The Latin Text of Gelasius

The passage is from Pope Saint Gelasius’ work De duabus naturis in Christo Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium (On the two natures of Christ against Eutyches and Nestorius) at section 14. I have included the original Latin text:

*There is an alternative reading provided by Schwartz for verse 5:

Standard reading         ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in divinam transeant
Schwartz reading:       ut sicut haec licet in divinam transeant

The difference doesn’t substantially change the meaning of the text. The primary difference being:

Haec is nominative
Hanc is accusuative

Does Gelasius Contradict the Council of Trent?

The important text is verse 2, where Saint Gelasius explicitly states, “yet the substance or nature of bread and wine (substantia vel natura panis et vini) does not cease.” Strictly speaking, this would place Saint Gelasius at odds with the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent on transubstantiation, which reads as follows:

“If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 2).”

Trent rejects the affirmation that the substances of bread and wine remain after the consecration. Gelasius says “the substance or nature of bread and wine (substantia vel natura panis et vini) does not cease.”

Two Possible Responses

The Catholic is faced with two possible responses to the formulation of Pope Gelasius:

1. Gelasius was wrong and held an incorrect belief about the Eucharist. But it doesn’t matter because Popes can be personally mistaken on matters of doctrine before their dogmatization.
2. Gelasius used “substance or nature” analogically to refer to what later Catholics called the “accidents of bread and wine,” and verses 5 and 7 reveal his clarification on that matter as in conformity with later Catholic teaching.

The proper response is that the second option, that Gelasius clarified his meaning in verses 2, 5, and 7. Let us look at the passages:

In verse 2, Gelasius states:

“the sacrament which we receive, the body and blood of Christ, is a divine thing (divina res).”

The Latin “res” refers to what is real. Our English word “real” comes from res. It is a divina res, or divine reality. Only after stating this does Gelasius say that “the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease.” This is problematic because res usually refers to substance. However, we find clarification in verses 5 and 7.

In verse 5, Gelasius states:

5) That just as they pass into this, namely into the divine substance, the Holy Spirit perfecting, nevertheless remaining in the propriety of its nature.

Gelasius states in verse 5 that the bread and wine transeant (pass into or transition into) the divine substance. I have never heard a Protestant affirm that the bread and wine transition into the divine substance. Gelasius then affirms “nevertheless remaining in the propriety of its nature.” The bread and wine here retain not their “natures,” but he clarifies that they retain what is “propriety of its nature.” Gelasius refers here to what is proper to the nature of bread and wine, but this time does not denote “nature” simply. He is clarifying his statement in verse 2. What is proper to the nature of bread? Texture, smell, taste, etc. These are what would later be separated as the “accidents” or sensible features pertaining to the substance of bread. But the res is divine. This essentially clears up the misunderstanding.

Moving to verse 7:

From which permanent things, the one Christ, properly, remains constant, because the integrity and truth are shown to remain.

Gelasius here indicates that the one Christ is constant or enduring in the Eucharist. The full presence of Christ is in the Eucharist.

Two Possible Positions

From this analysis, Gelasius could be said to hold either of the two positions:

1. Consubstantiation: The substances of bread and wine are united to Christ’s divine and human substances. This is problematic because it creates a second hypostatic union with bread and wine. So that Christ now has a divine substance, a human substance, a bread substance, and a wine substance. Actually, it would create a second hypostatic union (union with bread substance) and then a third hypostatic union (with wine substance), since the consecration of each species is separate from the other.
2. Transubstantiation: The substances bread and wine are transubstantiated into the substances of Christ’s divine substance and human substance—the position of the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent.

One could argue that Gelasius affirms consubstantiation, but he is undoubtedly not affirming a symbolic or memorialist Eucharist held by most Protestants. I think the strongest argument is that Gelasius is describing transubstantiation, because he describes the bread and wine “remaining in the propriety of its nature.” He clarifies “nature” as actually being what is “proper to its nature.”

Furthermore, Gelasius was pope from 492 to his death on 21 November 496. He was daily praying the Roman liturgy with the fully developed Roman Canon as the Eucharistic anaphora or prayer. It is difficult to read the Roman Canon with its prayers over the Eucharist and deduce anything less than transubstantiation. Even Martin Luther (who held something closer to consubstantiation) felt the need to reject the Roman Canon (as used by Gelasius in the fifth century) because of its “transubstantiation” theology.

Imprecision is not Heresy

In conclusion, Gelasius affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and asserts that it enters into the divine substance. He remarks that the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease, but just after that, he clarifies his meaning by his reference to what is proper to their nature.

