told by our Lord Jesus (at the Last Supper) that the Holy Spirit would “teach you all things” (Jn 14:26) and “guide you into all truth” (Jn 16:13). This can be understood either as referring to individuals alone, in a corporate sense, or both. If it is corporate, then it could apply to a church council. And in fact, we see exactly that in the Jerusalem Council, after Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascension.

Of course, if white wants to assert that the Holy Spirit can’t speak any more, after the apostolic age and the age of revelation, that is up to him, but that is equally unbiblical and unnecessary. He can give us non biblical proof that this is the case, anymore than some Protestants (perhaps white himself) are “cessationists,” who believe that miracles and the spiritual; gifts ceased with the apostles also.

. . . the New Testament’s being written . . . This is a period of inscripturation and revelation!

So what? What does that have to do with how these early Christians regarded authority and how they believed that councils were binding? Where in the Bible does it say that this period is absolutely unique because the Bible was being written during it? The inspired Bible either has examples of historical events in it which are models for us, or it doesn’t. If it does, White’s case collapses again. If it doesn’t, I need to hear why someone would think that, based on the Bible itself, which doesn’t even list its own books, let alone teach us that we can’t determine how the Church was to be governed by observing how the first Christians did it .

The only way to make that relevant is to say, “you still have apostles and still receive revelation” . . .

On what basis is this said? I don’t see this in the Bible anywhere. Why do we have to still have apostles around in order to follow their example, as we are commanded to do? What does the ending of revelation have to do with that, either? Therefore, it is (strictly-speaking) an “extrabiblical tradition.” If so, then it is inadmissible (in the sense of being binding) according to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If that is the case, then I am under no obligation to accept it; it is merely white’s arbitrary opinion. Nor is White himself. He contradicts himself, and this is a self-defeating scenario, involving the following self-contradiction:

In upholding the principle which holds only biblical teachings as infallible and binding, I must appeal to an extrabiblical teaching.

This is utterly incoherent, inconsistent reasoning, and must, therefore, be rejected.

You all believe the canon’s closed, so that doesn’t work.

The question of the canon is irrelevant to this matter as well. Protestants and Catholics agree as to the New Testament books. So what is found in the New Testament is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. That’s why I cite it to make my arguments about ecclesiology and the rule of faith, just like I defend any other teaching I believe as a Catholic.

This isn’t some extrabiblical tradition! It’s the tradition of the Bible itself! It’s revelation!

Bingo! Why does he think I used it in the first place?! Exactly!!! Dr. White thus nails the lid on the coffin of his own “case” shut and covers it with a foot of concrete. This “tradition of the Bible” in Acts 15 and 16 teaches something about the binding authority of church councils, and it is not what sola Scriptura holds (which is the very opposite, of course). Case closed. White can grapple with this portion of what all agree is inspired revelation all he wants, and offer pat answers and insufficiently grounded, circular reasoning all he likes; that doesn’t change the fact.

Then White stated that the Council is binding “as a part of Scripture.”

This is equally wrongheaded and off the mark. It was binding, period, because it was a council of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (a fact expressly stated by inspired Scripture itself). It would have been binding on Christians if there had never been a New Testament (and at that time there was not yet one anyway). Whether this was recorded later in Scripture or not is irrelevant. If Dr. White disagrees, then let him produce a statement in the New Testament which teaches us what he claims: that it was only binding because it later was recorded in Scripture. If he can’t, then why should we believe him? I am the one arguing strictly from Scripture and what it reveals to us; he is not. He has to fall back on his own arbitrary opinions: mere extrabiblical traditions of men.

Of course, the Church later acts in precisely the same way in its ecumenical councils, declaring such things as that those who deny the Holy Trinity are outside Christianity and the Church, or that those who deny grace alone (Pelagians) are, etc. They make authoritative proclamations, and they are binding on all Christians. The Bible and St. Paul taught that true Christian councils were binding, but Martin Luther, James White, and most Protestants deny this. I will follow the Bible and the apostles, if that must be the choice, thank you.

The Church does have authority; not infallible authority.

Sorry to disagree again, but again, that is not what the Bible taught in this instance. Here the Church had infallible authority in council, and was led by the Holy Spirit. This is clearly taught in the Bible. Period. End of discussion. I think White senses the power of this argument, which is why he tried to blithely, cavalierly dismiss it, with scarcely any discussion (an old lawyer’s trick, to try to fool onlookers who don’t know any better). Knowing that, he has to use the “this is the period of inscripturation and the apostles” argument, but that doesn’t fly, and is not rooted in the Bible, as shown. We are shown here what authority the Church has. If White doesn’t like it, let him produce an express statement in the Bible, informing us that the Church is fallible. One tires of these games and this sort of “theological subterfuge,” where the person who claims to be uniquely following the Bible, and it alone, invents nonsense out of whole cloth, when directly confronted with portions of that same Bible that don’t fit into their preconceived theology and arbitrary traditions of men. Our Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul dealt with this in their time. Sadly, we continue to today.

Addendum: Dividing Line of 9-2-04

This was more of the same silliness, with even less solid reply. It was remarkable (even by White’s low standards) in its sustained juvenile, giggly mocking of Catholics, especially as White sat and listened to the advertising on the Catholic Answers Live show. I found this to be a rather blatant demonstration of the prejudiced mindset and mentality of the anti-Catholic. But as I have known of this tendency in the good bishop for many years, it came as no surprise at all. He started out with the obligatory digs at me:

[derisive laughter throughout]

Dave’s just playin’ along with the game; you know what I mean?
How can you self-destruct two times on your own blog?
. . . I feel sorry for old Dave . . .
We didn’t have a postal debate . . . absolute pure desperation . . .

White even went after Cardinal Newman later on:

[Newmanian development of doctrine is a] convenient means of abandoning the historical field of battle.

He went on to state that this involves a “nebulous” notion of doctrine whereby it can be molded and transmutated into almost anything, no matter how it relates to what went before. Of course, this is a complete distortion of Newman’s teaching (which is an organic, continuous development of something which remains itself all along, like a biological organism), and shows profound ignorance of it by Dr. White, but that is another topic. Those who are familiar with Newman’s thought will see how bankrupt this “analysis” is. But this comes straight from the 19th-century Anglican anti-Catholic controversialist George Salmon (it is almost a direct quote from him). Nothing new under the sun . . .

I hope readers have enjoyed another installment of my writing which has, of course, no substance whatsoever, and where I exhibit yet again my marked characteristic of not having a clue concerning that of which I write. And I’m sure you will enjoy White’s lengthy written reply, too (just don’t hold your breath waiting for that, please!).

*****

Meta Description: Discussion about the relationship of Church authority to inspired Scripture; + exchanges with anti-Catholic polemicist James White. 

Meta Keywords: Anti-Catholicism, apostolic succession, apostolic tradition, Bible Only, Catholic Tradition, Christian Authority, development of doctrine, James White, Rule of Faith, Scripture Alone, Sola Scriptura, Tradition

2017-02-27T14:13:43-04:00

Last updated on: February 27, 2017 at 2:13 pm   By

. . . with Dr. Stanley Williams

EucharistJesus

Christ with the Eucharist, late 16th century, by Joan de Joanes (1510-1579) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(7-18-07)

****

This is an extended excerpt from my DVD Study Guide for the EWTN television series What Catholics Really Believe. The questions (in blue) were written by my friend, Dr. Stanley Williams.

* * * * *

Episode 4
EUCHARIST I

Logical and Early Church Evidence
Objection to Catholicism

A – Catholics cannot really believe that the bread and wine taken in communion are truly the body of Jesus Christ; our physical senses tell us that it’s flour and wine.

Physical objects that appear solid are mostly composed of what?

Space in between atoms, composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Describe the motion of physical objects that appear to be still?

Electrons are always moving. The Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger, in the 1920s, contended (quite successfully) that electrons are three-dimensional waveforms, as opposed to particles.

How fast are parts of the atoms in a still object actually moving?

Electrons constantly move at velocities approaching the speed of light.

Do our physical senses give us an accurate or an inaccurate understanding of an object’s actual nature?

Physical senses (without the aid of sophisticated microscopes, accompanied by even more complicated theories of physics and mathematics) cannot enable us to comprehend the fundamental properties of matter.

How do Dr. Guarendi and Dr. Richard’s explanation of the laws of physics and our observations of a physical object apply to our understanding of the nature of The Eucharist?

What “appears” to be so may not be that way at all. Objects that appear perfectly at rest are in fact, partially moving at velocities close to the speed of light. Likewise, what appears to us as bread and wine can in fact be the Body and Blood of Christ, made supernaturally present in the consecrated elements (formerly bread and wine), according to the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself: the same Jesus Who could travel through walls in His glorified body (John 20:26; cf. 1 Cor 15:51-53). According to modern physics and quantum mechanics, such things are literally possible, even in a purely physical realm. So how is there any inherent difficulty in believing in transubstantiation (“change of substance”)?

If our physical senses are incapable of accurately describing a natural object, by what can we accurately describe a supernatural object?

The Bible describes supernatural objects with “phenomenological” language (the language of appearances and simple observation). For example, in the previous example of Jesus walking through walls, the Bible doesn’t attempt to delve into 20th century particle physics; it simply says “The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them . . .” (John 20:26). Likewise, the Bible refers to “this [what appears to be bread] is My Body” (Luke 22:19-20), and Paul equates bread and wine with the “body and blood of the Lord” that can be profaned in an irreverent receiving of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf. 10:14-22).

Objection to Catholicism

B – Jesus was not God because he did not look like God. He looked just like man.

If we could have looked through a microscope at the embryo of Jesus Christ in Mary’s womb, would our senses have perceived God or just a human cell reproducing? Why?

The attributes of the incarnate God cannot be ascertained by conventional methods of scientific observation. Jesus wanted people to accept Who He was by faith. Hence, Jesus says to “doubting Thomas” after the latter had put his hand in the wound in His side: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).

When Jesus was a man did people generally see a man, or did they recognize God? Why?

Those who did not have doubt or serious sin and spiritual “blindness” (John 9:39-41) often regarded Him as God, in faith; for example, the blind man healed by Jesus, who worshiped Him (John 9:35-38), and “doubting Thomas,” after Jesus appeared to him (John 20:28). The ones who were blind assumed that He was not only just a man, but also a quite sinful one (John 9:24; cf. Matt 12:22-27, 38-42).

What prevents humans from recognizing God in any form, such as Jesus the Man, or Jesus in the Eucharist? 

Lack of faith, and excessive doubt and cynicism. Signs, wonders, and miracles (and by extension, “scientific proof”) do not suffice for many hard-hearted people anyway:

. . . If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead. (Luke 16:31)

In John 6, we see that unbelief and lack of faith and skepticism kept “many of his disciples” (6:60) from believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and actually forsaking the Lord (6:66), because it was a “hard saying” (6:60). Jesus appealed to His ascension, which was an even greater, and more visible miracle (6:62) thus seemingly implying: “if you can’t believe this miracle, how, then, will you be able to believe in that one; yet you will see that with your own eyes.”

If we cannot use our senses to determine if something is God or not, what can we use? Why?

Faith and the sure word of revelation; also our internal God-given sense of the holiness that Jesus exhibited in His life, and the trustworthy reports of those who were eyewitnesses of His glory (Luke 1:1-2; Acts 1:1-3). See the previous three answers.

What is wrong with using natural law to explain the “super” natural?

Nothing whatsoever! We can utilize that which we know and understand, in order to comprehend (by analogy or parallel) supernatural things that are mysteries to us. Jesus did the same, by using agricultural metaphors in His parables, to reveal the truths of spirituality. Our Lord even compared the unwillingness of the Pharisees and Sadducees to use the same reasoning they use with regard to natural meteorological events of the weather, and apply it to spiritual matters:

Matthew 16:1-4 And the Pharisees and Sad’ducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, `It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, `It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

Objection to Catholicism

C – The Eucharist is just a memorial or symbolic meal. That it is the real body and blood of Christ, is something made up by the Catholic Church over the centuries.

Explain how John 6 refutes this objection?

Jesus uses extremely literal language in John 6:51-58:

51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53: So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

If this were intended as mere symbolic or figurative language, it seems that it was the least likely to convey that meaning, of any language imaginable. How could it be any more literal than it is? How Jesus reacted to the doubts of the hearers (see related information above), also reinforces this interpretation.

How do the writings of the Early Church Fathers refute this objection?

In the early second century (before 110 A.D.), St. Ignatius of Antioch held that “the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7,1) In the middle of the same century, St. Justin Martyr distinguishes the Eucharist from “common” bread and drink and calls it “both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology, 66,2) A little later, St. Irenaeus writes, “The bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of (the) Lord, and the cup His Blood.” (Against Heresies, 4,18,4 / 4,33,2; cf. 4,18,5).

St. John Chrysostom speaks of the priest as the representative of God in the Mass, exercising solely His power and grace, in order to “transform the gifts” which “become the Body and Blood of Christ.” (Homilies on Judas, 1,6) Elsewhere he equates the Eucharist with Christ’s “blood-stained” Body, “pierced by a lance.” (Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 24).

St. Augustine, the greatest of the Fathers, writes that “Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said ‘This is My Body.'” (Explanations of the Psalms, 33,1,10) He expressly sanctions adoration of the consecrated Host:

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless first he adores it . . . we do sin by not adoring. (Explanations of the Psalms, 98,9)

When Christ says “I will be with you always, even until the end of the world,” why do Catholics believe this promise to be the literal physical
presence of Jesus and not the Holy Spirit?

Because right before He said this (Matt 28:20) He also urged His disciples to “observe all that I have commanded you”. The Eucharist was precisely what Christians do (in obedience to the command at the Last Supper) to bring remembrance to Jesus’ presence on earth; and not only remembrance, but Real Presence. Paul said that in observing the Eucharist, we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). John 6:53-54,58 intimately connects the Eucharist with both spiritual and eternal life. John 6:56 makes reception of the Eucharist a necessity for Jesus to “abide” in believers, and vice versa (cf. John 14:23, 15:4-7).

One of the objections against the early Christians was that during their worship services they were practicing cannibalism. How does this historical
fact reinforce the Early Church belief in the true presence?

It shows that the early Christians were taking Jesus literally (John 6; Last Supper utterances about the bread and the wine being His Body and Blood). But the pagans (like the skeptics who disbelieved in John 6) did not understand the distinction between physical cannibalism and a spiritual, sacramental Real Presence.

Explain how John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word…”) and John 1:14 (“And The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…”) reflects the
Catholic Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

This involves the intimate connection between the incarnation and the Eucharist (both entail physical presence of God Himself). Catholic convert Thomas Howard elaborates:

Sacrament, recalling and presenting the Incarnation itself, is not so much supernatural as quintessentially natural, because it restores to nature its true function of being full of God . . . Indeed heaven and earth are full of His glory. Nature is the God-bearer, so to speak . . . In the Sacrament, bread, which is already a metaphor, is taken and raised to a dignity beyond mere metaphor . . . one step away from the Incarnation itself . . . It is a scandal. God is not man, any more than bread is flesh. But faith overrides the implacable prudence of logic and chemistry . . .

This mystery . . . may be held only in faith, even though it, like the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension, exists quite apart from faith. `out there’ in the real world. (Evangelical is Not Enough, Nashville: Nelson, 1984, 110-112)


Objection to Catholicism

D – Catholics just pick and choose the writings of the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to prove that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There were other writers who said it was only symbolic.

What is the best way to refute this objection?

By citing the judgment of Protestant Church historians, who themselves do not believe the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist (hence cannot be accused of bias in favor of patristic support for the doctrine), yet accurately report what the Fathers believed. For example, the well known Protestant historian Philip Schaff:

The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim……

[Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion ‘verissimum sacrificium’ of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (‘immolat’) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God, 10,20]

(History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507)

What did Luther say about the true presence of the Eucharist?

It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope. (Early 1520s; in Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 376; Luther’s Works, [edited by Jaroslav Pelikan] 37, 317)

The glory of our God is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our body. (in Althaus, ibid., 398; Luther’s Works , 37, 71 ff.)

. . . Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius . . . called him a baked God, a God made of bread, a God made of wine, a roasted God, etc. They called us cannibals, blood-drinkers, man-eaters . . . even the papists have never taught such things, as they clearly know . . .

For this is . . . how it was accepted in the true, ancient Christian church of fifteen hundred years ago . . . When you receive the bread from the altar, . . . you are receiving the entire body of the Lord; . . . (Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament, September 1544; Luther’s Works, 38, 291-292)

What symbol in the catacombs and ancient churches reinforced the early Church’s belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

The famous symbol of the fish, and depictions of three of Jesus’ miracles related to food: the feeding of the 5,000 with fish and bread, the banquet of seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee with the raised Jesus, and the miracle of the wedding at Cana (changing water into wine).

Episode 5
EUCHARIST II

Scriptural Evidence

REVIEW of EPISODE 4 – EUCHARIST I

Objection to Catholicism

A – The Catholic Church invented this crazy idea that Jesus’ body and blood are really present in the Eucharist. It’s really nuts to think that a priest can pray over a wafer and turn it miraculously into Jesus Christ.

If the Catholic claim that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist is true, who is the only person that could be responsible for the miracle of it?

Jesus Himself! If that is how He decided to miraculously become physically present again, after His earthly sojourn, then we can hardly object, seeing that it is hardly any different in essence than the Incarnation itself: God becoming man. On the other hand, if it is false doctrine, no priest could “conjure” up Jesus’ presence, because they are dealing with the omnipotent God, and He is not to be trifled with or manipulated.

How early in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and in what context, can you find the concept of transubstantiation?

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66:5 (complete; emphasis added):

And this food is called among us [eucharistia] [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Objection to Catholicism

B – The concept of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not in the Bible.

With respect to the consecration of the Eucharist, what is the significance of the Bible’s mentioning Melchizedek? 

Psalm 110:4: The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz’edek.”

When we trace the origin of this back, we find some very interesting things:

Genesis 14:18: And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

Leviticus 23:12-14: And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the LORD. And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, to be offered by fire to the LORD, a pleasing odor; and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. (cf. also Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1-28)

What was the function of the Old Testament priest?

The priest presided over and performed ritual sacrifices of bulls and other things, in order to atone for the sins of the people.

How did Christ’s actions and words at the Last Supper parallel the Old Testament priestly sacrifice for people’s sins?

The Last Supper was actually a Passover meal, in which lamb and bread and wine were consumed, and was for the purpose of the people remembering how God had physically delivered them from bondage in Egypt. Jesus used this symbolism to introduce the notion of the Eucharist: now bread and wine were to be transubstantiated into His Body and Blood and His followers would be spiritually delivered by His sacrifice as the “lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And they were to remember this in the Eucharist henceforth, just as the Jews observed the Passover rite in remembrance.

Although Christ lifts up the bread at the Last Supper what does he say the bread is? (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

“This is My body” – as opposed to “this represents My body” or “this contains my Body” or “My Body is present with, in, and under the bread”, or “this is a symbol to help you remember My Body,” etc.

When Christ prays over the bread and wine at the last supper, what words does he use that can be implied to mean that the bread and wine are only
symbolic of his body and blood?

None can be reasonably interpreted that way. The closest (so some believe) is “do this in remembrance of me.” But in the Hebrew mind that didn‘t imply that it was a mere recollection or mental image or pleasing nostalgia; but rather, the reality being made present here and now, just as the Jews regarded Passover.

What did St. Augustine say Jesus held in his hands at the Last Supper?

His own Body: “Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said ‘This is My Body.'” (Explanations of the Psalms, 33,1,10)

At the Last Supper to what everlasting Old Testament concept did Jesus relate the cup of wine? 

The covenant between God and His people:

Matthew 26:28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14: 24: And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

What Old Testament object of sacrifice did the blood of Christ represent?

Bulls, rams, and lambs, used in ritual sacrifice, for atonement. Revelation 7:14 and 12:11 refer to “the blood of the Lamb [Jesus].”

Jesus’ words and actions at the Last Supper revisited the Jewish Passover meal. What did those that celebrated the Passover meal have to eat —
completely?

The lamb, and bread and wine.

Explain the significance of the following Scripture in terms of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Jewish community?

My name will be great among the gentiles, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place, incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name. (Malachi 1:11)

In the New Covenant, the Lamb of God and the cross represent the continuation and development of the Old Testament sacrificial system (which is no longer even being performed by the Jews). This passage refers to the Gentiles “in every place” making pure offerings. But since it is not animal sacrifices, it is reasonable to assume that what is referred to is the sacrifice of the Mass and re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus, who as once for all, offered at Calvary. The incense represents the prayers of the Mass.

In John 6:52-66, how many times does Jesus say or allude to His body or blood as being true food?

Twice very directly (6:55) and eight more times speaking of “eating “and “drinking”.

Fr. Kevin makes the point that John 6:66 is the only place in the Gospels where a group of believers walked away from Jesus and did not follow Him
again. What was Jesus teaching that was too hard for them to believe?