This debate is akin to that of the miaphysite arguments after the Council of Chalcedon. Miaphysite teaching is based on Saint Cyril of Alexandria’s formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning “one physis of the Word of God made flesh.” Chalcedon declared “two natures” in Christ but never doubted Saint Cyril’s orthodoxy or sanctity. Saint Cyril defended the right concept but used a different (misleading) formulation regarding one physis or nature with respect to the incarnation. Nobody doubts that Saint Cyril was correct, but later Catholic teaching rejects the “one nature” formulation of Saint Cyril in favor of “two natures.”

Gelasius is teaching the Catholic (Tridentine) doctrine of the Eucharist, but with the confusion about “substance or nature” not being what later Catholic dogma would articulate. Nevertheless, Gelasius does clarify in verse 5 that he is speaking of that which is proper to the nature of bread and wine.

Conclusion

Pope Gelasius (pope from 492-496) would be in continuity with his papal predecessor Pope Leo the Great (pope from 440 to 461) who wrote:

“Dearly beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that any contagion with error may not pollute your fasting and almsgiving: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and our gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in faith, and it is vain for them to respond ‘Amen’ who dispute that which is taken.” Pope Saint Leo the Great, Sermon 91:3

The worst-case scenario is that Gelasius was teaching consubstantiation (not Protestant symbolism), but this is unlikely. The context of the passage seems to indicate that the bread and wine “enter into the divine substance,” but the properties of bread and wine remain. The entire context suggests what later theologians would call “transubstantiation,” even if Gelasius’s formulation is awkward. The goal here is to use the Eucharist as an analogy in discussing Christology, not as a dogmatic statement about the metaphysics of the Eucharist. That’s why the passage isn’t a major issue for Catholic theologians.

The post Did Pope Gelasius deny transubstantiation? Nature and Substance Debate appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The simplest solution is that the Last Supper was not the legal Passover meal of the Jews at which a slain lamb was roasted and eaten. The best harmonization of the four gospels requires that the Last Supper was a New Rite or a New Passover that superseded the Passover instituted by Moses and happened 24 hours before the legal Passover meal of the Jews.

I will prove that Christ kept the Last Supper 24 hours before the legal Passover of the Jews and that Christ died on the day of Nisan 14, the day of preparation for the Passover on which the lambs were slain. The Last Supper did not feature a dead animal lamb. Rather Christ’s presented Himself as teh edible Lamb at the Last Supper. The next day, Christ died at the same time as the passover lambs were slain. I will prove that this is the dominant position of the Church Fathers.

The Problem: Did Jesus die on Passover or the Day After Passover?

1. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke (MML), Jesus claims to “eat this passover” (Luke 22:15) with His Apostles on the night before He died. Was that meal an actual Passover meal?
2. The temple Jews, early on the next morning after the Last Supper, had not eaten the Passover: “Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.” (John 18:28) The temple Jews had not yet eaten Passover on the morning after the Last Supper, and were preparing to eat it later that night (which was after the death of Christ). Clearly, Jesus did not keep Passover at the same time as the temple Jews.
3. Some say that Matthew, Mark, and Luke (MML) contradict John. MML place Christ’s Last Supper meal the night before Christ’s death. John places Jewish Passover on day that Christ died.

Possible Solutions:

1. MML are correct and John was wrong or manipulated the story so that Jesus as “Lamb of God” died while the animal passover lambs were also killed at 3pm on Passover day.
2. MML are wrong and John is correct.
3. There is a way to harmonize the accounts. I will show the harmonization, because Sacred Scripture (and the four Gospels) cannot contradict one another.

How Passover Dates Work

Let’s understand how Moses set up the date structure for Passover:

1. Jewish days begin at sundown (~6pm), not at midnight or at daybreak. All biblical calculations of time must account for this.
2. “Nisan” is the Hebrew name of a month in Spring in which Passover feast occurs.
3. The Jewish months were truly lunar, so the Nisan 1 is a new moon and Nisan 14 is a full moon.
4. The Passover feast has two phases the pertains to two distinct days:
   1. Nisan 14: The passover lambs are slaughtered at the temple on the afternoon of Nisan 14 (3pm-5pm). They are then roasted and prepared to eat around 6pm at sundown.
   2. Nisan 15: After sundown (starting a new Jewish day with the initial hours of Nisan 15, the passover lambs are eaten by families as a liturgical rite. (Exodus 12:6)

The Passover Sequence of Jesus Christ and the Last Supper

1. In the Synoptic MML, Jesus had his Last Supper on the evening before He was crucified. MML have Christ referring to this meal as a “Passover.”
2. If the Last Supper was truly a Passover meal, then the passover lambs would have been killed on Nisan 14. This requires that Christ kept His Last Supper in the beginning hours of Nisan 15 and was crucified the next day on Nisan 15.
3. However, if Jesus is the “Lamb of God,” then He should have died at the same time the other animal lambs were slaughtered on Nisan14, not on Nisan 15.
4. John presents Nisan 14 as the day of His crucifixion and death and that the temple Jews had not yet eaten the Passover lambs.

Christian Controversy in Second Century

In the second century AD, a liturgical conflict emerged. Christians in Ephesus, Smyrna and Sardis celebrated Nisan 14 as the day of Christ’s death (not as “Easter” or “resurrection” as many sources falsely report), regardless of what day of the week Nisan 14 fell. This group was called the Quatrodecimans (from Latin quarta decima, meaning “fourteenth”).

The Quartodeciman Christians align almost perfectly with the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3:

Ephesus
Smyrna
Pergamum
Thyatira
Sardis
Philadelphia
Laodicea

These seven churches were ruled by a bishop (called “an angel” in Revelation). They seem to have fallen under Saint John the Apostle who served as a Metropolitan Archbishop over the region. The regional popularity of Quartodeciman theology also maps onto the churches listed in the Apocalypse.

The Quatrodeciman Christians claimed their tradition came from Saint John the Apostle. This accurately conforms to John’s Gospel showing that Jesus died on Nisan 14 when the lamb’s were being slain.

Quartodeciman Theology and Praxis

Quatrodeciman Christians kept the custom of keeping Nisan 14 as a strict day of fasting from all food and then having a feast that night. Presumably a night Eucharist but in a manner similar to a Jewish Passover meal. Presumably, they observed the resurrection on Nisan 16, which would be the “third day.”

The Didascalia Apostolorum (c. 230 AD, Syria) describes the practice:

“On the fourteenth day of the moon… fast ye then also, and keep the Passover of the Lord, for on this day our Lord suffered… and on the evening of the fourteenth break your fast, and eat unleavened bread with Him who was sacrificed for us.” -Didascalia Apostolorum, Chapter 21

Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome around AD 155 to discuss the Paschal date with Pope Anicetus of Rome. Polycarp defended keeping Nisan 14, claiming it came from the Apostle John and other apostles. Though no direct ritual details are given, this establishes the practice’s apostolic origin and Polycarp’s adherence to keeping Nisan 14 as the day of Christ’s death.

“For Anicetus [bishop of Rome] could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance [of Nisan 14], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant… Polycarp himself was instructed by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ.” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24.16-17 (quoting Irenaeus’ letter to Victor I)

And not just Polycarp. Writing c. AD 190 AD to resist Pope Victor’s push for Sunday Pascha, Polycrates asserts that Asia Minor’s bishops universally kept Nisan 14 as the day of Christ’s death, tying it to apostolic tradition (John, Philip) and martyrs (Polycarp).

“We therefore observe the genuine [fourteenth] day, neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s appearing… Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis… John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord… Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr… All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24.2-6 (Polycrates’ letter to Victor I)

In Rome and Alexandria, the churches kept the death and resurrection of the Lord always on a Friday and Sunday, respectively. In Rome and Alexandria, the Sunday after Nisan 14 was liturgically celebrated as the day of Christ’s resurrection and the Friday preceding (Good Friday) as the day of Christ’s death. The Roman and Alexandrian custom became standard way for all Christians to keep Pasch since at least the 4th century. The Roman and Alexandrian tradition sought to preserve the the resurrection as connected to Sunday, and by extension the death of Christ to Good Friday.

The important witness is that the Quadrodeciman Christians in the second century claimed that Saint John had taught them:

1. Jesus died on Nisan 14
2. That they should fast on Nisan 14 as the annual day of his death, regardless of what day of the week it fell upon.

This is a very strong witness that Jesus Christ died on Nisan 14 and not Nisan 15. This means we must show that the “passover” meal of Jesus at the Last Supper was not actually the legal passover of the temple Jews but something different.

Here’s how John conveys his timeline:

1. Timing of the Crucifixion: Preparation Day (John 19:14, 31)

John 19:14:
“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He [Pilate] said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!'”

The “day of Preparation of the Passover” refers to Nisan 14, the day when Jews prepared for the Passover feast by slaughtering the lambs in the afternoon (Exodus 12:6). The “sixth hour” (around noon) is when Pilate sentences Jesus, with the crucifixion beginning shortly after (John 19:16-18). This sets the stage for Jesus’ death later that afternoon, overlapping with the lamb slaughter.

John 19:31:
“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.”

The urgency to remove the bodies before the Sabbath (Nisan 15, a “high day” as the first day of Unleavened Bread, Leviticus 23:6-7) confirms it’s still Nisan 14 during the crucifixion. The lambs were killed that afternoon, typically between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM (per Jewish tradition in the Mishnah, Pesachim 5:1), and Jesus dies within this window.