That His followers had to eat His flesh and drink His blood (sacramentally) in order to have spiritual and eternal life.

In terms of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote about the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:19-20) what is significant about when John wrote his Gospel and why?

By the time of John’s writing (later in the first century), the Gnostic heresy was starting to deny that Jesus had come in the flesh, and indeed, asserted that flesh itself was a bad thing. So John emphasized the physical and “realist” nature of the Eucharist over against that false teaching.

Non-Catholics might quote John 6:63 as evidence that Christ was speaking symbolically and not literally about the bread and wine being his true body and blood. Why is this not likely a good interpretation, and how does this verse reinforce Catholic understanding of the Eucharist’s reality?

Jesus was contrasting “flesh” in the sense of “flesh and blood” (or a merely natural human understanding; see, e.g., Matt 16:17 for a clear example of this meaning) to spiritual discernment. He wasn’t referring to the Eucharist, but rather to “the words that I have spoken”. “Spirit and life” refers back to His references to spiritual and eternal life as a result of partaking of the Eucharist (6:50-51,53-54,56-58).

In the Eucharistic consecration what does the “EPIKLESIS” prayer do, and why is it significant in relation to John 6:63?

It reinforces the power of Jesus’ words. God’s words bring about what they refer to. So when the priest repeats the words of Jesus at the Last Supper (the consecration), they continue to achieve what they did then, and Jesus becomes present through the power of the Word. Hence the relation to John 6:63: “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

In Luke 22:19 Christ says during the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Non-Catholics believe that the word “remembrance” here means to remember symbolically. But what does “remembrance”, or “ANAMNESIS” in Greek, really mean? Why does this mean the opposite of “symbolic?”

It means “active re-presentation” according to Greek scholars. It is the opposite of symbolic just as “re-present” (the original thing again) is different from “represent” (one thing symbolizing another). Hence, Paul uses ultra-realistic language, even stating in 1 Cor 11:27 that partaking of the Eucharist unworthily is the same as profaning His Body and Blood.

Some non-Catholics interpret 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 — which includes Paul’s admonition about not discerning the body of Christ — as referencing the body of believers and not the real flesh of Christ. Why does Fr. Kevin say this makes no sense? 

Because the language is related to the Eucharist instituted at the Last Supper. Jesus referred to the bread and the wine as His Body and Blood. The “Body of Christ” (the Church) is a completely different sense. So Paul equates the bread and the cup with the Body and Blood of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:27. In the next verse, he urges Christians to do a self-examination before receiving Holy Communion.

In Luke 24 Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus. During their walk Jesus explains the Old Testament prophecies
about the Messiah. But the disciples do not recognize Jesus until when? What does Jesus do that suddenly opens their eyes with understanding?

When Jesus broke bread (a gesture reminiscent of the Last Supper): “When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.” (Luke 24:30-31)

Explain how John 1:1, 14, 18 and Luke 24:30-31 can be related and apply to the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It is when “the Word became flesh” that God was most fully revealed (John 1:18). As the Incarnation revealed God visibly, so the Eucharist makes Jesus present again and gives us spiritual life, through the same principle of the Incarnation and matter conveying grace. In this instance, the eyes of the two disciples were blinded until the moment of the Eucharist, and “then they recognized him”. The knowledge is spiritually discerned, but made possible through the instrument of the grace-infused (John 1:14) matter (in the Eucharist, the actual Body and Blood of Jesus).

*****

Meta Description: The usual objections to the Real Presence and transubstantiation are answered.

Meta Keywords: consecration, Holy communion, Holy Eucharist, Real presence, sacramentalism, sacrifice of the mass, substantial presence, The Mass, transubstantiation

2017-04-19T13:12:55-04:00

Last updated on: April 19, 2017 at 1:12 pm   By

DisciplesFish

The Miraculous Draught, by Henri-Pierre Picou (1824-1895) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

(10-4-14)

****

Is this a refusal to “meet people where they are at”?

If we think that something Jesus said is “spiteful” we clearly have taken a wrong turn in our exegesis. This isn’t consigning folks to hell. It’s a typically Jewish figurative-but-concrete expression of protest against rebelliousness, hardheartedness, and stubbornness (perhaps the leading theme of the entire Old Testament). Hence Jesus says:

Luke 9:5 (RSV) And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.

Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier wrote: “they are evangelizing their fellow Israelites at a particular historical moment in Israel’s history.”

Yes, when it was their time (the “fullness of time”) to accept the gospel and the Messiah or not. Great point. They certainly had heard and seen more than enough, and now more than ever with Jesus and miracles taking place all around.

We mustn’t think that God strives with men forever. He clearly does not. They can cut themselves off with persistent rebellion, as Paul makes clear in Romans 1 and many other places. God can only work with a free will freely accepting His grace and mercy. This is the point.

Jesus acted quite differently with Jews who spurned His message than with Gentiles who had not yet been exposed to God’s teaching at all (as the Jews had been with some 1500 years or revelation and salvation history).

He simply rebuked stubborn Jews (think of all the discourses against the Pharisees). He knew what was going on there. It was a rebellious spirit. He didn’t argue at any length with folks like that. Being omniscient, He knew who would accept His message and who wouldn’t, and there was no point.

Both Jesus and Paul would argue / reason / dialogue with and try to persuade people who were open-minded, but not with those who weren’t. Both left (and rebuked) towns that were not receptive to the gospel:

Matthew 11:20-24  Then he began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. [21] “Woe to you, Chora’zin! woe to you, Beth-sa’ida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. [22] But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. [23] And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. [24] But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”

Acts 18:4-6 And [in Corinth] he argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks. [5] When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedo’nia, Paul was occupied with preaching, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. [6] And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

And of course, St. Paul in many of his writings urges us not to participate in foolish controversies and to separate from divisive, unrepentant people. That’s all quite biblical and quite loving, and very contrary to our present “PC” society with its false tolerance and pseudo-principles and supposedly nicey-nicey “values.” We mustn’t let ourselves be too influenced by that sort of thinking rather than the biblical worldview.

*****

Meta Description: We mustn’t let ourselves be too influenced by secular “PC” thinking rather than the biblical worldview.

Meta Keywords: Gospel, kerygma, rebellion, stiff-necked, preaching, shake the dust off of your feet, disciples, evangelization

2017-02-27T14:54:08-04:00

Last updated on: February 27, 2017 at 2:54 pm   By
CrucifixionDali
Salvador Dali’s Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Photograph by Ben Sutherland, 3-24-09 [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license] 
(1995)
*****

Thomas [Protestant]: Hey Joe, how can you Catholics believe that the communion wafer actually turns into the Body and Blood of Christ? Do you expect me to accept that?!

Joe [Catholic]: Because in this case, we are the ones who insist on taking the Bible literally. There is much to suggest the miracle we call Transubstantiation. For instance, in John 6:51-56, Jesus states five times that “whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (v.54).

Thomas: That’s obviously symbolism. Jesus usually taught in parables, and He was often misunderstood, like when He said He would rebuild the Temple in three days (Jn 2:18-21).

Joe: Yes, Thomas, but when the Jews (v.52) and “many” of His disciples (v.60) objected, Christ merely restated His words forcefully, rather than assure them He wasn’t speaking literally. He was so firm that many left Him (v.66). He could have easily prevented their confusion.
*

Thomas: One exception to the rule doesn’t prove much.

Joe: It’s not an exception. Jesus took great care to correct wrong impressions, when the hearers were open to receiving His words, such as in John 3:1-15, where Nicodemus didn’t comprehend being “born again,” and Matthew 16:5-12, concerning the “leaven of the Pharisees.”

Thomas: Hmmm. That’s interesting. Do you know of any other examples where Jesus simply repeated an unpopular teaching?

Joe: Sure, like when Jesus talked about His power to forgive sins (Mt 9:2-7), and His eternal existence (Jn 8:56-8). These are cases where He was talking with hostile listeners such as the Pharisees. Since Jesus knew everything, He knew who would reject His words and who would accept them, and acted accordingly. In John 6, then, it looks like the hearers understood full well what He was saying, but didn’t want to accept it, rather than accepting it while misunderstanding that it was symbolic, as many Protestants maintain.

Thomas: But why should we just accept something without explanation? Isn’t that expecting too much? Why does the Catholic Church make people believe stuff without giving the reasons for them – often things that seem unreasonable in the first place? I don’t want to be gullible.
*
Joe: You and many other former Catholics may have had some bad and ineffective teaching along the way, but this doesn’t prove that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are false. Reasons have been given for all its doctrines, and theologians have worked on and developed these for centuries. With a little effort, you could have found books on this subject and others which would have provided you with very good reasoning. I’ve talked to many people like you who have never read a single book defending Catholicism. But on the other hand reason can only go so far. After all, there is a thing called faith, too. You need to stop doubting, Thomas [Jn 20:24-31]! Jesus performed enough miracles to be trusted for the difficult things He said, such as “This is My body” (Lk 22:19). The Real Presence is no less believable than the Resurrection, Virgin Birth, walking on water, or the Second Coming – all supernatural physical events.
*
Thomas: You make some good points, but what about Paul? He doesn’t talk about trans . . sub . . . What is it?
*
Joe: Transubstantiation. That’s a 50 cent word which means, simply, “change of substance.” I have to disagree about St. Paul. He sure seems to refer to some sort of Real Presence in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27, where he states that those taking communion “. . . unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Is a man guilty of someone’s “body and blood” if he desecrates a photograph (symbol) of them? The early Church concurred. All the Fathers, such as St. Ignatius (d.c. 110), St. Justin Martyr (d.c. 165), and St. Irenaeus (d.c. 202), strongly affirm the Real Presence. In fact, non-Lutheran and non-Anglican Protestants in the 16th century were the first Christian groups of any historical and lasting importance to think differently. Martin Luther himself believed in the Real Presence and read others who differed with him on this out of the Church.

*

Thomas: But a piece of bread is really Christ!? What sense does that make? Isn’t that going a little bit too far!

Joe: We believe the substance of the bread has changed, while the appearance (“accidents”) of bread remains. There are some partial parallels: That glass in your hand has H2O in two forms or accidents – ice and water, but both have the same substance. The food we’re eating changes both substance and accidents when it is digested. Transubstantiation is hard to imagine, but nothing is impossible with God.

Thomas: Well, I guess I do need to read and study further. I’m not yet convinced, but if so many Christians, as you say, have believed this way, I can’t simply dismiss it as nonsense. That would be kind of arrogant. I’ll have to think about it – you’ve really challenged me. See ya later, Joe!
*****
Meta Description: Fictional dialogue demonstrating how the Catholic view of the Eucharist is biblical, plausible, and sensible.
*
Meta Keywords: consecration, Holy communion, Holy Eucharist,Real presence, sacramentalism, sacrifice of the mass, substantial presence, The Mass, transubstantiation
2021-11-22T13:44:49-04:00

Last updated on: November 22, 2021 at 1:44 pm   By

Augustine6

Portrait of St. Augustine (c. 1480) by Sandro Botticelli (1445-1510) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(9-25-10)
***

It’s amazing how often this assertion is made: that the great Church father St. Augustine (354-430) was closer to Protestant beliefs than Catholic, or that (a less sweeping claim) he was at least closer to Protestants on some key divisive issues such as sola Scriptura and sola fide. I’ve written about various aspects of this hallowed Protestant myth many times.

Presently, I will simply list below his own words, categorized by doctrine, regarding 29 different beliefs. I’ve chosen some of the more striking excerpts from my latest book: Catholic Church Fathers. The only portions not from my book are the ones on the deuterocanonical books and contraception. You be the judge.

As a preamble of sorts (and in the end, a bit of ironic humor), I shall present the high estimation of St. Augustine from Reformed Baptist James White, who somehow (inexplicably) convinces himself that Augustine is more in his camp, than in the Catholic one — that he (equally remarkably) deems non-Christian (my emphases):

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached . . . Augustine and Calvin, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace . . .  (“Dave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeon”)

It does not seem that any discussion of ancient theology can be pursued without invoking the great name of Augustine. But surely by now Roman controversialists should be aware that Augustine is no friend of their cause. (“Whitewashing the History of the Church”)

Certain men throughout the history of the Christian church capture the imagination. Paul, Augustine, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli – . . . . (“The Sovereign God, the Grace of Christ, and Sinful Man: A Brief Inquiry into the Theology of Jonathan Edwards”)

[for an entire book of Augustine quotes, see my own volume; available for as low as $1.99!]

* * * * *

Apostolic Succession?

[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345)

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants. (On Baptism, 4, 24, 31; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 61)

Baptism (Regenerative and Salvific)?

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? (On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34; NPNF 1, V, 28)

When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. . . . Baptism was instituted for all sins. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet, God does not forgive sins except to the baptized. (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16; Jurgens, III, 35)

“Catholic” Church

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, deed, because they are but men, . . . – not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4:5; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 130)

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131)

Church (Authority)?

God has placed this authority first of all in his Church. (Explanations of the Psalms, Tract 103:8, PL 37:520-521; in Congar, 392)

It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true. (Sermon 117, 6)

Church (Scripture Interpreter)?

To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity. (Against Cresconius I:33; in Eno, 134)

Contraception?

The doctrine that the production of children is an evil, directly opposes the next precept, “Thou shall not commit adultery;” for those who believe this doctrine, in order that their wives may not conceive, are led to commit adultery even in marriage. They take wives, as the law declares, for the procreation of children; but from this erroneous fear of polluting the substance of the deity, their intercourse with their wives is not of a lawful character; and the production of children, which is the proper end of marriage, they seek to avoid. As the apostle long ago predicted of thee, thou dost indeed forbid to marry, for thou seekest to destroy the purpose of marriage. Thy doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the bed-chamber into a brothel. (Against Faustus, Book XV, 7; NPNF 1, Vol. IV)

Deuterocanonical Books / So-Called “Apocrypha”?

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles—these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:—Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul—one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John. (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8, section 13: “The Canonical Books”; NPNF 1, Vol. II; bolding added presently)

Eternal Security / Perseverence?

But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: “I have not received’; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil. (Admonition and Grace [c. 427], 6,9; Jurgens, III, 157)

Man, therefore, was thus made upright that, though unable to remain in his uprightness without divine help, he could of his own mere will depart from it. (Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, chapter 107; NPNF 1, Vol. III)

When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. . . . (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16; Jurgens, III, 35)

Eucharist (Adoration)?

For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. (Exposition on Psalm XCIX, 8; NPNF 1, Vol. VIII)

Eucharist (Real, Substantial, Physical Presence)?

“And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” (Exposition on Psalm XXXIV, 1; NPNF 1, Vol. VIII)

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. (Sermons, 272; Jurgens, III, 32)

For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. (Sermons, 234, 2; Jurgens, III, 31)

Eucharist (Salvific)?

Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? (On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34; NPNF 1, V, 28)

Faith Alone (Sola Fide)?

This must not be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous, even though he leads a wicked life. (Questions 76.1; commenting on Romans 3:28; Bray, 105; Defferari, Vol. 70, 195)

Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

[E]ven those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, . . . the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them . . . “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. . . . grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.” (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapter 20; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

Irresistible Grace?

He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it. (Sermons, 169, 3; Jurgens, III, 29)

[N]either is the law condemned by the apostle nor is free will taken away from man. (On Romans 13-18; commenting on Romans 3:20; Bray, 96; Landes, 5, 7)

 

Mary (Perpetual Virginity)?

Virgin in conceiving, virgin in giving birth, virgin with child, virgin mother, virgin forever. (Sermo 186, 1 [Christmas homily]; Gambero, 220)

Did not holy Virgin Mary both give birth as a virgin and remain a virgin? (Sermo Guelferbytanus, 1, 8; Miscellanea Agostiniana, 447-448; Gambero, 224)

Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. (Of Holy Virginity, section 4; NPNF 1, Vol. III, 418)

Mary (Sinlessness)?

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

Mass, Sacrifice of?

Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; . . . To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place. (City of God, Book X, 20; NPNF 1, Vol. II)

Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. (Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; Jurgens, III, 134)

The entire Church observes the tradition delivered to us by the Fathers, namely, that for those who have died in the fellowship of the Body and Blood of Christ, prayer should be offered when they are commemorated at the actual Sacrifice in its proper place, and that we should call to mind that for them, too, that Sacrifice is offered. (Sermo, 172, 2; 173, 1; De Cura pro mortuis, 6; De Anima et ejus Origine, 2, 21; Pope, 69)

Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? (Epistles, 98, 9; NPNF 1, Vol. I)

The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. (Against Faustus, XX, 18; NPNF 1, Vol. IV)

Merit: Opposed to Sola Gratia?

The Lord made Himself a debtor not by receiving something, but by promising something. One does not say to Him “Pay for what You received,” but, “Pay what You promised.” (Commentary on Psalms 83:16; Jurgens, III, 19)

You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts. (En. in Ps. 102:7; cf. Ep. 194, 5, 19)

Someone says to me: “Since we are acted upon, it is not we who act.” I answer, “No, you both act and are acted upon; and if you are acted upon by the good, you act properly. For the spirit of God who moves you, by so moving, is your Helper. The very term helper makes it clear that you yourself are doing something.” (Sermons 156, 11; Jurgens, III, 28)

Wherefore, even eternal life itself, which is surely the reward of good works, the apostle calls the gift of God . . . We are to understand, then, that man’s good deserts are themselves the gift of God, so that when these obtain the recompense of eternal life, it is simply grace given for grace. (Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, chapter 107; NPNF 1, Vol. III)

Mortal and Venial Sins?

When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! . . . If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out.

In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet, God does not forgive sins except to the baptized. (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16; Jurgens, III, 35)

The Papacy and Roman (“Apostolic”) See (Primacy of)?

Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished; if only the error were finished too, sometime! So, let us all warn them to take notice of this, teach them to learn the lesson of it, pray for them to change their ideas. (Sermon 131, 10, in John Rotelle, editor, The Works of St. Augustine – Sermons, 11 volumes, Part 3, New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993, Vol. 4:322; the saying, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is a paraphrase of part of this sermon. Jurgens, [III, 28] translates it as “two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might sometime be at an end.”)

This was thought to have been the case in him when he replied that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in which all doubt about this matter was removed . . . [T]he words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council … What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See? (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 3:5; NPNF 1, Vol. V, 393-394)

[T]he Catholic Church, by the mercy of God, has repudiated the poison of the Pelagian heresy. There is an account of the provincial Council of Carthage, written to Pope Innocent, and one of the Council of Numidia; and another, somewhat more detailed, written by five bishops, as well as the answer he [Pope Innocent] wrote to these three; likewise, the report to Pope Zosimus of the Council of Africa, and his answer which was sent to all the bishops of the world. (Letter to Valentine, Epistle 215; Deferrari, 32: 63-64)

. . . the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished. (To Glorius et al, Epistle 43, 7; NPNF 1, Vol. I, 278)

Penance?

After they have been released from your severe sentence we separate from association at the altar those whose crimes are public, so that by repenting and by punishing themselves they may be able to placate Him for whom, by their sinning, they showed their contempt. (Letter to Macedonius, Imperial Vicar of Africa, 153, 3, 6; Jurgens, III, 7)

For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance . . . (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16; Jurgens, III, 35)

[T]his is why, either to demonstrate the misery he deserves, or for the amendment of his disgraceful life, or for the exercise of needful patience, a man is detained temporally in punishment even when by his guilt he is no longer held liable to eternal damnation. (Homilies on John, 124, 5; Jurgens, III, 123)

Peter (Primacy and Preeminence)?

The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. (Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 22:70; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 299)

Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19)… Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles. (Sermon 295:2-4, in John Rotelle, editor, The Works of St. Augustine – Sermons, 11 volumes, Part 3, New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993, 197-199)

. . . the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace . . . who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever?” (On Baptism 2:1,1; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 425-426)

Prayers for the Dead?

It is not to be doubted that the dead are aided by prayers of the holy church, and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms, which are offered for their spirits . . . For this, which has been handed down by the Fathers, the universal church observes. (Sermon 172, in Joseph Berington and John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, three volumes, London: Dolman, 1846; I: 439)

Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. (Sermons: 159, 1; Jurgens, III, 29)

For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. (The City of God, XXI, 24, 2; NPNF 1, Vol. II)

Purgatory?

The man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment. (Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, 2, 20, 30)As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, “They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.” (The City of God, XXI, 24, 2; NPNF 1, Vol. II)

Relics?

But, nevertheless, we do not build temples, and ordain priests, rites, and sacrifices for these same martyrs; for they are not our gods, but their God is our God. Certainly we honor their reliquaries, as the memorials of holy men of God who strove for the truth even to the death of their bodies, that the true religion might be made known, and false and fictitious religions exposed. (City of God, Book VIII, chapter 27; NPNF 1, Vol. II)

When the bishop Projectus was bringing the relics of the most glorious martyr Stephen to the waters of Tibilis, a great concourse of people came to meet him at the shrine. There a blind woman entreated that she might be led to the bishop who was carrying the relics. He gave her the flowers he was carrying. She took them, applied them to her eyes, and forthwith saw. (City of God, Book XXII, chapter 8; NPNF 1, Vol. II)

Saints (Invocation / Intercession of)?