2. Jesus’ Death at the Ninth Hour (Cross-Reference with Synoptics)

Though John doesn’t specify the exact hour of Jesus’ death, the Synoptic parallel helps:

Mark 15:34-37 (cf. Matthew 27:46-50, Luke 23:44-46):
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ … And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last.”

The “ninth hour” is the ninth hour from daybreak and corresponds to our 3:00 PM. John’s timeline—from sentencing at 12pm (John 19:14) to death before sunset (John 19:31)—fits this, placing Jesus’ death in the late afternoon of Nisan 14, precisely when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple.

3. John’s Fulfillment of Christ as the Passover Lamb

John 19:36:
“For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘Not one of his bones will be broken.'”

This quotes Exodus 12:46 (and Numbers 9:12) which commands that the Passover lambs’ bones remain unbroken. John notes that Jesus’ legs weren’t broken (unlike the two thiefs, John 19:32-33), explicitly linking his death to the sacrificial lamb’s requirements. The slaughter of lambs must happen on Nisan 14, reinforcing the timing and allegorical connection.

John 1:29:
“The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'”

John’s gospel frames Jesus as the ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God, a theme fulfilled when he dies on the day and at the literal hour when the Passover lamb slaughter on Nisan 14.

4. Absence of a Passover Meal

John explicitly states that the Last Supper occurs before the feast of Passover:

John 13:1-2:
“Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father … supper being ended.”

John 18:28:
“Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.”

The Jewish temple leaders hadn’t yet eaten the Passover meal when Jesus was brought to Pilate on the morning of Nisan 14, meaning the lambs hadn’t been slain yet. This positions the crucifixion later that day as the lambs were being prepared and killed, not after the meal as in the Synoptics MML.

Timeline in John

1. The Passover lambs were slain on Nisan 14 around 3pm in the temple. Jesus dies at this time and connects Him to the lambs being killed by the Jewish priests.
2. The sacrificed animal lambs were then roasted for the meal eaten after sunset at about 6pm. (beginning Nisan 15). John places.
3. Jesus’s body is removed from cross before sundown so that it would not defile the the eating of the Passover lambs by the Jews.
4. Jesus’s body is placed in tomb.
5. Jews go home to eat their legal Passover meals with lambs killed earlier in the day of Nisan 14.

John synchronizes Jesus’ death with the lamb slaughter to portray him as the true Passover Lamb, sacrificed at the same time the temple ritual occurred. The unbroken bones and Preparation Day timing seal this parallel.

Harmonizing MML Synoptics with John

In the Synoptics MML, Christ must have meant something new when he said :

“With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you, before I suffer.” (Luke 22:15)

What is the nature of “this Passover”? Was Christ desiring to simply eat a normal Passover, or is something more indicated by “this Passover”?

Several possibilities emerge:

1. Jesus and His Apostles kept a different calendar or calculated Passover differently so that their Passover fell one day early. Perhaps, they calculated the full moon of Nisan 14 as having happened a day prior.
2. Jesus simply anticipated the meal by one day since He knew He would be killed the following day.
3. Jesus was instituting a new kind of Passover or “This Passover.” This is perfectly reasonable since the temple Jews had been trying trap and kill Jesus for over one year. Jesus, who was a hunted man, would not likely have lined up at the temple to receive slaughtered lamb with the rest of the Jews in Jerusalem. The Apostles had also known that Christ was called “Lamb of God” by John the Baptist at His baptism. Christ is doing something new and He institutes “the New Covenant in my Blood” at this Last Supper. The New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant.

Jesus Kept a New Eucharistic Passover WITHOUT an Animal Lamb

The third option is the best solution. Jesus Christ wanted to change the meaning of the Passover by doing it a day early and by not including an animal lamb from the temple sacrifice. “This Passover” is something unique and new.

There is no mention of a slaughtered lamb at the “passover” Last Supper of Christ in all four gospels. Since there was no slaughtered lamb at this dinner, it is obvious that Jesus Christ is the Lamb and His Body should be eaten for “this Passover.” The Last Supper inaugurates “the New Covenant in my blood” and thus there should be no roasted animal lamb present on the table/altar.

Church Fathers on No Lamb at Last Supper and Death on Nisan 14

Saint John states that Christ died on Nisan 14:

Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” (John 19:14)

Tertullian states that Christ died on Nisan 14:

On the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses. Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him … Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that “on the first day of unleavened bread” you slew Christ; … (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an “eventide,”— that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day.” (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 8-10)

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD) teaches that the Lord did not eat the lamb according to legal rite and the Passover of the Jews was not yet:

“The Passover of the Jews was not yet, as John shows, and the Lord did not eat the lamb with His disciples according to the legal rite, but rather instituted a new Passover, giving His own body as the food of salvation.” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Series 81)

Saint Peter of Alexandria, writing AD 300 to 311, states that Christ did not eat “the legal Passover” and that Christ died on Nisan 14:

At the time, therefore, in which our Lord and God Jesus Christ suffered for us, according to the flesh, He did not eat of the legal Passover; but, as I have said, He Himself, as the true Lamb, was sacrificed for us in the feast of the typical Passover, on the day of the preparation, the fourteenth of the first lunar month. The typical Passover, therefore, then ceased, the true Passover being present: For Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, as has been before said, and as that chosen vessel, the apostle Paul, teaches. (Peter of Alexandria, first chapter of his fifth fragmentary writing)

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340 AD) sates that Christ did not eat the lamb and the Supper was before the Passover sacrifice:

“The Lord did not partake of the lamb slain according to the custom of the Jews, for He was Himself the Lamb, and the Supper was before the time of their Passover sacrifice.” (Eusebius, Questions and Answers on the Gospels, preserved in fragments)

Saint John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD) also stated that Jesus Christ did not eat the “legal Passover” and that He was crucified on Nisan 14:

“For it was not at the feast that He ate the Passover, but on the day before the feast He celebrated it with His disciples, giving them the mystery of His body and blood. For the Jews were still to eat the Passover on the next day, as it is written, ‘They themselves did not enter the Praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.’” (Homily 82 on John 18:28)

Jerome (c. 347–420 AD) supported the Johannine view that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14, the preparation day, aligning with the slaughter of Passover lambs. This suggests the Last Supper lacked the lamb.

“The Lord did not eat the Passover according to the Law with His disciples on the day of unleavened bread, but on the day before, as John clearly shows, when the Jews had not yet eaten it.” (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew)

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) attempted to harmonize the Gospels but leaned toward the idea that Jesus died on Nisan 14, aligning with John’s timeline.

“For it was not on the feast day itself that He suffered, but on the day before the feast… The Jews were still to eat the Passover, while He had already given His own body as the true Passover to His disciples.” (Augustine, From Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 55)

Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 AD) states that Christ did not eat the Passover lamb and that the Last Supper occurred before the Jews celebrated Passover:

“For the Passover of the Jews had not yet been celebrated when the Savior suffered, but it was near… He did not eat the lamb of the Law with His disciples, but rather gave them the bread of life, Himself being the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.” (Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 11 (John 18:28)

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–457 AD) taught that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that the Last Supper was not a legal Passover meal with a lamb.

“The Savior did not partake of the Passover lamb with His disciples, for He was Himself the Lamb, slain on the fourteenth day of Nisan, as the Evangelist John declares, when the Jews were still preparing to eat their Passover.” (Theodoret of Cyrus, From Commentary on the Gospel of John)

Severus of Antioch (c. 465–538 AD), a key figure in the Monophysite movement, holds that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that the Last Supper was a distinct event, not the Jewish Passover with a lamb.

“The Lord instituted the mystery of His body and blood before the Passover of the Jews, not eating the lamb of the old Law, but becoming the Lamb sacrificed for us on the fourteenth of Nisan.” (Severus, From a homily preserved in fragments)

Bede the Venerable (c. 673–735 AD), an Anglo-Saxon monk and historian, adopted the Johannine timeline in his biblical exegesis, suggesting Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that the Last Supper preceded the Passover sacrifice.

“The Lord did not celebrate the Passover of the Jews with a lamb, for He was crucified on the Preparation Day, the fourteenth of Nisan, as John testifies, when the lambs were being slain.” (Bede, Homilies 13 on John)

Conclusion: A New Passover with Christ as “This Passover”

There was no animal lamb at the Last Supper. Christ is the Lamb. Christ was crucified on Nisan 14.

In conclusion, Last Supper images that depict a roasted lamb on the table, like this one, are heretical:

Whereas images hat depict no animal Lamb (an empty dish), but Christ holding the Eucharist are orthodox:

Since the Last Supper was on the anticipated evening of Nisan 14, His death happened on the same day of Nisan 14 and this unites the Eucharistic Last Supper as on the same day as the death of Christ–uniting the two events.

The Passover, then, is anytime the Eucharist is celebrated. Christ has transformed the Passover into the Eucharist. Passover is whenever the Eucharist is celebrated and is not relegated to Nisan 14/15.

– Dr. Taylor Marshall

PS: St Thomas Aquinas somehow gets all this wrong and cites Jerome, but is not aware that elsewhere Jerome affirmed that Christ died on Nisan 14. Thomas affirms that Christ died on Nisan 15:

“From which, as Jerome, says, “since the fourteenth day of the first month is called the day of the Azymes, when the lamb was slain, and when it was full moon,” it is quite clear that Christ kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth.” Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 46, Article 9

The post Did Jesus die on Passover? Was Last Supper a Passover? Harmonizing Synoptics with John appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Was Jesus Christ born on December 25? Dr Taylor Marshall says “Yes, Christ was born on the historical day of December 25 in the year 1BC. Dr Taylor Marshall explains using the Church Fathers and the Gospel of Saint Luke.