For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended. (Sermons: 159, 1; Jurgens, III, 29)

Saints (Veneration of)?

No one officiating at the altar in the saints’ burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. (Against Faustus, Book XX, section 21; NPNF 1, Vol. IV)

Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)?

And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope, and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. (On Christian Doctrine, I, 39:43; NPNF 1, Vol. II, 534)

Tradition (Infallible and Authoritative)?

I believe that this practice [of not rebaptizing heretics and schismatics] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commanded and handed down by the Apostles themselves. (On Baptism, 2, 7, 12; Jurgens, III, 66; cf. NPNF 1, IV, 430)

Tradition (Oral)? 

. . . the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (On Baptism, 5, 23:31; NPNF 1, IV, 475)

Bibliographical Sources

Bray, Gerald, editor [Thomas C. Oden, general editor of series), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VI: Romans, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Congar, Yves, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Deferrari, R.J., editor, Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, 86 volumes, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947 –.

Eno, Robert B., Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984.

Gambero, Luigi, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, Thomas Buffer, translator, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, revised edition of 1999.

Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, three volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970 and 1979 (2nd and 3rd volumes).

Landes, P.F. editor, Augustine on Romans, Chico: California: Scholars Press, 1982.

Pope, Hugh, St. Augustine of Hippo, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1961 (originally 1937).

Schaff, Philip, editor, Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers Series 1 (“NPNF 1”), 14 volumes, originally published in Edinburgh, 1889, available online.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,850+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or 50 books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general.
*
If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds (and am in no danger of cracking the Fortune 500). 1 December 2021 will be my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022, the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. “Catholic Used Book Service” (in conjunction with my address on PayPal) is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

2021-11-20T15:16:12-04:00

Last updated on: November 20, 2021 at 3:16 pm   By
AnimalsHeaven
My Dog, by SakuraUchihaNJ [Deviant Art / CC BY 3.0 license]
***
(3-12-08)

***

Jack Wintz, O.F.M., thinks so, and explains “why he believes the whole family of creation is included in God’s plan of salvation,” in his article, “Will I See My Little Doggy in Heaven?” (St. Anthony Messenger, July 2003). Here is my reply:

* * * * *


Animals have no eternal, immortal souls, as men do. They aren’t created in God’s image. They aren’t capable of sinning, and so are in no need of salvation, and didn’t participate in the fall (of man). But will they be in heaven?

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (who received me into the Church), answered the question as follows:

Pets, as pets, do not go to Heaven. But animals and such like beings may be said to be brought to Heaven because, after the Last Day, they can serve as part of the joys of Heaven. In other words, animals and such like creatures may be said to be brought to Heaven to serve as part of our Heavenly joys. Clearly, we do not need pets to provide happiness in Heaven. But pets and such like creatures will be brought to Heaven to become part of our creaturely happiness in the Heavenly kingdom. Consequently, we may say that animals and such like creatures may be brought to Heaven by God to enable us to enjoy them as part of our creaturely happiness in Heavenly beatitude.

So our own particular pets may not be there as such, but animals likely will be, on the basis described above. An expert on EWTN (Dr. Richard Geraghty) replied similarly:

Now when any living thing dies, its soul is separated from its body. In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence. But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing. Consequently, it differs from the souls of animals in two important respects. First, it is the seat of intelligence or reason. For this reason a man is held responsible for his actions in a way that animals are not. . . .

In the light of this essential difference between human beings and animals, it would seem that we would not see the souls of our pets in heaven for the simple reason that they do not have immortal souls and are not responsible for their actions. They do not have the intelligence which allows them to choose either God’s will or their own will. There is, then, an incomparable distance, say, between the soul of the sorriest human being who ever lived and the most noble brute animal that ever walked the earth.

Now a child might be heartbroken at the thought that he will never see his pet again. He cannot yet understand this explanation about the difference between the human and the animal soul. I suppose that one could tell the child that when he hopefully gets to heaven, he could ask God to see his old pets if he still wished to. There would be no harm in that. For we know that when a person finally sees God, he will not be concerned with seeing old pets or favorite places but rather will be captured in the complete fulfillment of the joy of which old pets and favorite places are but little signs. We adults know that, even if the child does not.

For more information on how the Church sees animals in the lives of human beings, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2415-2418.

Bro. Ignatius Mary on AllExperts.com takes the same general position.

The article asks rhetorically: “does God’s plan of salvation include all creatures?”

The answer is “no” (at least if we mean, “in the same sense as with human beings”). A dog or a tree hasn’t rebelled against God. It may suffer adversity because of cosmic damage as a result of sin, or due to environmental irresponsibility, such as oil spills, disregard for erosion, or excessive pollution, etc., but is not itself morally culpable, and therefore cannot be saved. The Bible does talk about some sense of the redemption of all creation, but this clearly has a meaning other than “dogs need to repent and come to Jesus and the Church.” If this were true, every animal imaginable would be required to attend Mass, no?

God loves the animals, as far as that goes, just as we who are made in His image do (for the most part; Michael Vick might disagree). That poses no difficulty to Christian theology, but saying that animals are “saved” in the same way that people are (if indeed the article at the top is maintaining this; perhaps it is not) is seriously erroneous.

* * *


The three “experts” I cited above all said it was perfectly possible that there would be animals in heaven. It’s a question of what the Church has stated and what is permissible to speculate about, though we have no definite teaching. What we know for sure is that animals have no immortal souls. So it is not intrinsic to their nature that each and every animal has an eternal soul that will live forever. If our pets are in heaven, it’ll be because God chose to “recreate” them.

This is what we know for sure, based on Church teaching. I happen to think that there probably will be animals in heaven, based on the principle of analogy and God’s love. I would reason as follows:

1) Animals play an important role in human life.

2) Human beings have had a great deal of affection for animals all through history.

3) Heaven is far greater and unimaginable than the sum total of all of our aspirations and dreams and yearnings and hopes in this life.

4) God loves us and wishes us to be joyful and happy and fulfilled for eternity.

5) Since animals and pets have provided some of our happiness on earth, it is plausible to think that God would continue this aspect of life in heaven as well.

6) Sure, in heaven, all we would need is God, but that is also true on earth, in a sense. But since God gives us many (moral) pleasures on the earth that are distinct from He Himself (though all are derived from God and reflect back on Him), then we might posit that He would continue to do so in heaven as well.

Therefore, by analogy and plausibility, extrapolating from this life to the next, I contend (though I cannot know for sure) that the likelihood is that there will be animals in heaven. I highly doubt, however, that every animal that ever lived, let alone our pets, will be in heaven. Whatever animals are there will be by God’s choice and design, not because immortal souls are intrinsic to every animal, so that it is assured that each and every one is “saved” (a sort of “animal universalism”).

Catholic philosopher and apologist Peter Kreeft, in his book, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven . . . But Never Dreamed of Asking (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990, 45-46) takes an even more “affirmative” position:

10. Are There Animals in Heaven?

The simplest answer is: Why not? How irrational is the prejudice that would allow plants (green fields and flowers) but not animals into Heaven! [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III (Supplement), 91, 5] Much more reasonable is C.S. Lewis’ speculation that we will be “between the angels who are our elder brothers and the beasts who are our jesters, servants and playfellows” [That Hideous Strength, p. 378] Scripture seems to confirm this: “thy judgments are like the great deep; man and beast thou savest, O Lord” [Psalm 36:6]. Animals belong in the “new earth” [Revelation 21:1] as much as trees.

C.S. Lewis supposes that animals are saved “in” their masters, as part of their extended family [The Problem of Pain, pp. 138-39]. Only tamed animals would be saved in this way. It would seem more likely that wild animals are in Heaven too, since wildness, otherness, not-mine-ness, is a proper pleasure for us [C.S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 78]. The very fact that the seagull takes no notice of me when it utters its remote, lonely call is part of its glory.

Would the same animals be in Heaven as on earth? “Is my dead cat in Heaven?” Again, why not? God can raise up the very grass [Psalm 90:5-6. If we are “like grass”, and we are raised, grass can be raised, too]; why not cats? Though the blessed have better things to do than play with pets, the better does not exclude the lesser. We were meant from the beginning to have stewardship over the animals [Genesis 1:28]; we have not fulfilled that divine plan yet on earth; therefore it seems likely that the right relationship with animals will be part of Heaven: proper “petship”. And what better place to begin than with already petted pets?

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his treatment of the question, cited above by Peter Kreeft, concludes that neither plants nor animals are “renewed” in heaven after we are resurrected. Kreeft argues, on the other hand, that if plants are in heaven, why not animals, too? I had this thought, myself, when dwelling further on the analogical argument I made above, and before reading Kreeft just now.

The Catechism states:

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.”

Generally, what goes beyond something we know in this life has some relation to this life, even if remote. The physical things that give us pleasure in this life will (I would contend) also likely be present in some sense in the next. If we have a feeling of awe in viewing a gorgeous mountain panorama or beautiful sunset or lovely cloud pattern with the sun streaming through (and Kreeft and others have constructed an “argument from longing” as one evidence that heaven and eternal life exist), then how is it implausible to think that heaven would likewise have “nature” in it?

After all, we’ll be physical creatures in our resurrected bodies. And the physical world we know, that we inhabit, is the world of nature and plants and animals and rocks and streams and oceans (sometimes very beautiful). By analogy, therefore, one can reason (as did Kreeft), that “if plants and trees are in heaven, why not also animals?”

Do we know that there is any such physical life in heaven, from Scripture? Yes. The heavenly city of Jerusalem, see by St. John in his visions had many kinds of jewels in it (Rev 21:15:21): jasper, gold, sapphire, agate, emerald, onyx, carnellian, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprase, jacinth, and amethyst. These are all, of course, part of nature, and earthly elements. “Pearl” is mentioned in 21:21, and this is produced by a living creature (shelled mollusks, such as oysters or mussels). A pearl is constructed by these animals from nacre, or mother of pearl, which is itself partly organic.

We also know there are rivers, trees, and fruit:

Revelation 22:1-2 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

To the extent that this is to be interpreted literally (it may be wholly or partly symbolic), we know that there is organic plant life in heaven, and so by analogy, why not also animals?, since trees and plants no more have an eternal soul than animals do, yet here they are in heaven, by God’s design.

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!*
*
***
2017-03-01T12:51:48-04:00

Last updated on: March 1, 2017 at 12:51 pm   By
KellyReactionary
Ringling Brothers circus clown Emmett Kelly in a bubble bath: Sarasota, Florida; photo by Joseph Janney Steinmetz, c. 1955 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***

(21 January 2001. Revised terminology on 8-7-13 and 4-2-16)

***

[see my definition of radical Catholic reactionary]
***

Mario Derksen’s  words will be in green. Some time after this dialogue, he became a sedevacantist (0ne who denies the validity of the current sitting pope). I also dialogue with a second reactionary (words in blue).

* * * * *

I have a challenge for you guys. The reply could come back from the sisters that they are only being “ecumenical” by allowing the use of their facilities by Wiccans. . . . Add to this the fact that Pope John Paul II was publicly present with African and North American animists and Zoroastrians at a religious gathering in Assisi in 1986.
 
Here’s the unfolding news on our coven of witches. We have sought to get the bishop to place the Franciscan Spirituality Center under interdict if they persist in hosting the Wiccan coven. But when I spoke to one of our most orthodox priests to get his support for that idea, he resisted it by bringing up the example of…..you guessed it, the Holy Father’s hosting of pagans at Assisi, including his allowing them to use Catholic facilities for pagan ceremonies.
 
I told him that I believe that this is precisely why the Holy Father should not be involved in such things as the gathering at Assisi and that it is an example of ecumania rather than true ecumenism. 
*
 
You asked for it! Are you sitting down? :-) I guess so, if you’re at your computer . . . I agree with you (based on what I know from your report) that what is going on in your area with the witches is weird and scandalous and disgraceful, for whoever is allowing it. I disagree (surprise!) that this is the equivalent of, or consistent with, or logically flows from, legitimate Catholic ecumenism or the Assisi meeting. Why I think that has been well laid-out in my papers on ecumenism; I need not reiterate it here (nor do I wish to). But I have more than enough to express in this letter nonetheless. In my last exchange with you guys I expressed what I feel are the glaring logical fallacies and extremities of a hostile opinion towards (real Catholic, Vatican II) ecumenism.
 
I don’t think you guys “get it” with regard to ecumenism. You don’t seem to make the necessary (elementary) distinctions, and you jumble things and ideas together that don’t belong together (even though liberals and suchlike often join them, to the detriment of everybody – to that extent, you repeat their errors, though for much different – far superior – reasons and motivations). There are liberal lies about and distortions of ecumenism, and there are “traditionalist” lies about and distortions of ecumenism. The liberal “useful idiot” buffoons get more and more heterodox and wacko and New Age, and the radical Catholic reactionaries get more and more conspiratorial and exclusivistic; almost Pharisaical at times, in their strong tendencies towards absurd, short-sighted hyper-legalism.
 
Some reactionaries I’ve seen (not you guys, I hasten to add) make the John Birchers look like flaming Leninists. LOL Many would have been Arians or Nestorians or Monophysites in the old days, I am quite convinced (or Old Catholics, with Dollinger in 1870): fighting the “liberal” innovations and corruptions of Nicaea and Ephesus and Chalcedon alike, which (so they would tell us) “threaten passed-down orthodoxy.” Down with development! Down with new and fresh approaches from the same orthodox Catholic standpoint (e.g., St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Therese of Lisieux, Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Pope John Paul II, etc.), in order to deal with and better reach modern man and the secular society we find ourselves in. Down with increased sophistication and nuance and a proper, orthodox sense of social and theological progressivism.
 
Such nay-saying is, I think, the equivalent of anti-intellectual Protestant fundamentalism, stuck (in their case) in the 1890s, unwilling to admit that there has been such a thing as the 20th century, or a Bible translation other than the King James.
 
St. Paul must have been a modernist and dreaded “ecumenist,” too, I guess, when he sought to approach people differently, based on their place in the scheme of religions and ideas. “I have become all things to all men, that by all means I may save some.” He paganized himself in the market square at Athens, referring to weird false gods and even pagan poets. What an indifferentist, he! Obviously compromised . . . clearly he would have kissed the Koran too. Tsk, tsk, tsk! Shame on him. How did he make it into the Bible anyway? Maybe the liberal Chalcedonians screwed around with the “real” Bible so Paul could get in . . . . . .
 
[don’t make the mistake of thinking that my sarcasm does not have a deadly serious meaning underlying it. Some ideas require sarcasm to be refuted – pure, non-acerbic reason not having worked very well]
 
And then there is simply orthodox Catholic ecumenism, standing in that glorious position of the “middle” or the mainstream, which Chesterton refers to often (in different terms) in his book Orthodoxy.
 
Why is this so difficult to comprehend or to accept? You want to put the Holy Father out on the extreme fringes of ecumenism (in the wider, not always orthodox sense of the word)? Go ahead . . . I think it is nonsense (in fact, not because I am some sort of “papal slave,” as those obedient to the pope are often falsely accused of being), and I think you make yourself look foolish in so doing.
 
I have always said that radical Catholic reactionaries of the common sort today exhibit a problem of faulty thinking, perhaps foremost, but also of a loss of supernatural faith (in the full Catholic sense). It blends (quite ironically and astonishingly) the Protestant principle of private judgment with the liberal principle of (arbitrary) pick-and-choose. I see both of you falling into these traps, to some extent, the more I read about what you believe. It is distressing. Do I have to observe the tragic spectacle of one or other of you going SSPX one of these days? I guess human nature is prone to separatism, disobedience, and the creation of conspiratorial theories.
 
Once a false idea takes hold in a group, it spreads like wildfire or cancer. This reactionary stuff reminds me (sociologically) of my former days in the charismatic denomination Assemblies of God. Though it formally decried the “name-it-claim-it, hyper-faith, God always heals” heretical nonsense of Copeland, Hagin, Tilton et al (i.e., the fringe elements of pentecostalism), yet there were people everywhere to be found within A/G ranks who believed this claptrap, because it was tolerated and not severely rebuked. That led me to do a huge refutation of it way back in 1982, but I had little success with individuals, once they had “caught the disease” of the so-called prosperity gospel. It was never an intellectual process to begin with for these people, but an ear-tickling and narcissistic path, so Bible-quoting and reason was of little use.
 
I made a similar point when I critiqued The Remnant. I argued that technically the views expressed might be orthodox and non-schismatic, but when you come right down to it, the views were so close to schism and disobedience (and the pope and Vatican II railed against so incessantly), that in a very real practical (or what one might call a psychological) sense, there is virtually no difference. And this “ultra-conservative” mindset seems impervious to all reasoning and appeal to any Church teaching whatever (at least in my experience). In fighting so hard against the liberals (for which you have my highest commendations), you have, strangely enough, adopted a hybrid persona of liberal Catholic/fundamentalist Protestant/”orthodox Catholic” – having assimilated key ideas and premises from all three camps, yet not seemingly aware that you have done so.
 
There is an old saying: “scratch a Protestant and you get a Nestorian.” I think there is a lot of truth to that. Well, now I suspect that if you scratch a reactionary you may wind up with a closet-SSPXer (i.e., schismatic). The behavior of those in the Remnant subsequent to my critique spectacularly confirmed my thesis in that paper, I think. The quasi-schismatics either did cross the line or got dangerously close to it (e.g., the ISOCC video), while Stephen Hand started to see the writing on the wall and got out. I’m not saying at all that I caused all this with my paper (of course not! LOL). I’m just making a sociological observation that what I warned about indeed occurred (sociology was my major, after all, and I do manage to utilize a wee bit of it every now and then :-).
 
Anyway, that’s how this stuff strikes me (in my analogical mind). None of this is intended to be personal at all. As always, I am strictly criticizing ideas and what I see as tendencies and trends of thought (which necessitates much generalizing and broad analysis), without ever implying obstinacy or lack of intelligence or bad motives or anything of the sort. I hope you guys know me well enough to know that. But you asked my opinion, and I have given it. :-)
 
You guys have been pretty silent on this. Anybody agree with me? Disagree with me?
* 
Speaking for myself, that is because I am sick and tired of this so-called reactionary debate. I was sick of it before I did the piece on the Remnant over a year ago. I only did that because it was sort of a “deal” I made with [Name; one of the correspondents]. I think it zaps energy, creates needless animosity, is one of Satan’s clever schemes to divide the Church, and detracts from the truly important business of sharing the Gospel and the truth of the fullness of the Catholic Church with Protestants and infidels alike. And it takes people away from other far more important issues such as charity, social and pro-life activism, and family and devotional time.
 
Wish I’d shut up? ;o)
* 
No, I would never tell anyone to do that (well, maybe Jesse Jackson), being the Socratic and passionate advocate of free speech that I am. :-) My wish for you is that you could straighten this out for yourself, stop being so “troubled” and attain to the trust and comfort that God is in control of His Church, warts and all, 100% sinners and all, and that the present Holy Father is one of the greatest popes in history. That’s my wish for you two, and others of like mind. Pray for real problems, do all you can to resolve them, rebuke (real) hypocrisy as you wish, but please, stop being so “troubled.” You ought to be at peace with yourself, your God, and the Church. If you wanted to continue worrying about everything, you could have stayed in man-centered Protestantism, where there is every reason to be concerned about any number of heterodoxies and morally relativistic beliefs.
 
I think that ultimately it is a matter of faith, and that reactionaries – somewhere along the way – have lost some of this faith in indefectibility and ecclesiological infallibility and the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Holy Mother Church in all times and places.
 
* * *
 
[exchange with a second reactionary]

I much appreciate your cordiality, as always, if not several of your ideas. I will make a few replies, because – as you know – I try to avoid lengthy dialogues on this topic. I have more than enough on my site, and not much to add to them, at least at this point in my life. But this very letter is a case in point, for one of my gripes. If I wasn’t doing this, I would be writing to a Lutheran friend who may convert. In my opinion, that endeavor would be far more important than this little debate. I’m tired tonight and don’t know how much writing I will be able to get done. But here I am because you’re so nice and I wanted to at least offer some response. :-) 

I don’t think that this was really [Name’s] point. I think the real point was that, de facto, the Assisi event is USED to explain and justify such Wicca events within Catholic territory.
 
So what? People commit fallacies all the time. If I tried to refute all of those I would do nothing else (actually, I think I do do quite a bit of that, come to think of it LOL). But I was trying to get at the deeper, underlying assumptions, as is my custom and usual methodology.
 
OK, shift back a few gears concerning your word choices now…. :-)
 
Hey! I resemble that remark! (making my best Curly-face) LOL
 
The fact of the matter is that the traditionalist realizes that the perhaps intended ecumenism of a few orthodox Cardinals in the Vatican just isn’t there. It’s not practiced. You may point to this and that document pointing out that, doctrinally, the idea is orthodox, but DE FACTO, it just doesn’t happen.
 