This is a sample class from my online Catholic Curriculum “Early Church Fathers History” offered by the New Saint Thomas Institute. You can join for a limited time today for 47/month (and receive 7 more Courses thrown in) at:

https://NewSaintThomas.com

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

This is a sample class from my online Catholic Curriculum “Early Church Fathers History” offered by the New Saint Thomas Institute. You can join for a limited time today for 47/month (and receive 7 more Courses thrown in) at:

https://NewSaintThomas.com

If you are already a student Member of New Saint Thomas Institute, you already have full access to this course. I look forward to seeing you inside the New Saint Thomas Institute!

Happy Advent,
Dr Taylor Marshall

The post Was Christ Born on December 25? Yes! Dr Marshall Explains [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

We sick an’ tired of-a your ism-skism game –
Dyin’ ‘n’ goin’ to heaven in-a Jesus’ name, Lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.

So who is this “living man” who is God? Is it Christ or someone else? Hmm.

So I read through the lyrics and read up on Rastafari theology and its appropriation of Christian Messianism. Since most people interface Rastafari beliefs via Bob Marley’s music, I’ll examine Rastafari theology through the lens of Bob Marley. And so to begin, we should recognize that Marley experienced three theological periods during his life:

1. Roman Catholic – from his birth in 1945 till 1966 when he was 21. His father was a white Jamaican captain derived from England. His mother was a Jamaican girl. He was 59. She was 18. His father died of a heart attack at age 70, when Bob was 10 years old. It seems that his mother was a Catholic.
2. Rastafari – At age 21, Marley married Rita Anderson, a Rastafarian. Marley wholeheartedly adopted the Rastafarian identity and theology. This period lasts from 1966 (age 21) till about 1979.
3. Ethiopian Orthodox – Marley became less enthusiastic about the Rastafari movement, especially after the death of Haile Selassie in 1975 (more on that below). By 1978 Marley’s music is less political, less militant, and less Rasta. Themes of love begin to dominate the music. Beginning 1979-1980, Marley sought membership within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church of Haile Selassie. Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq baptized Bob Marley into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, giving him the name Berhane Selassie, on 4 November 1980. Marley died of cancer seven months later on 11 May 1981 and received an Ethiopian Orthodox funeral.

101 Intro to Rastafari Messianic Theological:

1. Trinitarian. Rastafari are traditionally Trinitarian and worship God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They tend to depict Jesus as black and reject European depictions of Christ. As we will see below, they also see King Haile Selassie as a reincarnation or avatar of Jesus Christ. Some more advanced Rastafarians hold that God has had four avatars: Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and Haile Selassie.
2. They read the Old and New Testament. They tend to quote the King James Version.
3. Ethiopia is Politico-Prophetic. Rastafari read the Bible in a way to see the African nation of Ethiopia as playing a prophetic role in religious action and political justice. This is why the Rasta movement is defined by the colors of the Ethiopian flag.
   
4. Ethiopic Messianism. They also believe that King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba had a baby together and that this child established a Davidic-Solomonic Messianic royal dynasty in Ethiopia.
5. Pan-African. Rastafari theology is a religious Pan-African movement that looked forward to: a) the unification of all African nations; and B) the return of all dispersed Africans back to Africa. Ethiopia will be the instrument of this reunion.
6. King Haile Selassie as Messiah. Rastafarian name themselves after Ras Tafari Makonnen (Ras means “Duke”), the baptismal name of His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Ethiopia. They believe that “Ras Tafari” or “Haile Selassie” is the heir of the Davidic-Solomonic promises and that his celebrated coronation on 2 November 1930 was an apocalyptic and prophetic event signaling redemption for Africa and all dispersed Africans. The movement identified King Haile Selassie as “Messianic” or “the Messiah” or “Jesus reincarnate” or “divine” or “Jah.” King Haile Selassie was named Man of the Year in 1936, thus increasing expectation:
   
7. Smoking cannabis was a cultural Jamaican practice. By association it became a defining element of Afro-Caribbean identity and Rastafarian spirituality. Rastafarian identified the “healing leaves” of Revelation 22:2 as cannabis: “and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”
8. Dreadlocks. The growing of dreadlocks is Biblically inspired by the Nazarite vow of Numbers 6: 5–6: “During the entire period of their Nazarite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the LORD is over; they must let their hair grow long.”
9. Concubinage and Polygamy. Rastafarians hold David and Solomon as their spiritual fathers. Following their example, they allow for polygamy and concubinage. The Rastafarian women (like Bob Marley’s wife Rita) allowed their husbands to sleep with other women as they saw fit. Marital monogamy is not binding because it was not binding for David or Solomon.