So ECT wasn’t real? The Lutheran Agreements weren’t real? Or the many agreements with the Orthodox? Or the siding with the Muslims at one of those feminist world conferences? I guess we really do live in two different worlds, my friend.
 
The Vatican may say something about religious liberty, and the world takes it to mean indifferentism.
 
Why should I care what the world thinks? They think a lot of false things. It matters not what the Church does. It will always be wrong in the world’s eyes, either triumphalistic or touchy-feely inclusivistic (sometimes both simultaneously, so we are told by our holier-than-thou secularist critics).
 
Sorry but I can’t help putting these words now: BLAH BLAH. That “middle” ground may exist on paper, but not in the real world. It’s just not there.
 
It certainly is. The center ground is orthodox Catholicism, which has always existed, and always will exist. My primary point was concerning orthodoxy, and if you claim that it has ceased, then you have accepted defectibility and are no better than an Anabaptist.
Who cares about Spong and McBrien? See, this is part of your problem. You are concerned about the buffoons, whereas anyone who has any sense of the perspective of history knows that their time has long passed, and that they are living fossils (just like the stubborn and persistent Marxism at American universities). You are trapped in your own time – the current zeitgeist -, like a fish in a dinky tank. This is why history is so important, among many other reasons. And Church history is more exciting than any other.
 
“clearly-schismatic Remnant”?? I think it’s bold enough for Stephen Hand to claim it’s schismatic, but now you’re saying it’s CLEARLY schismatic??
 
Yes; not that I am an expert, but from what I have seen, it is quite sufficient to convince me that they are schismatics, at least in spirit, if not in letter, per my reasoning all along. The spirit comes first. One has a spirit of lust before one commits the act of adultery. Adultery of the heart comes before adultery of the genitals. One has a spirit of division (Luther in 1517 / Lefebvre, Dollinger, Kung, Curran, and Matthew Fox) before one actually splits “in the real world” (Luther, 1521). This shouldn’t be any sort of controversial observation on my part. But to one who is a canonical, liturgical, and conciliar hyper-legalist, I suppose it would seem that way.
 
(The SSPX, by the way, was allowed to say Mass on some of the side altars during the Jubilee Year—perhaps this is one of Rome’s ecumenical favors).
 
Indeed it would be that. There is a place for prudence and diplomacy, in the attempt to win people back to the faith and the Church.
 
Ah, there we go! That’s precisely what I think about the so-called “middle ecumenism.” Technically, it may be correct and praiseworthy, but it ain’t there in practice.
 
So, according to you, all ecumenism (in reality, in practice) is wacko indifferentist, touchy-feely, liberal, modernist, relativism. Is that what you wish to contend?
 
Hold it right there, Dave. Let me show you what the problem is with your position here. We
cannot heal anyone else or convert anyone else before we haven’t solved our own problems.
 
If that were true, then we would have done no evangelism for 2000 years, because there have always been problems in the Church, due to sin (not in its dogma). You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper, my friend. This is utterly nonsensical. I’m really surprised you would make such a weak and pathetic argument as this.
 
By converting a Protestant to Catholic, you’re doing a great thing, but it doesn’t take long and he’ll realize that there are tremendous problems in the Church, and if he realizes this soon enough, he may not even convert to Catholicism!
 
How, then, can it be that there has been a tremendous number of converts despite your Chicken Little scenarios about the current-day Church? Hmmmmmmmmmm????????????? Were all us converts dupes who should have stayed in the “conservative” denominations? I’m here in the Church because it taught against contraception, like all Christians did before 1930. How many Catholics disbelieve the teaching was absolutely irrelevant as to my decision to convert or not. The doctrine was correct. Same thing with divorce. Same thing with abortion. This is what attracted me to the Church, because moral laxity can be found anywhere (original sin). But true, traditional, unchanging Christian moral teaching is only found in one place.
 
That’s what I had been seeking for, for ten years as a serious Christian. I found it, and here I am, and quite glad to be here, thank you, and not at all constantly “troubled” like you two seem to perpetually be. It must get very tiring. I’ve found the pearl of great price. You guys seem to want to prove that the pearl is really a jagged, stinky lump of coal, or worse (an almost-dead jellyfish, perhaps?). You won’t succeed with me; I’ll tell you that right now.

So we’re supposed to stop making converts and devote ourselves to house-cleaning exclusively? Yeah, right. Where in the world do you find that in the Bible or in the Church’s directives to laymen? My vocation is as an evangelist and apologist. By definition the former is to the non-Catholic, and the latter is primarily to be used as a method of clearing roadblocks to the Faith (though it is useful for bolstering the faith of Catholics also – but that, too, has nothing to do with most of the reactionary critique). These offices and tasks don’t cease because there are “problems” in the Church – as if that is some new thing that wasn’t always there.
 
If the Protestant-turned-Catholic reads what we believe about the Eucharist, it won’t take long for him to ask, “Wait a minute, why do you give it in the hand? And why doesn’t Father take more care in handling the Body and Blood of Christ?” It is such things that, IF NOT WORKED OUT, will STOP people from converting.
 
Again, this was not at all true in my case, and I don’t think I am all that un-representative of the average fairly-educated convert. We all know (and knew) that there are problems of liberalism in the Church! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Liberals (like the poor) will always be with us. But – again – only one Church has true doctrine in toto, true moral teaching, the most sublime spirituality, saints and miracles and all the rest, and the unbroken history to verify those. That is what brings converts in, because we are well-acquainted with the absolute chaos and anarchy in Protestantism.
 
So, in short, I think you conservatives are still living in a fancy wonderland of “everything’s alright with the Church,
 
Doctrinally, yes. In practice, we never reach perfection, and will always fall short as a group. Whoever says “everything is alright” (which I have never done nor would ever dream of doing), is the one in a wonderland, not a realist so-called “conservative” such as myself. If I thought there were no problems how could I give you reactionaries such a hard time, as one of the “problems” I would identify? Why would I have a page on modernism? Etc., etc. C’mon! You can do better than this. I believe the doctrines are very much “alright,” and infallible.
 
and John Paul will be called ‘the Great’
 
He will indeed, as (I believe history will record) the vanquisher of modernism, Communism, the culture of death, and unisexism, if not many more things.
 
and a new Springtime is ahead in the Church”…….
 
Absolutely. This has always been the case in the next century after a terrible one, as Chesterton loves to point out (“the Church has gone to the dogs at least five times. In each case the dogs died”). The 20th has been the worst in history, by far. So the 21st century (if history teaches us anything) will be a time of one of the greatest revivals in the history of the Church. This is what the late Fr. John Hardon (flaming modernist that he was) believed. The pope believes it. So do I. If you want to sit around and moan and groan and cry in your beer and be a pessimist and a cynic and a doomsayer while revival breaks out all around you, go ahead. You won’t take away my excitement when I start to see it. No way! In fact, I say that the seeds of the revival are all well-planted already. We will see the growth soon, no more than 20-40 years away at the latest, I would speculate.
 
unfortunately, the doctor who can’t figure out what’s wrong with the patient until he’s almost dead will have a much harder time healing him.
 
If the Catholic Church were “almost dead,” we would look a lot more like Anglicanism or even more far-gone denominations like the United Church of Christ. You want some profound deadness? Grow up in Methodism in the 60s as I did. Deader than a doornail (at least the church I attended). I don’t think you have the slightest inkling of what real “near-spiritual death” looks like. Whole denominations which fully accept abortion and fornication and homosexuality. And you’re most concerned about Catholic ecumenism???!!! Good heavens! What a waste of energy and emotion . . .
 
This is depressing . . . the only thing that cheers me up in such a discussion is pondering the revival that will almost certainly occur in this century. I used to think (as an evangelical dispensationalist enamored of pop prophecy) that the world would end in 10, 20 years. I’m glad that I take a much longer view of Church history now, rather than dwell in this sort of doom-and-gloom conspiratorial apocalypticism which is yet another hallmark of reactionaryism.
2017-03-24T13:47:23-04:00

Last updated on: March 24, 2017 at 1:47 pm   By

Jesus28

The Twelve-Year-Old Jesus in the Temple (1879), by Max Liebermann (1847-1935) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * * * *

See my earlier related papers:

Young Messiah Denies Christological Certainties [3-12-16]

Jesus Always Knew He Was God (Young Messiah) [3-14-16]

Young Messiah, Dramatic License, & Biblical Theology [3-18-16]

* * *

Catholic apologist (and my friend) Jimmy Akin has given us a thought-provoking article about the issue of Jesus’ knowledge (not specifically about The Young Messiah). It’s entitled, “The Magisterium and the Human Knowledge of Christ” (The Catholic World Report, 3-18-16). Much of the following is my reply and sort of a “thinking out loud” (since Jimmy’s work is always challenging and insightful, and we disagree slightly on a few things). His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Hi Jimmy,

Excellent article, as always. Thanks very much for it!

As a critic of the theology of The Young Messiah, I still have some questions I am now working through, as a result of reading your article, and taking in the new information I have gleaned from it.

My main purpose in critiquing the film (which I have seen) was to note that it denied what seemed to me to be a firm teaching of the faith: that Jesus always knew He was God and didn’t have to learn it at some point. A few points on this, if I may:

You wrote that, “The response of the Magisterium was firm, and in 1907 the Holy Office . . . issued a decree that rejected as erroneous the proposition that “Christ did not always possess the consciousness of his Messianic dignity” (Lamentabili 35).

That seems clear enough: a magisterial condemnation of a notion that this movie contradicts.

You cite the Pontifical Biblical Commission (not itself magisterial), in 1984, stating that Jesus “grows more and more in the awareness of the mission entrusted to him by the Father, from his childhood up to his death on the cross” (Instruction on Scripture and Christology 2:2:1:3b).

Does this necessarily contradict the former statement, though? Does awareness of particulars in His mission entail that we can speculate that He didn’t know He was God? Can we not distinguish between those two things? Otherwise, the 1907 proclamation seems rather nonsensical. If we separate these two aspects, the two are harmonious. Or so I submit . . .

You then cite International Theological Commission (ITC): also “not an organ of the Magisterium”, and make note of its 1985 document, “The Consciousness of Christ Concerning Himself and His Mission.” It defends four theses, including the one I am primarily concerned with, with regard to The Young Messiah: “Jesus knew that he was God and the Son of God.” You inform us that “it does not specify when he came to know these things.”

Okay; is it not most plausible, then, to assume that it is consistent with (or perhaps presupposes) the idea that Jesus knew of His own identity from conception, in light of much (if not the broad consensus of) patristic and medieval teaching, and the statements from Pope Pius XII about His possessing the Beatific Vision from conception (and the 1907 condemnation)? Why would we assume otherwise?

I don’t know what to make of Pope St. John Paul II’s statements about Jesus and the Beatific Vision. Perhaps he meant it in different senses. But in any event, there must (it seems to me) be some difference between Jesus’ possession of it while on the earth and after He died.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma stated:

Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.) (p. 162)

Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Sent. certa.) Cf. D2184 et seq.” (p. 165)

Ott goes on to say that: “The Fathers implicitly teach the doctrine that Christ’s soul always enjoyed the Beatific Vision by reason of the fact that they teach that Christ as man had fullness of knowledge as a consequence of the Hypostatic Union.” (p. 163)

Dr. Ott explains “Sent. certa.” (pp. 9-10) as follows:

A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

That’s pretty strong: “theologically certain” and “guaranteed.” Are we to believe that such level of teaching could develop (in the classic Newmanian conception) into something different, or get reversed by the Church? That seems very unlikely. For how could a “certain” and “guaranteed” teaching be reversed? That would mean it wasn’t certain or guaranteed, after all.

Here are nine other doctrinal examples in Ott in Christology (and one Marian doctrine) that he classifies as sent. certa:

1) “The Hypostatic Union was never interrupted” (p. 150).

2) Adoration of Jesus’ Sacred Heart (p. 159).

3) “Christ’s Humanity, as instrument of the Logos, possesses the power of producing supernatural effects” (p. 172).

4) “Christ’s soul was subject to sensual emotions” (p. 174).

5) “God was not compelled to redeem mankind by either an internal or an external compulsion” (p. 178).

6) “Christ is the Supreme Prophet promised in the Old Testament and the absolute teacher of humanity” (p. 180).

7) “Christ merited for Himself the condition of exaltation (Resurrection, Transfiguration of the body, Ascension into Heaven” (p. 190).

8) “Christ merited all supernatural graces received by fallen mankind” (p. 190).

And regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary:

9) “Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia” (p. 215).

None of these teachings seem to me to be of the sort that they would be reconsidered or reversed. Yet we are to believe that Jesus’ possessing the Beatific Vision from conception is a teaching that can be overthrown?  Is it not easier to believe that it is presupposed, and that Pope St. John Paul II must have nuances in his argument that distinguish different senses of this notion, rather than attempting to reverse a sent. certa. teaching?

You write, “The Catechism makes no mention of Jesus having the beatific vision in this life. The threefold division of Christ’s human knowledge into beatific, infused, and acquired knowledge is absent, and the subject is treated from a different angle.”

Fair enough, but by the same token, this doesn’t necessitate a denial of same. It could merely have presupposed it, and/or thought it was non-necessary in this particular section, or (possibly) not appropriate to include in a catechetical work for the masses.

Moreover, no one on either side of this dispute questions that Jesus acquired some knowledge in his human nature (St. Thomas Aquinas taught that). Thus, non-mention of that in this part of the Catechism does not entail anyone denying that theological teaching, or denying that the Church has generally held it. Likewise, by analogy, the Beatific Vision.

 

You write:

“Von Balthasar proposed that in his human knowledge Christ supernaturally knew not all real states of affairs but specifically what pertained to his mission (see, esp., his book Theo-Drama, vol. 3, 163-202).

“The Catechism reflects this, stating that Christ’s human knowledge contained whatever pertained to “the eternal plans he had come to reveal.” “

I would say that this human knowledge includes the knowledge (from conception) that He was God — something that even John the Baptist in the womb knew [Lk 1:39-44]; yet we are to believe that God the Son didn’t until he was seven: according to The Young Messiah and various theological theories?

I was curious about more particulars in Balthasar, so I did an extensive search of this book in Google Books. Unfortunately, it didn’t include page numbers, but I found the following statements (in chronological order) that indicate (if I understand them correctly) that he thought Jesus always possessed this knowledge:

1) C. Trinitarian Inversion

Jesus is aware that he has received a mission from the father and is its complete embodiment in the world. We cannot conceive that this awareness ever had a beginning.

2) . . . his mission (which has no conceivable beginning; he did not discover it subsequently) . . . he is the one who has always consented to it — ‘for this I came’ (Jn 10:10) . . .

3) For Jesus, there is no conceivable point at which this identity of his ‘I’ and his mission started; from the very moment of his conception, therefore, this identification must have taken place, either as event or as process . . .”

Thus, if Balthasar is one of the primary theological minds behind what you say is recent development of this matter, he seems to be on the side of Jesus knowing His identity from conception and indeed, without “beginning”: which is what Pope Pius XII was saying. He is expressing the same thing: at least regard with Jesus’ knowledge of His own Divinity, which is my sole concern, and the belief that was denied in the film.

As for Pope Benedict, I’d like to see more specifics of what he wrote. If he ever denied outright that there was any time that Jesus did not know He was God, in His human nature, surely that can be produced (I’d love to see such a thing), and we wouldn’t have to speculate at all. If it can’t be found, then it seems we ought to follow the clear traditional (or “older” if you will) teaching that you have outlined and that I have defended, and assume that he followed it and has not held that it is no longer “theologically certain”.

You state: “The picture that emerges from these data points is of a shift away from the medieval consensus and a return to streams of thought found among the Church Fathers.”

I think there is some shift in particulars of how exactly Jesus can grow in wisdom. I’m not convinced that older magisterial statements are somehow reversed or overthrown or shown to be less than “theologically certain.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under the direction of Cardinal Ottaviani, also issued a document on July 24, 1966, that asserted:

[S]ome of the documents examined by this Sacred Congregation contain affirmations which easily go beyond the limits of hypothesis or simple opinion, appearing to raise certain questions regarding the dogmas and fundamentals of the faith.

It is worthwhile to draw attention to some examples of these opinions and errors that have arisen both from the reports of competent persons and in published writings.

[. . .]

5) The venerated Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ is called into question when, in the elaboration of the doctrines of Christology, certain concepts are used to describe his nature and his person though they are difficult to reconcile with that which has been dogmatically defined. A certain Christological humanism is twisted such that Christ is reduced to the condition of an ordinary man who, at a certain point, acquired a consciousness of his divinity as Son of God. The virginal birth, miracles, and the resurrection itself are admitted only as concepts, reduced to a purely natural order.

[. . .]

These pernicious errors, scattered variously throughout the world, are recounted in this letter only in summary form for the local Ordinaries so that each one, according to his function and office, can strive to eradicate or hinder them.

It’s tough to see how a teaching can go from being asserted by the PBC and Pope Pius XII (the denial of which is described as “pernicious error” and “twisted” by the CDF in 1966), and being sent. certa. in Ott’s classifications of dogma, to being completely open to reinterpretation.

I can’t make sense of those kinds of changes in the Church’s views, with regard to Jesus’ knowledge of His own Divinity. I can see it with regard to other applications of his human knowledge, considered strictly on its own.

I am most curious as to your replies to the issues I have raised. Thanks for your time in reading and considering all this, and I wish you a very blessed Holy Week.

Dear Dave,

Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful response. I will do my best to respond in a brief space to the points you raise.

1) Christ’s human knowledge of the fact he is God is a subcase of the broader topic my article covers. I know it’s the subject you’re principally interested in due to The Young Messiah, but my article is more generally focused on the shift in the magisterium’s attitude regarding the human knowledge of Christ. I’d be more specific about subcases if I could.

Certainly one can maintain that the film is in error in depicting Christ not being sure of his divine identity at age seven. [my bolding in these two paragraphs] At the same time, I would be careful about charging the film with heresy (or with making any charge of heresy).

Heresy involves the denial of a teaching that the Church has infallibly defined as being divinely revealed, and I don’t know where the Church has infallibly defined that it has been divinely revealed that Jesus knew this at age seven. (I believe he did know it, but to make an allegation of heresy, I need to be able to show that the Church has infallibly defined it as divinely revealed that he did). The thesis most commonly used to support that idea–that Christ knew all real states of affairs from conception based on his possession of the beatific vision from conception–was only listed by Ott as certain, not as de fide.

2) Regarding Ott, it should be pointed out that the theological notes (sent. certa, sent. communior, de fide, etc.) that he assigns propositions represent his theological opinions. They are not official assignments made by Church authority. While his opinions are often good, they are not authoritative.

To some extent, English-speakers have relied too much on Ott’s theological notes because his is the only popular work in print and in English that uses theological notes. With no other opinions to compare them to, people tend to assume Ott’s notes must be correct.

If John Paul II teaches something that contradicts one of Ott’s notes, the former takes precedence, as John Paul II teaches with authority and Ott has an opinion to the contrary.

3) It also should be pointed out that Ott was a manualist. In fact, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a theological manual. When he says that something is sent. certa, it means that he (and some/many other manualists) felt certain of it.

However, manualistic theology is precisely the approach that Ratzinger and the other leaders of the Ressourcement wished to call into question. It is thus not surprising if manualists like Ott felt certain of things that Ressourcement leaders like Ratzinger did not think were certain.

Ott’s notes indicate what one school of thought held was certain, but the magisterium later took a broader perspective that was open to other schools of thought as well. It is therefore not surprising that the magisterium later treated some of Ott’s certainties as less than certain.

I therefore would not rely on Ott’s opinion that something is theologically certain if later magisterial developments point in a different direction.

4) It seems clear that John Paul II says that Jesus gained the beatific vision upon death, not conception. This does not mean that his human soul did not have prior, supernatural knowledge by virtue of the hypostatic union (it did have such knowledge), but it does mean that the magisterium is no longer making the claim regarding the beatific vision that Pius XII did, which means that conclusions based on the prior claim may or may not hold.

5) The fact the Catechism does not appeal to the beatific vision or use the classical threefold division of Christ’s human knowledge in its section on Christ’s human knowledge is an indication of the shift that has taken place.

The authors of the Catechism obviously thought it was appropriate to include a section on Christ’s human knowledge in a catechetical work of this nature, and for them to include one that takes a non-classical approach to the subject indicates that the subject has been rethought and the classical approach is no longer the one (or the only one) the Church wishes to present to the faithful.

6) The CDF statement that you cite from 1966 (which I initially had in my piece, but I had to cut it for space and flow reasons) is from the Ottaviani era.

Ottaviani was an ally of the manualists and a critic of Ressourcement theologians. The statement therefore represents a data point that is in continuity with the classical stream of thought, before the magisterial shift.

The fact that the shift occurred does not mean that the 1966 statement would be repudiated today, though it does mean that the 1966 statement cannot be read as if the shift had not occurred.

Thanks again for replying, and I hope you and your family have a blessed Holy Week!

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for your reply. Again, it was very helpful. I understood that your article dealt with a much broader issue (Jesus’ human knowledge).

Regarding my central concern with The Young Messiah we are in agreement (I think!), since you wrote: “Certainly one can maintain that the film is in error in depicting Christ not being sure of his divine identity at age seven” and “I believe he did know [His divine identity].”

That’s all I’ve said about it, and the only thing I saw wrong with it, excepting one possibly problematic prayer from Mary, in which she said, “forgive us our sins.”

Originally, I used the term “heresy” in my critique: indeed, in the title of my first post on the film. It was pointed out to me by Bryan Cross that use of that term for denial of doctrines of less authority than de fide was improper, so (several days ago now) I removed it from my first two papers.

I’ve since described it as “serious error” and a denial of a teaching described by Ott as “theologically certain.” Whether Ott’s categories are erroneous is, no doubt, another huge discussion, and of relatively less interest to me (though I would be curious to see a treatment of that question).

But even if he is disputable in individual instances, there is still undoubtedly a classification of the relative authority of teachings, and this one seems to me to be pretty high on the scale.

In any event, we agree that such a view (Jesus’ ignorance of His Divinity at age seven) is erroneous, and I have yet to see anything from the magisterium that would entail or establish such a view.

Now some are contending (trying to “play it down the middle”) that the film does not imply that Jesus didn’t know that He was God, but that hardly seems possible, as He shows confusion throughout the film regarding His miraculous powers, and [possible spoiler alert!] Mary tells Him near the end that He is the “Son of God” (I believe that was the term used).

Thus, the implication throughout was that He did not know this till the time at the end of the film, when He was still seven years old. Indeed, I would say that this was the central theme or plot line of the movie.

Whether His possession of the Beatific Vision is necessary for this self-knowledge, or necessary or required in general, I gladly leave for the theologians and magisterium to work out. But it seems much more doctrinally certain that He knew He was God from the beginning. Even Balthasar agrees with that (the quotations I provided), and I understand that he has flatly denied that Jesus possessed the Beatific Vision.

Your contributions have made the larger discussion a bit more confusing and “unsure” (to me, anyway), yet more fascinating at the same time.

I wrote and asked my friend, theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi, about Ott’s classifications, since he is the editor and translator of an upcoming revision of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (due to come out anytime now). He agreed that “Ott’s theological notes are his own opinion” and that “theological notes have been superseded to some extent by the three levels of assent to magisterial teaching expressed by the 1989 Profession of Faith and the 1998 CDF Commentary on this Profession.” He promised to write back later, at greater length, so hopefully he can provide more clarity about the issue at hand.

Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, in his paper, “The Teaching of Pope John Paul II on the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Theology of Reparation, Part 1” (2014) makes the following striking observation:

Unfortunately it must be acknowledged that, since at least the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council – although not as a result of it – there has been a consistent rejection on the part of many theologians of the Church’s traditional belief in the threefold human knowledge of Christ and, in particular, of his possessing the beatific vision in his earthly life. The primary reason for this rejection seems to be the assumption that the classical doctrine on the human knowledge of Christ is incompatible with contemporary psychological theory. Such an assumption is particularly regrettable since in this area everything depends on what psychological theory a given theologian chooses to base himself.  A theory that dominates in the field today may be abandoned tomorrow.  Because of the instability which has been injected into the postconciliar theological scene as a result of this rejection and because the papal magisterium has not made any subsequent pronouncements on the level of those made by Pius XI and Pius XII, there has been a tendency on the part of some to assume that the teaching of these popes is no longer binding.

I believe that such reasoning is clearly unacceptable for several reasons.  First, because, if a tenet of the faith has been continually taught and held with moral unanimity by pastors and theologians for a long period in the Church, it simply cannot be jettisoned, even if no longer supported by a consensus of theologians.  Otherwise there is no absolute truth; everything is reduced to relativism on the basis of what is theologically fashionable and we know that fashions by their very nature change from one day to the next.  Secondly, it is not necessary for every pope to restate all Catholic doctrine.  “An authentic exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium need not be repeated on the same subject” as Stackpole rightly states. Thirdly, not only has this doctrine never been rejected by the magisterium, but it has been reaffirmed in various ways, as we will now see.

He continues in Part 2, analyzing Pope St. John Paul II’s views in particular:

[I]f John Paul II has not used the classical language of “beatific” and “infused” knowledge in teaching about Christ’s human knowledge and consciousness, neither has he avoided the issue.  In an illuminating discourse which he gave at his general audience of 30 November 1988 on Jesus’ cry from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, the Pope commented:

Dominant in his mind Jesus has the clear vision of God and the certainty of his union with the Father.  But in the sphere bordering on the senses, and therefore more subject to the impressions, emotions and influences of the internal and external experiences of pain, Jesus’ human soul is reduced to a wasteland, and he no longer feels the “presence” of the Father, but he undergoes the tragic experience of the most complete desolation. …

In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment by God was the most acute pain for the soul of Jesus who drew his strength and joy from union with the Father.  This pain rendered more intense all the other sufferings.  That lack of interior consolation was his greatest agony.

If the Pope does not use the technical language of “beatific vision” here, one can hardly doubt that he is referring to it.  In effect, he is presenting the classical doctrine from a psychological perspective, which at once respects the teaching of the previous magisterium while striving to penetrate into the human experience of Christ’s dereliction during his agony and on the cross. [Calkins’ emphasis; my link added]

Now, I am inclined (with my love of development of doctrine) to favor this interpretation. He says that Pope St. John Paul II and also Pope Benedict (more on that below) are actually developing the older insights in a way that incorporates some of the more “psychological” / “stressing the humanity of Jesus” insights of theologians over the last 60 or so years. Perhaps (just a random thought) they don’t use the term “Beatific Vision” because some would immediately dismiss their thoughts? By using the limited term “vision” maybe they can develop the classical theology and come up with some new insights that harmonize the best in both lines of thought? I’m just thinking out loud.

Msgr. Calkins then cites at length Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte of 6 January 2001 [which was just cited at length above] (italics were in the EWTN posting; blue passages are my own selections from among Calkin’s more extensive italicized highlighting):

A face of sorrow

25. In contemplating Christ’s face, we confront the most paradoxical aspect of his mystery, as it emerges in his last hour, on the Cross. The mystery within the mystery, before which we cannot but prostrate ourselves in adoration.

The intensity of the episode of the agony in the Garden of Olives passes before our eyes. Oppressed by foreknowledge of the trials that await him, and alone before the Father, Jesus cries out to him in his habitual and affectionate expression of trust: “Abba, Father”. He asks him to take away, if possible, the cup of suffering (cf. Mk 14:36). But the Father seems not to want to heed the Son’s cry. In order to bring man back to the Father’s face, Jesus not only had to take on the face of man, but he had to burden himself with the “face” of sin. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).

We shall never exhaust the depths of this mystery. All the harshness of the paradox can be heard in Jesus’ seemingly desperate cry of pain on the Cross: ” ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?‘ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ ” (Mk 15:34). Is it possible to imagine a greater agony, a more impenetrable darkness? In reality, the anguished “why” addressed to the Father in the opening words of the Twenty-second Psalm expresses all the realism of unspeakable pain; but it is also illumined by the meaning of that entire prayer, in which the Psalmist brings together suffering and trust, in a moving blend of emotions. In fact the Psalm continues: “In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you set them free … Do not leave me alone in my distress, come close, there is none else to help” (Ps 22:5,12).

26. Jesus’ cry on the Cross, dear Brothers and Sisters, is not the cry of anguish of a man without hope, but the prayer of the Son who offers his life to the Father in love, for the salvation of all. At the very moment when he identifies with our sin, “abandoned” by the Father, he “abandons” himself into the hands of the Father. His eyes remain fixed on the Father. Precisely because of the knowledge and experience of the Father which he alone has, even at this moment of darkness he sees clearly the gravity of sin and suffers because of it. He alone, who sees the Father and rejoices fully in him, can understand completely what it means to resist the Father’s love by sin. More than an experience of physical pain, his Passion is an agonizing suffering of the soul. Theological tradition has not failed to ask how Jesus could possibly experience at one and the same time his profound unity with the Father, by its very nature a source of joy and happiness, and an agony that goes all the way to his final cry of abandonment. The simultaneous presence of these two seemingly irreconcilable aspects is rooted in the fathomless depths of the hypostatic union.

27. Faced with this mystery, we are greatly helped not only by theological investigation but also by that great heritage which is the “lived theology” of the saints. The saints offer us precious insights which enable us to understand more easily the intuition of faith, thanks to the special enlightenment which some of them have received from the Holy Spirit, or even through their personal experience of those terrible states of trial which the mystical tradition describes as the “dark night”. Not infrequently the saints have undergone something akin to Jesus’ experience on the Cross in the paradoxical blending of bliss and pain. In the Dialogue of Divine Providence, God the Father shows Catherine of Siena how joy and suffering can be present together in holy souls: “Thus the soul is blissful and afflicted: afflicted on account of the sins of its neighbour, blissful on account of the union and the affection of charity which it has inwardly received. These souls imitate the spotless Lamb, my Only-begotten Son, who on the Cross was both blissful and afflicted”. In the same way, Thérèse of Lisieux lived her agony in communion with the agony of Jesus, “experiencing” in herself the very paradox of Jesus’s own bliss and anguish: “In the Garden of Olives our Lord was blessed with all the joys of the Trinity, yet his dying was no less harsh. It is a mystery, but I assure you that, on the basis of what I myself am feeling, I can understand something of it”. What an illuminating testimony! Moreover, the accounts given by the Evangelists themselves provide a basis for this intuition on the part of the Church of Christ’s consciousness when they record that, even in the depths of his pain, he died imploring forgiveness for his executioners (cf. Lk 23:34) and expressing to the Father his ultimate filial abandonment: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Lk 23:46).

Msgr. Calkins summarizes:

The first very important point made by the Pope and consistently repeated in various ways is that in approaching the question of Christ’s human consciousness during his agony and passion we are dealing with a profound mystery of the faith, indeed, he calls it “the mystery within the mystery” and says that before it “we cannot but prostrate ourselves in adoration”.

Secondly, his teaching about Jesus’ enjoyment of the beatific vision, even in the bitter experience of his passion, is unmistakable.  He says that Jesus’ “eyes remain fixed on the Father” and is emphatic about “the knowledge and experience of the Father which he alone has, even at this moment of darkness”.  With this affirmation he ratifies and synthesizes the theological, mystical and magisterial tradition of which he is the heir. . . .

Now it is true that John Paul II did not present the theological question with the specific finality of seeking to know how our “retroactive” reparation could bring consolation to Jesus in his passion; his is the even more fundamental question of how Jesus could experience “at one and the same time his profound unity with the Father” and an unspeakable agony.  His answer i.e., that “The simultaneous presence of these two seemingly irreconcilable aspects is rooted in the fathomless depths of the hypostatic union”, in no way invalidates the response of Pius XI in Miserentissimus Redemptor, but further confirms it.

Even Fr. Joseph S. O’Leary: openly and proudly “liberal” or “progressive” in outlook, in effect conceded:

I am told that John Paul II, in the retreat he gave for Paul VI, preached that Jesus enjoyed the beatific vision while in his mother’s womb (also stated in Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943). Benedict has not taken up that tradition here, but one may surmise that he believes Jesus to have enjoyed the beatific vision throughout his earthly mission. The question of Christ’s self-consciousness is at the heart of Benedict’s quarrel with the historico-critical method.  (“Benedict XVI on Jesus”: 6-15-07)

Of great relevance to our question is a recent book by a Dominican, Simon Francis Gaine, entitled, Did the Saviour See the Father?: Christ, Salvation, and the Vision of God (London: Bloomsbury / T & T Clark, 2015). He refers (pp. 3-5) to a massive shift in theology (alluded to in Jimmy Akin’s article): away from the predominantly “Thomistic” / classical / traditional position (that Christ possessed the Beatific Vision from conception) to something different.

Yet, the Notification on the Works of Father Jon Sobrino, SJ, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under William Cardinal Levada on 26 November 2006, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI, appeared to rather dramatically (some would say, surprisingly) reaffirm traditional teaching, though in somewhat different terminology (my blue highlighting; italics in original on the Holy See website):

V. The Self-consciousness of Jesus

8. Citing Leonardo Boff, Father Sobrino affirms that “Jesus was an extraordinary believer and had faith. Faith was Jesus’ mode of being” (Jesus the Liberator, 154). And for his own part he adds: “This faith describes the totality of the life of Jesus” (Ibidem, 157). The Author justifies his position citing the text of Hebrews 12:2: “Tersely and with a clarity unparalleled in the New Testament, the letter says that Jesus was related to the mystery of God in faith. Jesus is the one who has first and most fully lived faith (12:2)” (Christ the Liberator, 136-137). He further adds: “With regard to faith, Jesus in his life is presented as a believer like ourselves, our brother in relation to God, since he was not spared having to pass through faith. But he is also presented as an elder brother because he lived faith as its ‘pioneer and perfecter’ (12:2). He is the model, the one on whom we have to keep our eyes fixed in order to live out our own faith” (Ibidem, 138).

These citations do not clearly show the unique singularity of the filial relationship of Jesus with the Father; indeed they tend to exclude it. Considering the whole of the New Testament it is not possible to sustain that Jesus was “a believer like ourselves”. The Gospel of John speaks of Jesus’ “vision” of the Father: “Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father”.[20] This unique and singular intimacy between Jesus and the Father is equally evident in the Synoptic Gospels. [21]

The filial and messianic consciousness of Jesus is the direct consequence of his ontology as Son of God made man. If Jesus were a believer like ourselves, albeit in an exemplary manner, he would not be able to be the true Revealer showing us the face of the Father. This point has an evident connection both with what is said above in number IV concerning the relationship between Jesus and the Kingdom, and what will be said in VI below concerning the salvific value that Jesus attributed to his death. For Father Sobrino, in fact, the unique character of the mediation and revelation of Jesus disappears: he is thus reduced to the condition of “revealer” that we can attribute to the prophets and mystics.

Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God, enjoys an intimate and immediate knowledge of his Father, a “vision” that certainly goes beyond the vision of faith. The hypostatic union and Jesus’ mission of revelation and redemption require the vision of the Father and the knowledge of his plan of salvation. This is what is indicated in the Gospel texts cited above.

Various recent magisterial texts have expressed this doctrine: “But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all that 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”. [22]

Though in somewhat different terminology, Pope John Paul II insists on this vision of the Father: “His [Jesus’] eyes remain fixed on the Father. Precisely because of the knowledge and experience of the Father which he alone has, even at this moment of darkness he sees clearly the gravity of sin and suffers because of it. He alone, who sees the Father and rejoices fully in him, can understand completely what it means to resist the Father’s love by sin”. [23]

Likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the immediate knowledge which Jesus has of the Father: “Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father”. [24] “By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal”. [25]

The relationship between Jesus and God is not correctly expressed by saying Jesus was a believer like us. On the contrary, it is precisely the intimacy and the direct and immediate knowledge which he has of the Father that allows Jesus to reveal to men the mystery of divine love. Only in this way can Jesus bring us into divine love.

FOOTNOTES

[20] Jn 6:46; Cf. also Jn 1:18.

[21] Cf. Mt 11:25-27; Lk 10:21-22.

[22] Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis, 75: AAS (1943) 230; DH 3812.

[23] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, 26: AAS 93 (2001), 266-309.

[24] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 473.

[25] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 474.

Gaine summarizes this as follows:

The document illustrates this intimate knowledge of the Father by quoting Pius XII on Christ’s possession of the beatific vision from the first moment of the incarnation. It then goes on to cite John Paul II’s Novo Millennio Ineunte and the Catechism, neither of which, as we have seen, makes explicit mention of the ‘beatific vision.’ The notification, however, asserts that John Paul was in fact insisting on the same vision of the Father of which Pius XII spoke in Mystici Corporis, and by implication it asserted the same of the Catechism also.

Most recently, Christ’s vision of the Father has been touched on by Pope Francis in his encyclical on faith, which was largely prepared by his predecessor, Pope Benedict. Francis speaks there of Christ’s ‘vision’ of his Father taking place ‘in a human way’ (humana ratione) in the course of time, on account of the incarnation. . . .

What we see at work in the notification with regard to the teaching of John Paul II and the Catechism is an approach to earlier magisterial pronouncements that finds in them a significant continuity with yet earlier teaching. This reflects to some degree the hermeneutics for interpreting the work of Vatican II, which had been publicly approved by Benedict XVI at the end of 2005. . . . In contrast to the more recent theological consensus that is loathe to attribute beatific knowledge to Christ, the Magisterium seems in the notification to have reaffirmed its commitment to just that position. (pp. 12-13)

If we look closely at how the 2006 CDF document makes its arguments, and the connections between the ideas, I think it upholds the classical traditional understanding. The document refers to this “vision” and then in the next paragraph states, “Various recent magisterial texts have expressed this doctrine” [my emphasis], and then it cites Mystici Corporis, talking about the Beatific Vision from Jesus’ conception. Is that not an equation of the two concepts? Seems so to me, by grammar and logic.
*
Then the next sentence is, “Though in somewhat different terminology, Pope John Paul II insists on this vision of the Father . . .” Again, it seems that the logic and connections continue: the “vision” referenced is the same as the Beatific Vision, which is the same as what Pope St. John Paul II insists upon, though “in somewhat different terminology” [for the Beatific Vision]. Is there another way to plausibly interpret this sequence?

*

After quoting John Paul II, it then states [my emphasis again], “Likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church . . .” It’s talking about the same concept all the way through, and since it is equated with Beatific Vision, the entire section is intended (so it seems to me) to make synonymous the “vision” and the Beatific Vision. The example given of a magisterial text expressing the doctrine is Mystici Corporis: thus defining what it is that is being discussed. If indeed the document and the Church and magisterium were trying to move away from that interpretation, then that quote would, I submit, be the very last one to use in that place.

*
To me, this shows that the magisterium did indeed come out in favor of the “traditional” doctrine, and at least partially against the fashionable trends in theology that have lately predominated.
*
Another well-known instance of popes and the Church using different terminology for the same exact concept over the last few generations is the stressing of the title mediatrix for the Blessed Virgin Mary rather than the term often used in the past: co-redemptrix: different words, but basically or essentially the same idea. I think that is happening with regard to the matter at hand as well, though there is actually some further development taking place (as I suppose there is with Mariology, too).
2017-03-24T14:12:26-04:00

Last updated on: March 24, 2017 at 2:12 pm   By

. . . Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, & Cromwellians: 1565-1713

CelticCross12
High Cross at the Rock of Cashel (County Tipperary). Photograph by Jon Sullivan (15 June 2002)
[released into public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
* * *

(2-27-08)

* * *

 [names not linked are found on the Irish Confessors and Martyrs page, from The Catholic Encyclopedia]
*

[ adding the 269 Irish martyrs during the reign of Butcher Henry VIII, we arrive at a grand total of 713 documented Irish martyrs and confessors ]

*

Total of all documented martyrs and heroic confessors for the Catholic faith, persecuted by English “head of the Church” royalty and its minions, in four papers of mine:

1375

*
For much more information along these lines, see my index page: Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance
* * * * *

Conacius Macuarta (Conn McCourt) Franciscan. Flogged to death in Armagh, 16 December 1565, for refusing to acknowledge the queen’s supremacy.

Roger MacCongaill (McConnell)

Franciscan. Flogged to death in Armagh, 16 December, 1565, for refusing to acknowledge the queen’s supremacy.

Edmund Fitzsimon

Franciscan. Hanged on 21 January, 1575 in Downpatrick.

John Lochran

Franciscan. Hanged on 21 January, 1575 in Downpatrick.

Donagh O’Rorke

Franciscan. Hanged on 21 January, 1575 in Downpatrick.

Edmund MacDonnell (or, O’Donnell)

Jesuit priest. Died on 16 March 1575 in Cork.

Fergall Ward

Franciscan guardian, Armagh — hanged, 28 April 1575, with his own girdle.

William Walsh

Born c. 1512. Bishop of Meath (Cistercian). When Queen Elizabeth introduced a Protestant liturgy into Ireland, Walsh resisted strenuously in Convocatio, and preached at Trim against the Book of Common Prayer. On 4 Feb., 1560, he refused the oath of supremacy, was deprived of his temporalities, and by the Queen’s order committed to custody and was later committed to Dublin Castle in July 1565, in a dark and filthy cell. At Christmas, 1572, his friends contrived his escape to Nantes in Brittany. After six months of destitution he was aided by the nuncio in France to proceed to Spain. He reached Alcalá almost moribund through privations, fatigues. Afterwards he removed to the Cistercian convent and died on 4 January 1577, among his former brethren, esteemed a martyr to the Faith.

Thomas Courcy

Vicar-general at Kinsale. Hanged on 30 March 1577.

David Hurley

Dean of Emly — died in prison in 1578.

Thomas Moeran

Dean of Cork — taken in the exercise of his functions and executed in 1578.