Origin of Rastafari Theology

• Beginning in 1930, Jamaican (Protestant) preachers began to describe the coronation of King Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia as the fulfillment of Revelation (5:2–5; 19:16), Daniel (7:3), and the Book of Psalms (68:31).
• Jamaicans began to see themselves as supporting the “black king of Ethiopia” and not the “white king of England.” Supporters of Ras Tafari began to be identified as Rastafarians.
• In 1935, Jamaican preacher Leonard Howell published the tract The Promised Key which explained that Emperor Haile Selassie (Ras Tafari) was the Messiah, that Black people were the chosen people, and they would soon be repatriated to Ethiopia and experience political and economic prosperity. The tract is the founding document of Rastafarian belief and marks the move from seeing Haile Selassie as merely prophetic to “the divine Messiah.”
• Leonard Howell taught that there are 6 principles to Rastafari theology:
  (1) hatred for the White race;
  (2) the complete superiority of the Black race;
  (3) revenge on Whites for their wickedness;
  (4) the negation, persecution, and humiliation of the government of Jamaica;
  (5) preparation to go back to Africa; and
  (6) acknowledging Emperor Haile Selassie as the Supreme Being and only ruler of Black people
• Haile Selassie visited Jamaica for the first time in August 1966, with crowds of Rastas assembling to meet him at the airport.
• The death of Haile Selassie in 1975 lead to alternative conspiracies about a faked death, his resurrection, his second coming, or to his spiritual force being released into the world. However, as no Pan-African change materialized, the Rastafari movement lost momentum. Among black communities, rap replaced Rasta-style reggae as the musical force for revolution and political change. However, Rastafarian imagery and language continues to dominate pro-African movements in the West. The emphasis on Haile Selassie has mostly been exchanged for militant Socialism and the deification of the individual.

Bob Marley as Rastafarian and then as Ethiopian Orthodox:

As stated above, Bob Marley became Rastafarian in 1966 at age 21. Here’s his album cover with the The Wailers from 1965 with no signs of Rastafarian identity, with Bob Marley centered:

With their second album in 1966, they became political and took on a guerrilla revolution identity.

“I Shot the Sheriff” was released in 1973 on their sixth LP Burnin’. The album reached 151 on Billboard 200. The next year in 1974, Eric Clapton covered “I Shot the Sheriff” and it was a number one hit. This lifted Bob Marley and the Wailers into fame as fans desired to buy/listen to the original version. All of Marley’s subsequent albums did well, as he peaked in 1977 with the LP Exodus. By 1980 he was playing Madison Square Garden in NYC.

In 1977, Marley had been diagnosed with a malignant skin cancer on his toe. Doctors suggested full amputation of the toe. Marley kept the toe. On 21 September 1980, he learned that the cancer spread to his brain. He played his last concert on 23 September 1980 in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

At this last live concert he sang: “We know when we over-stand: Almighty God is a living man.” It’s not clear if he was merely honoring the original lyrics, or whether he still actually believed that the now-deceased King Haile Sellasie was still God Almighty. Probably the former.

About 40 days after receiving his terminal cancer diagnosis, Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq baptized Bob Marley into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on 4 November 1980. Afterward he cried for half an hour.

Bob Marley died of brain cancer on 11 May 1981.

Here is a full YouTube video with Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq, the one who baptized Bob Marley into the Orthodox Church. He explicitly states that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is NOT Rastafarian:

• 2:50 Abuna Yesehaq says that 20,000 Rastafarians were baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, but no all remained. From the video, it seems that Abuna Yesehaq did not require the newly baptized to renounced their Rasta beliefs. If so, this is troubling.
• 3:40 Abuna Yesehaq says that Haile Selassie was a member of Ethiopian Orthodox Church and denied he was divine.
• 4:20 Haile Selassie sent Abuna Yesehaq to convert Rastas in Jamaica.
• 5:50 Abuna Yesehaq says dreadlocks are okay
• 7:05 Abuna Yesehaq says “I baptized Bob Marley”
• 8:00 Abuna Yesehaq explains three differences with Roman Catholics: papal infallibility, miaphysite nature of Christ, procession of Holy Spirit.
• 10:40 Abuna Yesehaq explains how Bob Marley wanted to learn and conform to Orthodox practice, especially with regard to concubinage and polygamy.
• 11:30 Abuna Yesehaq told Bob Marley to be monogamous.
• 11:46 Abuna Yesehaq explains how Bob Marley cried for half and hour after baptism.
• 12:30 His wife Rita Marely was baptized with her children in Ethiopian Orthodox Church in 1973.
• 13:15 Bob Marley assented that Jesus crucified not Selassie is Christ.