John O’Dowd

Franciscan priest. Refused to reveal a confession, put to death at Elphin by having his skull compressed with a twisted cord, in 1579.

Thomas O’Herlahy

Bishop of Ross. Consecrated about 1560, he was one of three Irish bishops attending the Council of Trent. He incurred such persecution through enforcing its decrees that he fled with his chaplain to a little island, but was betrayed to Perrot, President of Munster, who sent him in chains to the Tower of London. Simultaneously with Primate Creagh, he was confined until released after about three years and seven months on the security of Cormac MacCarthy, Lord of Muskery. Intending to retire to Belgium, ill health contracted in prison induced him to return to Ireland. He was apprehended at Dublin, but released on exhibiting his discharge, and proceeded to Muskery under MacCarthy’s protection. Disliking the lavishness of that nobleman’s house, he withdrew to a small farm and lived in great austerity. Relieving distress to the utmost of his power he made a visitation of his diocese yearly, and on great festivals officiated and preached in a neighbouring church. Thus, though afflicted with dropsy, he lived until his sixtieth (or seventieth) year, dying exhausted by labours and sufferings, in 1579.

Thaddæus Daly and Companion

Franciscans. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Limerick, 1 January 1579. The bystanders reported that his head when cut off distinctly uttered the words: “Lord, show me Thy ways.”

Edmund Tanner

Born c. 1526. Bishop of Cork and Cloyne, Ireland, 1574-1579. In May, 1575, he set out for Ireland with exceptional faculties for his own diocese and for those of Cashel, Dublin, and its suffragan sees in the absence of their respective prelates. Not long after his reaching Ireland he was captured while exercising his functions at Clonmel, and was thrown into prison; here, as Holing tells, he was visited by a schismatical bishop whom he reconciled to the Church. A few days later he was himself released through the influence of a noble earl. Thereafter he did not venture into his own diocese but as commissary-Apostolic he traversed the other districts assigned him, administering the sacraments and discharging in secret the other duties of his office. Four years he laboured thus in continual peril and distress, and at length succumbed to his privations and fatigues in the Diocese of Ossory, 4 June, 1579. Bruodin states that he died in Dublin Castle after eighteen months of imprisonment and cruel torture.

Blessed Patrick O’Healey (or, O’Healy, or Pádraig Ó Héilí)

Born c. 1545. Bishop of Mayo (Franciscan). Denied the royal supremacy, replying that he could not barter his faith for life or honours; his business was to do a bishop’s part in advancing religion and saving souls. To questions about the plans of the pope and the King of Spain for invading Ireland he made no answer, and thereupon was delivered to torture. As he still remained silent, he was sent to instant execution by martial law. The execution by hanging took place outside one of the gates of Kilmallock, on 22 August 1579.

Blessed Cornelius (Or, Conn) O’Rourke

Franciscan priest. Tortured and hanged in Kilmallock, on 22 August 1579.

Prior at the Cistercian monastery of Graeg

Killed in 1580.

Daniel O’Neilan (or, O’Duillian)

Franciscan priest. Fastened round the waist with a rope and thrown with weights tied to his feet from one of town-gates at Youghal, finally fastened to a mill-wheel and torn to pieces, 28 March 1580.

Daniel Hanrichan
Maurice O’Scanlan
Philip O’Shee (O’Lee)

Franciscan priests. Beaten with sticks and slain, 6 April 1580, before the altar of Lislachtin monastery, Co. Kerry.

Laurence O’Moore

Priest. Tortured and hanged, 11 November 1580, after the surrender of Dun-an-oir in Kerry.

Oliver Plunkett

Gentleman. Tortured and hanged, 11 November 1580, after the surrender of Dun-an-oir in Kerry.

William Walsh (or Willick)

Englishman. Tortured and hanged, 11 November 1580, after the surrender of Dun-an-oir in Kerry.

John Clinch
John Eustace
Thomas Eustace
Robert Fitzgerald
Walter Lakin (or, Layrmus)
Matthew Lamport
Thomas Netherfield (or, Netterville)
Nicholas Nugent (Chief Justice)
David Sutton
Robert Sherlock
John Sutton
William Wogan

Executed on a charge of complicity in rebellion with Lord Baltinglass, in 1581.

Richard French

Priest, Ferns Diocese. Died in prison in 1581.

Blessed Patrick Cavanaugh (or, Cavanagh, or, Pádraigh Caomhánach)
Blessed Edward Cheevers
Blessed Robert Meyler (or, Tyler)
Blessed Matthew Lambert
John O’Lahy
Anonymous Sailor

Matthew Lambert was a Wexford baker who had arranged with five sailor acquaintances to provide safe passage by ship out of Wexford for Viscount Baltinglass and his Jesuit chaplain Robert Rochford when English troops were pursuing them after the fall of the Second Desmond Rebellion (1579-83). The authorities heard of the plan beforehand and Matthew was arrested together with his five sailor friends. Thrown into prison, they were questioned about politics and religion. Lambert’s reply was: “I am not a learned man. I am unable to debate with you, but I can tell you this, ‘I am a Catholic and I believe whatever our Holy Mother the Catholic Church believes.’” They were found guilty of treason and hanged, drawn, and quartered in Wexford on 5 July 1581.

Nicholas Fitzgerald

Cistercian. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, September 1581 at Dublin.

Maurice Eustace

He secretly took Holy Orders. His servant, who was aware of the fact, told his father, who had his son immediately arrested and imprisoned in Dublin and put on trial for high treason. During his imprisonment Adam Loftus, Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, offered him his daughter in marriage, and a large dowry if he would accept the reformed religion. Yielding neither to the bribery nor persecution, Eustace was sentenced to public execution, and hanged, in November 1581.

Henry O’Fremlamhaidh (anglicized Frawley)

Died in 1582.

Thaddæus O’Meran (or O’Morachue)

Franciscan. Guardian of Enniscorthy. Died in 1582.

John Wallis

Priest. Died, 20 January 1582, in prison at Worcester.

Cahill McGoran
Peter McQuillan
Roger O’Donnellan
Patrick O’Kenna
James Pillan

Franciscan priests. Died on or near 13 February 1582, Dublin Castle.

Roger McHenlea (or, O’Hanlon)

Franciscan lay brother. Died on or near 13 February 1582, Dublin Castle.

Henry Delahoyde
Phelim O’Hara (or, O’Corra)

Franciscans of Moyne, Co. Mayo. Hanged and quartered, 1 May 1582.

Æneas Penny

Parish priest of Killatra (Killasser, Co. Mayo). Slain by soldiers while saying Mass, 4 May 1582.

Donagh O’Reddy

Parish priest of Coleraine. Hanged and transfixed with swords, 12 June 1582, at the altar of his church.

Blessed Margaret Birmingham Ball

Born in 1515. When she was fifteen years old Margaret married Alderman Bartholomew Ball of Ballrothery. Margaret had ten children. Her husband was elected Mayor of Dublin in 1553, making Margaret the Mayoress. She had a comfortable life with a large household and many servants, and she was recognised for organising classes for the children of local Irish families in her own home.

Margaret’s eldest son, Walter Ball, embraced the “new religion” and was appointed Commissioner for Ecclesiastical Causes in 1577. Margaret was disappointed with her son’s change of faith and tried to change his mind. On one occasion, she told him that she had a “special friend” for him to meet. Walter arrived early with a company of soldiers, and found that the “special friend” was Dermot O’Hurley, Archbishop of Cashel. He was celebrating Mass with the family. Walter had his mother arrested and locked in the dungeons of Dublin Castle.

When the family protested, Walter declared that his mother should have been executed, but he had spared her. She would be allowed to go free if she “Took the Oath”, which probably referred to the Oath of Supremacy. Her second son, Nicholas, who supported her, was elected Mayor of Dublin in 1582. However, Walter was still Commissioner for Ecclesiastical Causes, which was a crown appointment. He outranked Nicholas and kept him from securing the release of their mother. Nicholas visited her daily, bringing her food, clothing, and candles.

Margaret died in 1584 at the age of sixty-nine, which was an advanced age at the time. She was crippled with arthritis and had lived for three years in the cold, wet dungeon of Dublin Castle with no natural light. Margaret had lived in the dungeon when she could have returned to a life of comfort at any time by simply “taking the oath.” Although she could have altered her will, she still bequeathed her property to Walter upon her death.

John O’Daly

Franciscan priest. Trampled to death by cavalry in 1584.

Blessed Dermond (or, Dermot) O’Hurley

Born c. 1530. Archbishop of Cashel. He was committed to Dublin Castle in October, 1583 and tortured. Early in March, 1584, the archbishop’s legs were thrust into boots filled with oil and salt, beneath which a fire was kindled. Some groans of agony were wrung from the victim, and he cried aloud, “Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!,” but rejected every proposal to abandon his religion. Ultimately he swooned away, and fearing his death, the torturers removed him; as the boots were pulled off, the flesh was stripped from his bones. In this condition he was returned to prison. Queen Elizabeth approved of the torture, and execution by martial law. He was secretly taken out at dawn, and hanged with a withe on the gibbet near St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, on 20 June, 1584. He spoke to the crowds before he was killed:

Be it therefore known unto you . . . that I am a priest anointed and also a Bishop, although unworthy of so sacred dignities, and no cause could they find against me that might in the least deserve the pains of death, but merely for my function of priesthood wherein they have proceeded against me in all points cruelly contrary to their own laws . . . and I do enjoin you (dear Christian brethren) to manifest the same to the world and also to bear witness on the Day of Judgment of my Innocent death, which I endure for my function and profession of the most holy Catholic Faith.

Thaddæus Clancy

Died on 15 September 1584, near Listowel.

Gelasius (or, Glaisne) O’Cullenan

Cistercian Abbot of Boyle. Tortured and hanged on 21 November 1584 at Dublin.

Eugene Cronius (or Hugh or John Mulcheran, or Eoghan O’Maoilchiarain)

Either Abbot of Trinity Island, Co. Roscommon, or a secular priest. Tortured and hanged on, 21 November 1584, at Dublin.

Blessed Maurice Kenraghty(or, McKenraghty)

Priest. In September, 1583, he was handed over to the Earl of Ormond. By Ormond’s command he was chained to one Patrick Grant, and sent to prison at Clonmel. Here he lay in irons, exhorting, instructing, and hearing confessions at his prison grate until April, 1585. His jailer was then bribed by Victor White, a leading townsman, to release the priest for one night to say Mass and administer the Paschal Communion in White’s house. The jailer secretly warned the President of Munster to take this opportunity to capture most of the neighbouring recusants (those refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy) at Mass. In the morning an armed force surrounded the house, arrested White and others, seized the sacred vessels, and looked for the priest everywhere. He had hidden under straw at the first alarm, and, though wounded when the heap was probed, ultimately escaped to the woods. Learning, however, that White’s life could only be saved by his (Kenraghty’s) surrender, he gave himself up, and was at once tried by martial law. Pardon and preferment were offered him if he agreed to conform, but he resolutely maintained the Catholic faith and the pope’s authority, and was hanged as a traitor at Clonmel on 20 April 1585. His head was set up in the market-place.

Patrick O’Connor, Cistercian
Malachy O’Kelly, Cistercian

Hanged and quartered, 19 May 1585, at Boyle.

Maurice (or Murtagh) O’Brien

Bishop of Emly. Died in prison at Dublin in 1586.

Donagh O’Murheely (or, O’Murthuile, wrongly identified with O’Hurley) and Companion

Franciscans. Stoned and tortured to death at Muckross, Killarney in 1586.

John Cornelius

Franciscan of Askeaton. Died in 1587.

Walter Farrell

Franciscan of Askeaton. Hanged with his own girdle in 1587.

Peter (or Patrick) Meyler

Native of Wexford, executed at Galway in 1588.

Patrick O’Brady, Franciscan Prior at Monaghan, and Six Friars

Killed in 1588 by soldiers.

Dermot O’Mulrony (Franciscan priest)
Brother Thomas (Franciscan)
Franciscan of Galbally, Co. Limerick

Put to death in Limerick on 21 March 1588.

Thaddæus O’Boyle

Guardian of Donegal, slain there, 13 April 1588, by soldiers.

Patrick Plunkett

Knight. Hanged and quartered, 6 May 1588, Dublin.

Peter Miller

Diocese of Ferns. Tortured, hanged, and quartered, 4 October, 1588.

Geoffrey Farrell
John O’Molloy
Cornelius O’Dogherty

Franciscan priests. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, 15 December 1588, at Abbeyleix.

Christopher Roche

Layman. ied on 13 December 1590, under torture, Newgate, London.

Matthew O’Leyn

Franciscan priest. Died on 6 March 1590, at Kilcrea.

Terence Magennis
Magnus O’Fredliney (or O’Todhry)
Loughlin og Mac O’Cadha (or, Mac Eochadha, Keogh)

Franciscans of Multifarnham. Died in prison in 1591.

Andrew Strich

Priest, Limerick. Died in Dublin Castle in 1594.

John Stephens

Priest, Dublin province. Hanged and quartered, 4 September 1597, for saying Mass.

George Power

Vicar-General of Ossory. Died in prison in 1599.

John Walsh

Vicar-General of Dublin. Died in prison at Chester in 1600.

Nicholas Young

Priest, died in Dublin Castle in 1600.

James Dudall (or, Dowdall)

He was a merchant of Drogheda, Ireland. In the summer of 1598, when returning from France, his ship was driven by stress of weather onto the coast of Devonshire, and he was arrested by William Bourchier, Earl of Bath, who had him under examination. Dowdall publicly avowed that he rejected the queen’s supremacy, and only recognized that of the Roman pontiff. The earl forwarded the examination to Sir Robert Cecil, and had Dowdall committed to Exeter jail. Whilst in prison he was tortured and put to the rack, but continued unchanged in his fidelity to the ancient faith. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Exeter, England, 20 September, 1600.

Patrick Hayes (or, O’Hea)

Shipowner of Wexford and layman, charged with aiding bishops, priests, and others. Died in prison on 4 December 1600 (possibly after at least twenty years of incarceration).

Donagh O’Cronin

Clerk. Hanged and disembowelled in Cork, in 1601.

Bernard Moriarty

Dean of Ardagh and Vicar-General of Dublin. Having his thighs broken by soldiers, died in prison, Dublin, in 1601.

Redmond O’Gallagher

Bishop of Derry. Slain by soldiers, 15 March 1601, near Dungiven.

Daniel (or, Donagh) O’Mollony

Vicar-General of Killaloe. Died of torture, 24 April 1601, Dublin Castle.

John O’Kelly

Priest. Died on 15 May 1601, in prison.

Two priests and seven novices of Limerick and Kilmallock, assembled in 1602 with forty Benedictine, Cistercian, and other monks, at Scattery Island in the Shannon to be deported under safe conduct in a man-of-war, were cast overboard at sea.

Blessed Dominic Collins

Born in 1566. Ordained as a Jesuit in 1589. After the Battle of Kinsale he retreated with O’Sullivan Beare to Dunboy Castle in west Cork, where after a siege he was captured, bribed to change his religion and tortured. No effort was spared in the attempt to break Dominic’s resolution. We are told that he was savagely tortured, though the form of torture is not mentioned. He was promised rich rewards and high ecclesiastical office if he would accept the doctrines of Anglicanism. Ministers of religion were sent to persuade him of the error of his beliefs. Even some of his own family visited him, urging him to save his life by pretending a conversion which he could afterwards repudiate. He was in his middle thirties with much to live for. But he rejected all the offers, and chose a martyr’s death.

Taken to his hometown of Youghal on 31st October 1602, he was marched by a troop of soldiers through the streets to the place of execution. It was the first time he had seen his home town in fifteen years. He wore the black gown of his order, which he had desired so long and loved so greatly. He knelt at the foot of the gallows and greeted it joyfully: “Hail, holy cross, so long desired by me!” Then he addressed the crowd in a mixture of Spanish, Irish and English, telling them that he had come to Ireland to defend the faith of the Holy Roman Church, which was the one true path to salvation and for which he was about to die. He was so cheerful that an English officer remarked, “He is going to his death as eagerly as I would go to a banquet”. Dominic overheard him and replied, “For this cause I would be willing to die not once but a thousand deaths”.

His words and demeanour so touched the crowd that the hangman refused to do his work. The soldiers eventually seized on a passer-by, a poor fisherman, and forced him to accept the office. He asked the victim for forgiveness, which Dominic gladly granted before mounting the ladder with the rope around his neck. Reciting a psalm, he had just reached the words “Into your hands I commend my spirit”, when the fisherman pulled away the ladder; and so he died. In his life and in his death he remains one of the most attractive and lovable of all the Irish martyrs.

The following Dominicans suffered under Elizabeth (1558-1603), but the dates are uncertain:

Father MacFerge, prior of Coleraine
24 friars of Coleraine,
32 members of the community of Derry, slain there the same night.

Eugene O’Gallagher

Abbot of the Cistercians of Assaroe, Ballyshannon — slain there by soldiers in 1606.

Bernard O’Trevir

Prior of the Cistercians of Assaroe, Ballyshannon — slain there by soldiers in 1606.

Bernard O’Carolan

Priest. Executed by martial law, Good Friday, 1606.

Sir John Burke

From Brittas, County Limerick. Rescued and defended with arms a priest seized by soldiers, and so was executed at Limerick, 20 December 1606.

Dermot Bruodin

Franciscan. Tortured at Limerick and died as a result in 1607.

Francis Helam (or, Helan)

Franciscan priest. Apprehended saying Mass in Drogheda, and died in prison in 1607.

Patrick O’Derry

Franciscan, priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lifford in 1607.

John O’Luin

Dominican. Hanged at Derry in 1607.

Niall O’Boyle

Franciscan. Beheaded or hanged, 15 January 1607, Co. Tyrone.

Donagh (or, William) O’Luin

Dominican prior of Derry. Hanged and quartered there in 1608.

John Lune

Priest, Ferns Diocese. Hanged and quartered, 12 November 1610, Dublin.

Blessed Cornelius (or, Conor) O’Devany (or, Conchobhar O’Duibheannaigh)

Born c. 1532. Franciscan Bishop of Down and Connor. In 1588 he was committed to Dublin Castle. Failing to convict him of any crime punishable with death, Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam sought authority from Burghley to “be rid of such an obstinate enemy of God and so rank a traitor to her Majesty as no doubt he is”. He lay in prison until November, 1590, being then released ostensibly on his own petition but doubtless through policy. He was protected by O’Neill until 1607, and escaped arrest until the middle of 1611, when, almost eighty years old, he was taken while administering confirmation and again committed to Dublin Castle. On 28 January, 1612, he was tried for high treason, found guilty by the majority of a packed jury, and sentenced to die.

He was drawn on a cart from the Castle to the gallows beyond the river on 1 February 1612, in Dublin; the whole route was crowded with Catholics lamenting and begging his blessing. Protestant clergymen pestered him with ministrations and urged him to confess he died for treason. “Pray let me be”, he answered, “the viceroy’s messenger to me here present, could tell that I might have life and revenue for going once to that temple”, pointing to a tower opposite.

On reaching the top step of the scaffold the bishop prayed aloud for all who were present. He prayed for the Catholics of Dublin and of Ireland, urging them to persevere in their faith. He prayed for all heretics and for their reunion with the Church and he forgave his persecutors. He kissed the hangman’s rope, placed it around his neck, drew the veil over his face and held out his hands to be tied.
It was at this moment that an event occurred which was recorded by almost all the sources and evidently was remembered by all the witnesses. The sky had been dark and overcast all that day. Now as the sun was setting the clouds parted and the scaffold was bathed in the red glow of the setting sun. While the bishop hung on the gallows the clouds closed over again. After the bishop had been hanged the executioner cut off his head and held it up with the customary cry: ‘Look on the head of a traitor’.

Blessed Patrick O’Lochran (or, Loughran, or, Pádraig Ó Lochráin)

Born c. 1577. Priest, Cork Diocese. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, on 1 February 1612, Dublin.

William McGillacunny (MacGiolla Coinigh)

Dominican. Executed at Coleraine in 1614.

Michael Fitzsimon, layman
Conn O’Kiennan

Hanged, drawn, and quartered in 1615.

Lewis O’Laverty

Priest, hanged, drawn, and quartered, 1615.

Thomas Fitzgerald

Franciscan priest. Died in prison, 12 July 1617, Dublin.

John MacConnan (or, John Oonan, or Conan)

Priest, executed by martial law, Dublin, 1618.

John Honan

Franciscan priest. Tortured, hanged, and quartered, 14 October 1618, Dublin.

Blessed Francis Taylor

Born c. 1550 in Swords, County Dublin, he was elected Dublin’s mayor in 1595. Later he was imprisoned for his Catholic faith, and died in the Castle on 29 January 1621, after seven years of refusing to accept his freedom by giving up his religion.

James Eustace

Cistercian. Hanged and quartered, 6 September 1621.

Edmund Dungan

Bishop of Down and Connor — died, 2 November 1628, Dublin Castle.

Paul (or, Patrick) Fleming

Franciscan, priest. Put to death by Protestants, 13 November 1631, at Benesabe, Bohemia.

Matthew Hore

Put to death by Protestants, 13 November 1631, at Benesabe, Bohemia.

Arthur MacGeoghegan

Dominican priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, 27 November 1633, Tyburn.

John Meagh

Jesuit priest. Shot, 31 May 1639, by the Swedish army near Guttenberg, Bohemia.

Philip Clery

Priest. Died in 1642.

Cormac Egan

Dominican lay brother. Died in 1642.

Raymund Keogh

Dominican priest. Shot while hearing confessions on the battlefield, in 1642.

Francis O’Mahony

Franciscan. Guardian at Cork — tortured and hanged, regaining consciousness, he was again hanged with his girdle, in 1642.

Stephen Petit

Dominican prior at Mullingar — shot while hearing confessions on the battlefield, in 1642.

John Clancy Edmund Hore

Priests, Waterford Diocese — put to death, March 1642, at Dungarvan.

Blessed Peter O’Higgin (or, Higgins)

Born 1600. Ordained as a Dominican before 1627. During the Rebellion of 1641 when the Irish Ulstermen came south of the Boyne, the Catholic Lords of the Pale opted to join them while the Governor of Dublin, Sir Charles Coote, opted for a policy of “exterminate all Catholics”. Law and order collapsed and plunder became a daily occurrence. Both Protestant landowners and even Catholics known to be government supporters were looted by the rebels.

Peter Higgins as Prior of Naas made efforts to restrain the violent and sheltered the homeless. He intervened to save the Protestant rector of Donadea, William Pillsworth, who was about to be put to the gallows by Catholics and upbraided the Catholics for their unchristian behaviour. In January 1642 the Earl of Ormond mobilised a Protestant force in Dublin to strike back at Catholics. Among those taken into custody was Peter Higgins, who in fact did not resist arrest, knowing he had done so much to save and protect Protestants and that he was innocent of any crime. Ormond tried to intervene on Higgins’s behalf presenting petitions from at least twenty Protestants who had known Higgins urging that the priest’s life be spared. But Ormond was amazed when on the morning of 23rd March 1642 he heard that Higgins’s body was hanging from a gallows in Dublin; Sir Charles Coote had executed him without trial. At the gallows Higgins was offered a chance to deny his faith, but declined saying: “I die a Catholic and a Dominican priest. I forgive from my heart all who have conspired to bring about my death. Deo gratias.” Among the crowd stood William Pillsworth, rector of Donadea. He cried out: “This man is innocent, this man is innocent. He saved my life.” His words fell on deaf ears. The soldiers hacked his body to pieces so that it could not be given an honourable burial.

Angelus of St. Joseph

O.D.C. Hanged, 4 May 1642, Newry.

Robert (or, Malachy) O’Shiel

Cistercian priest. Hanged, 4 May 1642, Newry.

Thomas Aquinas of Jesus

Priest, O.D.C., hanged, 6 July 1642, Drogheda.

Cornelius O’Brien

Hanged on board ship in the Shannon, by parliamentarians, October 1642.

Fergal Ward

Franciscan. Hanged on board ship in the Shannon, by parliamentarians, October 1642.

Peter of the Mother of God

Lay brother, O.D.C. Died in 1643.

Christopher Ultan (or, Donlevy)

Franciscan priest. Died in Newgate prison, London, 1644.

Cornelius O’Connor Eugene O’Daly
O.SS.T. — drowned at sea by a Parliamentarian commander, 11 January 1644.

John Flaverty

Dominican priest. Died in 1645.

Hugh MacMahon, layman, and Conor Maguire, Baron of Enniskillen — executed for complicity in the outbreak of the Confederate War, 1645.

Thaddæus O’Connell

Priest, O.S.A. — executed by Parliamentarians after the battle of Sligo in 1645.

Henry White

Priest — hanged at Rathconnell, Co. Meath, 1645.

Edmund Mulligan

Cistercian priest. Slain in July 1645, near Clones, by Parliamentarians.

Malachy O’Queely (Maolsheachlainn O Cadhla)

Archbishop of Tuam; executed at Ballipodare, 27 October, 1645.

At the storming of the Rock of Cashel by Inchiquin, 15 September 1647, Richard Barry, priest, O.P., William Boyton, priest, S.J., Richard Butler, priest, O.S.F., James Saul, lay brother, O.S.F., Elizabeth Carney, Sister Margaret, a Dominican tertiary, Theobald Stapleton, priest, Edward Stapleton, priest, Thomas Morrissey and many others, priests and women, were slain in the church.

Gerald FitzGibbon, cleric, and David Fox, lay brother at Kilmallock, Dominic O’Neaghten, lay brother, Roscommon, Peter Costello, priest, sub-prior, Straid, Co. Mayo, all Dominicans; Andrew Hickey, priest, O.S.F. — hanged near Adare in 1648.

Dominic Dillon, Dominican prior at Urlar
Bernard Horumley (or, Gormley), Franciscan priest
Richard Oveton, Dominican prior at Athy
Peter Taaffe, O.S.A., prior at Drogheda
John Vath, Jesuit priest
Thomas Vath, secular priest

Slain in Drogheda massacre, 1649.

Didacus Cheevers, lay Franciscan
John Esmond, priest
Joseph Rochford, lay Franciscan
Peter Stafford, priest
Raymund Stafford, priest
Paul Synnott, priest

Slain in Wexford massacre, 1649.

William Lynch

Dominican priest. Hanged in 1649.

James O’Reilly

Dominican priest. Slain near Clonmel in 1649.

Robert Netterville

Jesuit priest. Died at Drogheda, 19 June 1649, of a severe beating with sticks.

Hilary Conroy

Franciscan, priest. Hanged at Gowran in 1650 by the Cromwellians.

Walter de Wallis

Franciscan priest. Hanged at Mullingar in 1650.

John Dormer

Franciscan. Died in prison, Dublin, 1650.

Boetius Egan

Franciscan Bishop of Ross, celebrated for exhorting the garrison of Carrigadrehid Castle to maintain their post against Broghill — dismembered and hanged in 1650.

Francis Fitzgerald

Franciscan priest. Hanged, Cork, 1650.

Miler Magrath (Father Michael of the Rosary)

Dominican priest. Hanged at Clonmel in 1650.

Antony Musæus (or, Hussey)

Franciscan priest. Hanged at Mullingar in 1650.

Thomas Plunkett, Eugene O’Teman, and Twelve Other Franciscans.

Flogged and cut to pieces by soldiers in 1650.

Nicholas Ugan (or, Ulagan)

Franciscan. Hanged with his girdle, 1650.

Dominicans: John Wolfe, priest, hanged, Limerick; John O’Cuilin (Collins), priest, beheaded; William O’Connor, prior at Clonmel, beheaded, and Thomas O’Higgin, priest, hanged, Clonmel; Bernard O’Ferrall, priest, slain, his brother Laurence O’Ferrall, priest, hanged, Longford; Vincent Gerald Dillon, chaplain to Irish troops in England, died in prison, York; Ambrose Æneas O’Cahill, priest, cut to pieces by cavalry, Cork; Donagh Dubh (Black) and James Moran, lay brothers; all in 1651.

Franciscans: Denis O’Neilan, priest, hanged, Inchicronan, Co. Clare; Thaddæus O’Carrighy, priest, hanged near Ennis; Hugh McKeon, priest, died in prison, Athlone; Roger de Mara (MacNamara), priest, shot and hanged, Clare Castle; Daniel Clanchy and Jeremiah O’Nerehiny (Nerny), lay brothers, Quin, hanged; Philip Flasberry, hanged near Dublin; Francis Sullivan, priest, shot in a cave, Co. Kerry, December; William Hickey, priest, hanged; all in 1651.

Laymen: Louis O’Farrall, died in prison, Athlone; Charles O’Dowd, hanged; Donagh O’Brien, burned alive; Sir Patrick Purcell, Sir Geoffrey Galway, Thomas Strich, mayor, Dominic Fanning, ex-mayor, Daniel O’Higgin, hanged after surrender of Limerick; Henry O’Neill, Theobald de Burgo; all in 1651.

Blessed Terence Albert O’Brien

Born in 1600 or 1601. Dominican Bishop of Emly. During the Irish Confederate Wars, like most Irish Catholics, he sided with Confederate Ireland. The bishop would treat the wounded and support Confederate soldiers throughout the conflict. O’Brien would sign the declaration against Inchiquin’s truce in 1648, and the declaration against Ormond in 1650. In 1651 Limerick was invaded and O’Brien urged a resistance that infuriated the Ormondists and Parliamentarians. Following surrender he was denied quarter and protection. Major General Purcell, Father Wolf and O’Brien were brought before a court martial and ordered for execution by General Henry Ireton; carried out on 31 October 1651. As he went to the gallows, he spoke to the people: “Do not weep for me, but pray that being firm and unbroken in this torment of death, I may happily finish my course.” After his death by strangulation his body was left hanging for three hours and treated with indignity by the soldiers. They cut off his head and spiked it on the river gate where it remained fresh and incorrupt.

Bernard Fitzpatrick

Ossory Diocese. Died in 1652.

Hugh Garrighy
Roger Ormilius (or, Gormley)

Secular priests. Hanged, Co. Clare, 1652.

Cornelius MacCarthy

Died in Co. Kerry in 1652.

Anthony Broder, deacon
Sliabh Luachra
Eugene O’Cahan, guardian at Ennis
Bonaventure de Burgo
Nielan Locheran, priest

Franciscans hanged in 1652 (first three near Tuam; last two at Derry).

Edmund O’Bern, Dominican priest
Anthony O’Ferrall, priest, Tulsk
John O’Ferrall;

Beheaded after torture, Jamestown, 1652.

Edmund Butler, Dublin
Brigid D’Arcy
Bernard McBriody
Thaddæus O’Connor Sligo, Boyle
John O’Conor Kerry, Tralee
Thaddæus O’Conor of Bealnamelly in Connaught
Conn O’Rorke

Laymen hanged in 1652.

Dominicans: Thaddæus Moriarty, prior at Tralee, hanged, Killarney; Bernard O’Kelly, priest or lay brother, Galway; David Roche, priest, sold into slavery, St. Kitts; Honoria Burke and her maid, Honoria Magan, tertiaries, Burrishoole; Daniel Delany, P.P., Arklow, hanged, Gorey; all in 1653.

Blessed John Kearney

Born 1619. Ordained a priest in 1642 after his studies in Louvain, he was captured on his return to Ireland, but managed to escape. He ministered as a priest first in Cashel and later in Waterford. In 1653 he was captured again, taken to Clonmel and charged with functioning as a priest in defiance of the law. Witnesses testified that he had celebrated and administered the sacraments. He was hanged on 11th March 1653.

Augustinians: Donagh O’Kennedy, Donagh Serenan, Fulgentius Jordan, Raymund O’Malley, John Tullis, and Thomas Deir, at Cork; all in 1654.

Bernard Conney, O.S.F., died in Galway jail
Mary Roche, Viscountess Fermoy, Cork

Died in 1654.

Blessed William Tirry

Born 1608. Augustinian priest. He returned to Ireland in 1641, and in 1649 was chosen as Prior (local superior) of the Augustinian house in Skreen. This was the same year that marked the beginning of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. A law was enacted on January 6, 1653 declaring that any Roman Catholic priest in Ireland was guilty of treason. Tirry was forced into hiding alongside other priests, but was captured when three men reported his whereabouts for money. William was imprisoned at Clonmel and refused to adopt the Protestant religion. He was executed by hanging on May 12, 1654. An account told by a friar who had been tried with William supplies some details of the day: “William, wearing his Augustinian habit, was led to the gallows praying the rosary. He blessed the crowd which had gathered, pardoned his betrayers and affirmed his faith. It was a moving moment for Catholics and Protestants alike.” Many miracles were reported after this death.

Luke Bergin, Cistercian
James Murchu
Daniel O’Brien, dean of Ferns

Hanged on 14 April 1655.

Raymund O’Moore

Dominican priest. Died in 1665 in Dublin.

Felix O’Conor

Dominican priest. Died in 1679 in Sligo.

Gerald Fitzgibbon

Dominican priest. Died in 1691 in Listowel.

Patrick Russell

Born 1629. Archbishop of Dublin. After harrassment and arrest following the defeat of the Jacobite army at the Boyne, died in a filthy underground prison in Dublin in 1692.

John O’Murrough

Dominican priest. Died in 1695 in Cork.

Donchus O’Falvey (or, Daniel Falvey)

Priest or friar, at Kerry in 1703.

Clement O’Colgan

Dominican priest. Died in 1704 in Derry.

Daniel McDonnell

Dominican priest. Died in 1707 in Galway.

Felix McDowell

Dominican priest. Died in 1707 in Dublin.

James O’Hegarty

Priest, Died in the Derry Diocese around 1711.

Dominic McEgan

Dominican priest. Died in 1713 in Dublin.

Uncertain Dates

Forty Cistercians of Monasternenagh, Co. Limerick
Dominicans: John O’Loughlin, and Two Others, at Kilmallock.
Franciscans: James Chevers, James Roche, John Mocleus (or, Mockler), Daniel O’Boyle
Thomas Fleming, layman
Dermot MacCarrha (MacCarthy), priest
John O’Grady, priest
Daniel O’Hanan, layman, died in prison.


Further Irish Martyr and Confessor Resources

Irish Catholic Martyrs (Wikipedia)

The Irish Martyrs (CatholicIreland.Net)

Chapters towards a History of Ireland in the Reign of Elizabeth (book by Philip O’Sullivan Beare)

The Martyrs of Ireland (four DVDs from Bob and Penny Lord)

Irish Martyrs (New Catholic Dictionary: long listing of names)

Lives of the Irish Martyrs and Confessors (book by Myles O’Reilly)

2017-03-24T14:35:49-04:00

Last updated on: March 24, 2017 at 2:35 pm   By

Patristic & Later Catholic Tradition & Contrary Early Heretical Sects’, Protestant, & Modernist Corruptions of It

Jesus25

Baptism of Christ (1895), by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior (1850-1899) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * * * *

This post is a follow-up to a controversial piece I wrote two days ago: “Young Messiah” Denies Christological Certainties. See also earlier related papers of mine:  Jesus Had to Learn That He Was God? and Biblical Evidence for Jesus’ Omniscience. I will be drawing all of the material below from a wonderful doctoral dissertation that I was delighted to discover last night, entitled, The Boyhood Consciousness of Christ: A Critical Examination of Luke 2:49 (Fr. Patrick Joseph Temple, S.T.L., New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922). It is available in its entirety online (thank heavens for Google Books!).

Luke 2:40 (RSV) And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

Luke 2:49 And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.

Everything below will be from Fr. Temple’s book, save for the all-capitals subtitles, which I have added. I won’t bother to document the primary source information. For those relative few interested in that, it may be easily accessed in the online text, by a search (or a general online search using the cited texts). I have added italics for Latin citations and book titles. The text below may be considered an abridgement.

* * * * *

CHURCH FATHERS AND LUKE 2:49

[T]he Fathers are unanimous in the view that Jesus at twelve years of age revealed His real Divine Sonship; the Latin Fathers are clear and explicit on the point, and the Greeks go beyond this, nearly all using the text, Luke ii. 49, to defend or demonstrate Christ’s true Divinity.

CHURCH FATHERS AND LUKE 2:52 / KNOWLEDGE OF THE YOUNG JESUS

More direct is the evidence from the statements of the Fathers on the question of the increase of Christ’s knowledge and their explanations of Luke ii. 52, “and Jesus advanced in wisdom . . .” As to how “Jesus advanced in wisdom” the Fathers are divided, some of them holding that the text merely has reference to external manifestation of wisdom, while others claim it means that Christ increased “according to human nature.” But all insist that according to His divine Nature He knew no increase. For instance, Athanasius writes, “it was only His human nature that advanced; Wisdom Himself did not advance, rather He advanced in Himself” . . .

We have such assertions as that of Clement of Alexandria, who says of Christ, “for Him to make any additions to His knowledge is absurd, since He is God,” and that of John of Damascus, who states that those who assert there was an increase of wisdom and grace in Christ “deny that He enjoyed the Hypostatic Union from the first moment of His existence.”

That Christ had no development, but was perfect from the beginning, is stated by some of the Fathers. Clement of Alexandria asks, “Will they not own, though reluctant, that the Perfect Word born of the Perfect Father was begotten in Perfection, according to economic fore-ordination?” Explaining that “wisdom and age” were only gradually evidenced, Gregory of Nazianzus asks,”How could He become more perfect Who from the beginning was perfect?” . . . That Christ was a perfect man already in the womb (perfectus vir in ventro femineo) was stated by Jerome. And he also states that His infancy was not prejudicial to His Divine wisdom, “infantiam humani corporis divinae non praejudicasse sapientiae.”

Augustine holds that ignorance and mental weakness were not in the Infant Jesus, “… quam plane ignorantiam nullo modo crediderim fuisse in infante illo, in quo Verbum caro factum est, ut habitaret in nobis, nec illam ipsius animi infirmitatem in Christo parvulo fuerim suspicatus, quam videmus in parvulis.”

These Fathers, attributing no ignorance and no mental development to the Christ Child, would imply the interpretation of real Divine Sonship in the first recorded words.

APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS OF JESUS’ CHILDHOOD

We shall have occasion to mention the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the Childhood Gospel of Thomas, and the Arabic Gospel of the Childhood.

These Apocryphal writings may contain authentic material in the additions to the narratives of the Gospels, but in this respect their value remains problematic, and consequently slight. The chief and great value of the Apocryphal Gospels is that they reflect the views of the times in which they were written and extensively read. Nearly all the Apocrypha were written with a deliberate dogmatic purpose and even those which were not, are “doctrinally significant.” The Childhood Gospels, as we have them, were written in the interests of orthodoxy, and their value is enhanced because of their remarkable popularity, especially in the East.

What do we find in these accounts of Christ’s Childhood? They most explicitly and emphatically testify to the Virgin Birth of Christ. They attribute wonderful innate miraculous power to the Child Jesus, — having His “every word accomplished,” and ascribe great preternatural knowledge to Him. The PseudoMatthew, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Arabic Gospel mention three occasions on which the Child Jesus was taken to school, but on each occasion it was He who was the Master, giving evidence of preternatural knowledge. They witness to Christ’s real Divinity as a child; they have this stated by others, but what is more significant for our purpose, they represent Him as testifying to His Divinity and Divine Sonship. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas (first Greek form), III.: “I am here from above — as He that sent Me on your account has commanded Me”; (second Greek form), VI. “I am before the ages”; (Latin form), VI. “and before all I was Lord . . . and My Father hath appointed this …”; in Pseudo-Matthew, XXI. “that one of thy branches be carried away by My angels, and planted in the paradise of My Father.”  According to the Arabic Gospel, I., Jesus says from the cradle, “I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos whom thou hast brought forth as the angel Gabriel announced to thee; and My Father has sent Me for the salvation of the world.” So that if the Apocryphal Gospels of the Childhood reflect the views of the times in which they were circulated (and in regard to doctrine they certainly do), then in these early centuries it was held that Christ as a Child was conscious of His mission, Divinity and Divine Sonship. They certainly do not reflect any tradition of a growth or development of His Self-consciousness, or that at a certain stage of His life He awoke to the consciousness of His Divine Sonship. They vividly depict Him as wielding miraculous power and fully conscious of His Nature and Personality, and this as a Child.

The Arabic Gospel of the Childhood is of comparatively late date, but nevertheless important because it is a translation of a Syriac original; because of its wide circulation, and the great emphasis it places on the Child Jesus’ Divinity and Divine self-consciousness. As we mentioned, this work represents the Child Jesus shortly after birth as proclaiming His Divinity and mission; . . .

Since the Apocryphal Gospels of the Childhood cast sidelights on what people thought of Christ in the early centuries, they certainly afford widespread evidence for the view that Christ as a Child was fully conscious of His Divinity, for the view that in His first recorded words He expressed true Divine Sonship. If there is any one doctrine emphasized in these Apocrypha, it is the doctrine of a Child born of a Virgin, possessing Divine powers and Divine knowledge, and this doctrine implies that the words “My Father,” in which the Boy Jesus referred to God, were taken literally.

Now in regard to doctrine, these Apocrypha are orthodox. They could not become so remarkably popular if they contained fundamental doctrines opposed to the opinions of the time. As Findlay says, “The Childhood Gospels stand in the main current of ecclesiastical doctrine in their view of the Person of Christ.” So that we have early and widespread evidence that the view of the Early Church was that Christ did not undergo any development in His Divine self-consciousness, that as a Child He was conscious of His Divinity and Divine Sonship, and hence that His words, given in Luke ii. 49, express real Divine Sonship.

The objection that the Apocryphal Gospels were rejected and condemned by the Fathers does not touch what we have said. The latter, it is true, recorded their antipathy for the “false and wicked stories” and “ludicrous miracles” recounted in these writings, but they do not object to the doctrine which shines through almost every page of these writings, the Child Jesus’ Divinity and Divine self-consciousness. If this was false and opposed to the received tradition, it would be the first thing the Fathers would attack and condemn.

CONTRARY EARLY ERRONEOUS OPINIONS OF A DEVELOPING CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS

There is no evidence, in the early centuries of the Christian era, of any explicit denials of the view that Jesus, in the first recorded words, expressed real Divine Sonship. A denial, however, is implied in the various heresies of that period which denied the Divinity of Christ and taught that Jesus, a mere man up to his thirtieth year, was at baptism indued with a higher personality.

Cerinthus, a contemporary of St. John, held that Jesus was a mere man born of Mary and Joseph, and professed the view that “after His baptism, Christ descended upon Him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then He proclaimed the unknown Father and performed miracles.”

Likewise, maintaining Jesus to be the son of Joseph, Carpocrates (beginning of second century) thought that “a power descended upon Him from the Father, that by means of it, he might escape from the creators of the world.”  We do not know what Carpocrates’ view was, as to when this power came on Jesus; he may have held it was at the baptism.

According to Irenaeus, the opinion of the Ebionites in respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. Epiphanius says they held that Christ came upon Jesus, the mere man, at His baptism, when the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him. The Christology of the Elkesaites resembled that of the Ebionites and Cerinthus: Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, became Divine after baptism, by union with the Aeon Christ.

We know from Tertullian that the Valentinians (Valentinus died about 160) held that upon Christ the natural Son of the Demiurge (born through the Virgin, not of her) “Jesus descended in the sacrament of baptism, in the likeness of a dove.”

All these early views, implying a denial of the Fathers’ interpretation of Luke ii. 49, were heretical. They were condemned by synods; they were refuted by orthodox writers. The fact that the Church looked upon these views as heretical intimates that the contrary view was regarded as orthodox. It is an indirect indication that the view of the early Church concerning Luke ii. 49, was the one expressed by the Fathers in their comments on the passage.

DOCTRINAL HISTORY: 9TH TO 15TH CENTURIES

John Scotus Erigena (ninth century), a forerunner of the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, held that as Christ was the Wisdom of the Father to Whom nothing was hid, and as He had accepted a stainless human nature (incontaminatam humanitatem), He never suffered the ignorance inflicted as a punishment on fallen man; but from His very conception He knew Himself and all things and could speak and teach (confestim, ut conceptus et natus est, et seipsum et omnia intellexit, ac loqui et docere potuit). This doctrine presupposes the view of real Divine Sonship as expressed by Christ in His first recorded words.

The first writer of a Summa Theologiae incorporating Aristotelian philosophy, Alexander of Hales (+1245), maintains that Christ did not assume ignorance, did not learn anything from angels, but enjoyed a threefold knowledge: the Beatific Vision, uncreated knowledge, and the knowledge of experience. In a certain kind of the latter knowledge, Christ made advance; the rest He had from the beginning.

St. Thomas of Aquin (+1274), who laid down the lasting lines of Catholic theology, has a treatise on “The Perfection of the Child conceived” in which he states that “Christ, in the first instant of His conception, had the fulness of sanctifying grace, the fulness of known truth, free will and the beatific vision.” In his treatise on Christ’s knowledge St. Thomas says, that as man Christ had a threefold knowledge, the Beatific Vision, infused knowledge, and acquired knowledge; in the last alone He made progress.

Dionysius the Carthusian (+1471) taught, that from the first moment of His conception Christ was a perfect man, that he was perfect “not by reason of His age, but on account of the fulness of grace, the eminent degree of virtues and the perfection of wisdom,” and that Christ made no advance in these excepting in regard to the exercise of them (sed quantum ad exercitium).

MODERN AND MODERNIST ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF CHRIST’S CONSCIOUSNESS

Before the rise of modern rationalism, there was practically only one view professed in regard to Christ’s reference to His Father in Luke ii. 49, — the view of real Divine Sonship. Now there arises a variety of views; and among a certain class of scholars there is a definite break with the past. The reason for the great departure and the wide divergency of opinion is to be found in the a priori rejection of miracles. This rejection led some to deny the genuineness and historicity of the early chapters of St. Luke, and the account of the Boy Christ; it led others to explain the account and the first recorded words in a natural sense; it occasioned the theory of a gradual growth or development in Christ’s view of Himself.

On account of these factors, the rejection of the miraculous, the explaining Christ’s first words naturally, the attempting to trace a gradual development of His self-consciousness, there is among modern scholars almost every shade of opinion in regard to the degree of relationship to God that the Boy Christ expressed in His words.

The most extreme view of Christ’s first self-interpretation, is the view of ordinary Israelitic Consciousness. Certain scholars claim that Jesus’ words could be said by any ordinary Jewish boy; that they contain no hint that the speaker considers Himself the Messiah; that they express no special relationship with God; that the sense in which God was called “Father” is the sense in which any ordinary Israelite of that day spoke of God as “Father.”

The first to attempt to trace a development in the self-consciousness of Jesus and thus to introduce this modern problem was Karl Hase (Life of Christ, 1829). He held that in His childhood Christ had no Messianic consciousness. Being uncertain whether Christ became fully aware of His mission before His Public Life, he says that the first words indicate “an unpausing development” showing “the same sense of the nearness of God in a purely human and childish form which is the idea of His life.” Gess contends that in no “exceptional sense” Jesus said “the God of Israel” is His Father.

With the exception of a few extremists who hold that Christ never announced that He was the Messiah, and with the exception of a few who hold that it was only toward the end of the Public Ministry that profession of Messiahship was made by Jesus, the bulk of negative scholars date the dawn of Christ’s Messianic consciousness at His baptism.

Others, in fact the majority of these scholars, take for granted the unhistorical character of the Temple episode and deliberately overlook Christ’s first words when treating of His self-consciousness; such as Harnack, Wernle, Guinebert, Bacon, Weinel, Schweitzer. This is also done in some special treatises on Christ’s self-consciousness, such as those of Baldensperger, E. Schurer, H. Holtzmann, Spaeth, Holtzmann, von Sodon, Volter. Also a number of moderns, when considering Jesus’ earliest recorded sayings, hesitate and are not willing to express an opinion, and others according to their interpretations see very little self-consciousness therein expressed.

Somewhat different from the view just described is that held by another class of modern scholars, who say: Christ’s first words would not be used by an ordinary Jewish boy; they indicate that the Boy Christ had an exceptional self-consciousness, expressing a very special relationship to God, a conception of personal sonship without parallel in previous history. But this sonship was only religious, moral, ethical, an intense feeling of love and devotion; it was not real Divine Sonship, nor did it denote messianic consciousness, which arose later.

Certain modern scholars claim that Jesus’ earliest recorded words express Messiahship, yet nothing more than Messiahship. Some of those deny the genuineness of the words, others contend that only the dawn or first glimpse of Messianic consciousness is expressed, while others claim that full assurance of Messiahship is expressed.

Certain modern scholars, while denying the genuineness of Luke ii. 49, yet state that the text itself as it stands expresses Messiahship. This is the view of Paulus, Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Loisy.

Other scholars attribute to the twelve-year-old Jesus the beginning of Messianic consciousness. For instance, Edersheim characterizes the state of mind of the twelve-year-old Boy “the awakening of the Christ consciousness . . . partial, and perhaps even temporary.”  After seeing in Luke ii. 49, “the breaking forth of the consciousness of Divine Sonship” Meyer adds in a note, “at all events already in Messianic presentiment, yet not with the conception fully unfolded.” The passage is called by Ramsay “a remarkable instance of the young Boy’s awakening consciousness of His own mission.” While de Pressense writes that during this visit of Jesus to the Temple He “perhaps for the first time became fully conscious of the greatness of His mission,” yet in the next breath he calls it a “great moment in the development of Jesus, by revealing Him to Himself.” A. T. Robertson, referring to Christ’s saying “as the keyword to His after life and teaching” and as expressing a most special relation with God, yet attributes to the Boy Jesus a “dawning Messianic consciousness.”

There are modern scholars who interpret from Jesus’ first words that there is expressed the dawning or beginning of consciousness of a real Divine Sonship. This Divine Sonship is variously viewed and is frequently diverse from orthodoxy.

The dawning consciousness of real Divine Sonship is the view of Olshausen, who says that the event in the Temple was the moment when Christ “became aware of His exalted Divine nature,” that there His mental development ripened “into the clear knowledge that He was the Son of God, and that God was His Father.”

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANT VIEWS

As to the non-Catholic scholars, in a general way it may be said that the view of conservative Protestants concerning Christ’s self-consciousness is as follows: Like everybody He was born an “unthinking infant.” As soon as He reached the age of reason, that is, long before His twelfth year, He became conscious of His Divine Sonship, and in the Temple He gave expression to this consciousness.

Catholic scholars of the modern period unanimously take the position that, in His first recorded words, Jesus expressed the full consciousness of His real Divine Sonship. . . . It is implied by the thesis defended in many theological works, that Christ from the first moment of His conception enjoyed the infused knowledge,  . . .

In modern times there have sprung up five other views; — the beginning of real Divine Sonship, a mere Messianic consciousness, the dawn of Messianic consciousness, a special ethical Sonship, an ordinary Israelitic consciousness. With the exception of the last mentioned, which would be implied by certain early heretical opinions, these modern views have no precedents or parallels in previous history.

EXAMINATION AND EXPOSITION OF LUKE 2:52

The meaning, then, of verse 40 is: The Child (referring to Jesus who was previously mentioned as forty days old) grew and got strong, filled with wisdom (or being filled with wisdom) and the grace of God was in Him. It is ordinary to say of a child that he grew and got strong; but is it ordinary to say of a child that he was filled with wisdom (or became filled with wisdom) and the grace of God was in him? Was this said of any other child? Compare verse 40 with a somewhat similar statement made by the same writer concerning the growth of the Baptist, Luke i. 66, 80. It is said of both John and Jesus that they grew. It is stated that John got strong in spirit, while Jesus got strong, filled with wisdom or being filled with wisdom. That the hand of God was with him is asserted of John, while of Jesus, that the Grace of God was in Him. Strong in spiritual zeal, — this characterizes the early years of John’s life as well as the later; as a Child, Jesus is filled with wisdom and has in Him the Grace of God. Luke brings out a marked contrast between the two, indicating the superiority of Christ.

St. Paul states that in Christ are “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” Col. ii. 3, and (Col. ii. 9) in Him “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporally.” And St. John declares the word made Flesh to be “full of grace and truth” (i. 14). Closely corresponding to these, is the statement of Luke that Jesus as a Child was “filled with wisdom and the Grace of God was in Him.” This is by no means an ordinary thing to say of a child. Whether we read “filled with wisdom” or “being filled with wisdom” in this verse, it is a most extraordinary thing, and cannot be explained naturally, for men have to spend years of hard study before they can hope to be filled with wisdom.

Advance in wisdom would ordinarily imply the acquiring of new wisdom. Does it here? What is the force of the word “advanced” here? . . . the Evangelist does not use the word to “increase” or “develop” but employs a word which means to advance, to proceed, and which in itself does not imply intrinsic increase to the subject. Then it should be remarked that he does not say “in His wisdom, in His age, in His favor with God and men,” but he uses these words generically suiting the idea . . . An incident of Jesus’ twelfth year had just been described and St. Luke, wishing to span eighteen years of Christ’s life, writes that He advanced in age. “He continued along the road of age” is the concept brought out by this verb, “to advance,” . . .

Does “advance in the favor of God” mean that the amount was added to every day? Evidently not, nor does it mean that as His age or stature increased, so His favor with God and men increased.

All Catholic theologians are agreed that Christ did not intrinsically increase in grace, v. g. Pohle-Preuss (Christology, 237); and the Fathers and theologians explain Lk. ii. 52, “merely as an outward manifestation of sanctifying grace.” Christ yet unborn was “holy” according Lk. i. 35.

He already possessed the favor of God (40); the verb employed, meaning simply to advance, expresses this idea (and need not express any more), that as Jesus continued along the way of age or stature, so He continued along the way of favor with God and men; He continued to perform acts which won the approval of God and men.

Even as a little child Christ was filled with (or was being filled with) wisdom. Does, then, the expression “advanced in wisdom,” in verse 52, signify that Christ continued to increase His amount of wisdom? Since Jesus already displayed wonderful understanding and knowledge, to hold that His wisdom increased daily would necessarily require one to hold that He became more wonderful every day — a view which is rejected by all. St. Luke does not write “Jesus increased in wisdom,” but “Jesus proceeded in wisdom.” He continued along the road of wisdom, in other words, He continued to do wise acts.

Employing the figure of speech known as zeugma, St. Luke could use a verb signifying real increase in age or stature, yet not entailing this in regard to wisdom and grace. The verb that he uses means simply “going forward” and does not in itself include increase to the subject.

St. Cyril of Alexandria writes concerning Christ’s display of knowledge before the Doctors, “see how He advanced in wisdom through His becoming known to many to be such.” We also hear such explanations of vs. 52 as that of Ward, who says that “advanced” means “not that His knowledge intrinsically increased, but that it gradually declared itself more and more to those among whom He lived.”

Certainly we hold that Jesus’ experimental knowledge increased since He was truly man and had human faculties, . . . Christ possessed a threefold knowledge: (1) that derived from the Beatific Vision of God, (2) infused knowledge, and (3) acquired or experimental knowledge. Concerning the first two kinds it has always been held that there was no increase, concerning the last theologians have not been unanimous. St. Thomas at first (III. Sent. Dist. XIV.) held there was no increase, but afterwards he changed his mind and explained the matter thus: “Both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge of Christ’s soul were the effect of an agent of infinite power which could produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge did Christ advance, since from the beginning He had them perfectly. But the acquired knowledge of Christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once, but successively; and hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning, but step by step and after a time, i.e. in His perfect age: and this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz., that He increased in knowledge and age together” (Sum. III. Q. xii. Art. 2 ad 1). This view is taken by many present day writers: Janssens (Tractatus de Deo Homine, I. 473), Hurter (Theologiae dogmaticae Compendium, II. 461, Maas (Knowledge of J. C, Cath.Enc.), Vonier (Personality of Christ, 95 ff.), Pohle-Preuss (Christology, 247-277), Coughlan (De Incarnatione, 146-167), Lepicier (De Incarnatione Verbi, 395-472).

THE QUESTION OF JESUS’ FORMAL (?) EDUCATION

These twelve verses [Lk 2:40-52] contain the only evangelical account of nearly thirty years of the Master’s Life. It must be said that they are far from being an ordinary way of describing the growth of a child to manhood; there is not the slightest attempt to account for the Great Person Who, in so short a time, left such an impression on the world; there is not even an attempt to account for His great knowledge and divine self-consciousness either of His public life or His twelfth year. Whence came this knowledge and self-consciousness? One should be able to account for it if Christ was merely human. How is it that Luke does not tell us that Jesus received his knowledge under the guidance of some great philosopher? In this regard Luke is not silent concerning other men about whom he wrote; for example, about the wise Joseph, who from being a slave became the governor of all Egypt; “and (God) gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharao,” Acts vii. 10; about the great Lawgiver, Moses, “and Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts vii. 22); about Paul the orator and apostle to the Gentiles, “brought up in this City, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers,” Acts xxii. 3. Christ is never mentioned as having received instructions at the feet of any Gamaliel; it is not mentioned in the Gospels that He even went to any school.

The Synoptics seem to imply that Christ did not receive His great knowledge in any school. They tell us that the people of the town “where He was brought up” could not account for His wisdom, Mtt. xiii. 54; Mk. vi. 2, 3; Lk. iv. 22; . . .  In all tradition there is not the slightest implication that Jesus learned from any human being; the Apocryphal Gospels contain curious stories about His being brought to school, but they always make it clear that on the first day He knew more than His teacher. St. Thomas holds that Christ’s human knowledge came by discovery, not by teaching, for he writes, “it was more fitting for Christ to possess a knowledge acquired by discovery than by teaching” (Summa, Part III. Q. ix, Art. 4 ad i), and in Q. xii. art. 3, he shows that Christ did not learn anything from men.

As has previously been stated, there probably existed at the time of Our Lord, a primary school at Nazareth; Edersheim and others say that Jesus probably attended it. There is not the slightest reference to this in historical documents, which rather create a presumption against this view. But whatever view one may take of this matter, it is certain that Jesus did not attend any higher school. All evidence shows that He “never studied at any of the scribal colleges.” It is important to note that Christ, who afterwards (v.g. Matthew xix. 1-12; Luke xx. 20-47) showed His superiority over those trained in rabbinical discussion, who as a Boy of twelve in the midst of the Doctors astounded all by His understanding and His answers, did not receive any rabbinical education; He did not live in a theological atmosphere; He was not an inhabitant of the land famed for its Rabbis, Judea, nor of Jerusalem, the City of the Chief Priests and Doctors. He belonged to Galilee, a by-word among the Southerners for ignorance and uncouthness (cf. John vii. 52), and was a citizen of the town of Nazareth, from which nothing good was expected (John i. 46).

St. Luke preserves a strange and significant silence, recording only the facts; but these facts exclude any natural explanation, for the Evangelist represents Christ as having exceptional knowledge and self-consciousness, not only in His thirtieth year, but also in His twelfth, and records that as a Child He was filled with (or kept full or being filled with) wisdom, and that the grace of God was in Him. There was no time or room for natural causes to produce naturally an effect in Him. St. Luke gives no explanation; he does not state any cause for or record any origin of Christ’s knowledge and self-consciousness. The argument of silence is of value here, the silence is highly significant; it implies that the origin of Christ’s knowledge and selfconsciousness is to be sought in Christ’s own origin and nature, which had previously been described by the Evangelist.

ST. PAUL, JESUS, AND THE KENOSIS (“EMPTYING”)

St. Paul implies that Christ was always conscious of His Divinity and Divine Sonship, teaching as he does that He preexisted. Thus he writes to Timothy that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15), and in other places he speaks of God sending His Son in the likeness of flesh (Rom. viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4). This doctrine is taught more clearly in 2 Cor. viii. 9, where the Apostle says that Christ who was rich became poor for men’s sake, and most clearly in Philip ii. 5-8, where St. Paul expressly states that Christ preexisted “in the form of God” and “considered it no injustice to be equal to God.” The doctrine of preexistence and Divine self-consciousness is clearly expressed here.

The Apostle (in this last mentioned passage) goes on to say that Christ “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made to the likeness of man.” This expression would not require the meaning that Jesus emptied Himself of His Divine self-consciousness. St. Paul is merely referring to Christ’s assuming human nature and does not touch the question of Jesus’ knowledge of Himself; that this is so is seen from another place where he says that in Christ are “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. ii. 3). The Pauline references to Christ’s self-humiliation, to His taking the form of man, to His assuming the likeness of sinful flesh, do not include Christ’s knowledge and self-consciousness.

WHAT DID JESUS KNOW IN HIS CHILDHOOD AND BY AGE TWELVE?

The theories widely held in the non-Catholic world of a gradual and as it were natural development of Christ’s self-consciousness, of the awakening of His Messianic consciousness at the baptism, of doubts and crises in His self-consciousness that existed even during the Public Life, these views are entirely excluded by the Gospel text. At least according to Luke ii. 49, Christ at the age of twelve was fully aware of His real Divine Sonship. His expression of this fact is made with such calmness and indeed emphasis that there is left no ground or basis for any view that His self-consciousness was then awakening. Jesus was fully self-consciousness then, and there are no signs or hints in His saying or in any text of the Scripture of any dawning consciousness or of any time when His self-consciousness of Divine Sonship was wanting to Him. The inspired records thus imply, what is handed down in tradition, that there never was a moment when Christ did not know exactly the nature of His filial relation to God.

Tradition has it that Christ’s knowledge had its source and principle in the Hypostatic Union and dated from the first moment of this Union, i.e.. His conception. Owen (Comment, on Gospel of Luke, 44) had already argued with force against Olshausen’s theory of a gradual development of Christ’s consciousness. See the able statement of Dalman: Words of J., 286. Du Bose says, “There was never a time in the history of His consciousness when His divinity was wholly latent or lay completely beneath the activities of His human mind.” (The Consciousness of Jesus, 29.)

Christ’s self-consciousness or, to speak more correctly, His own testimony to Himself, is one of the chief supports of the belief in His Divinity — the other being the performance of miracles in confirmation of what He said. Hence for this question also the words of the Boy Jesus are important.

[Those wishing to do further research on this question will want to consult the very extensive bibliography that the author offers. Some of the books mentioned may be fully accessible in Google Books, since the date from 1922 and earlier]

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Accepting the Easy Task
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #5: “Apocrypha” 5: Fathers
Saying Farewell to a Longtime Friend? (I Hope...
Review: "Superman" Soars with Heroism, Humor, and Compassion
Tabernacle Choir Prepares for Historic Milestone Broadcast
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #4: “Apocrypha” 4: Early...
view all Family blogs