It remains unclear whether Bob Marley repudiated his belief that Selassie but this interview seems to indicate that he did so and that he died a faithful member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

[reminder]Do you have any questions about Rastafarian beliefs? Or do you have any more information about the beliefs or conversion of Bob Marley?[/reminder]

The post The Messianic Theology of Bob Marley and His Conversion to Ethiopian Orthodoxy appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

You might be surprised to learn that Catholic iconography, saints, Eastern liturgy, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and even Pope Pius XII taught that she first died and then her body was assumed into Heaven. But her “death” was different. Let’s discover the distinction. Here’s a video I produced on the topic:

Click here to begin watching the video: Did Mary Die?

[reminder]

Our Immaculate Mother of the Christ, pray for us,
Dr Taylor Marshall

The post Video: Did Mary Die BEFORE she was Assumed into Heaven? Yes appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

As one who connects the Old Testament features to Catholic dogma (see this book: The Crucified Rabbi), I’ve always been painfully aware that the term “apostle” doesn’t have a slick connection to Old Testament kingdom language.

Pagan “Boat” Sources for the Term Apostle:

In pagan Greek sources (such as in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus), ἀπόστολος (apostolos) refers to a political or military delegate or messenger. ἀπόστολος also refers to the commander of a naval force.

In fact, στόλος refers to a naval division or to a colony. So an ἀπόστολος is one who travels out to these naval colonies. Sometimes ἀπόστολος is used to refer to a formal naval dispatch or to an export license to/from these colonies.

So when the New Testament authors adopt this Greek term, they are not merely referring to a local rabbi or preacher. They are using a term that referred to diplomats who traveled to the farrest ends of the earth. It’s a global or catholic term.

Pauline Sources for the Term:

The term ἀπόστολος appears only once in the Greet Septuagint (Greek version of Old Testament) at 1 Kings 14:6 where ἀπόστολος is a translation of the Hebrew שָׁלוּחַ (sha-lach). The term appears 79 times in the New Testament – 68 of which are found in the writings of Paul and his disciple Luke.

It seems that originally ἀπόστολος referred to each of the original Twelve Apostles. However, Saint Paul opened the term to include himself, Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and Timothy and Silvanus (1 Thessalonians 2:7). Paul also speaks of false apostles in 2 Corinthians.

In Hebrews, Luke/Paul identify Jesus as “the apostle and high priest of our confession” (Heb 3:1). In this context, apostleship is associated with the high priesthood. This is our biggest hint into how early Christians understood the term ἀπόστολος. It was missionary and priestly. Just as an ἀπόστολος origianlly referred to naval delegates to colonies, so a high priest bridges over water as a pontifex, a bridge builder between God and man.

According to Paul, apostles surpass the various other offices within the Church of “teachers, evangelists, and prophets” (διδάσκαλος, εὐαγγελιστής, προφήτης). In the mind of Paul, an apostle is more than these three. I would argue, that for Paul an apostle is all three of these at once while also being priestly diplomats for Christ.

Are Apostles Political or Priestly?

At first glance into a Greek dictionary, the term ἀπόστολος seems political or mercantile. It’s a civil title. However, the Christians looked to King Melchizedek and King David as “priest kings” or “liturgical kings” as the prototypes for King Jesus. So the political realm collapses into the priestly liturgical realm. This is why Christ is both establishing a “kingdom” (political) and also building at “temple” (priestly). He is king and pontiff. And so also, his political ministers are both political and cultic. The ἀπόστολος is a naval delegate for foreign colonies throughout the world but he is also a sacrificial priest who offers the Gentiles to God as sacrifice and who offers the Eucharist as sacrifice.

Apostles on a Boat:

One final related topic. I couldn’t help but noticed that in Acts, the vivid scenes of Paul traveling by ship may in fact be intentionally recounted with detail to bolster Paul’s identity as ἀπόστολος. In the Greek mind, the ἀπόστολος is primarily naval and thus Paul is literally fulfilling his role as ἀπόστολος (maybe better so than the Twelve!). Also, the stories of Saint James Zebedee going to and from (posthumously) to Spain by boat ratifies James as a true apostle for Jesus. And let’s not forget all the “Jesus in a boat” scenes from the Gospels!

[reminder]

The post What is an Apostle? (And How it Relates to all the Boat Scenes in the Bible) appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The post Viking Creation Myth vs. Jewish Creation in Genesis 1-3 appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Don’t take this too far. Saint Paul speaks plenty of human damnation and believes in punishment in the afterlife. For example:

“But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed…But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.” (Rom 2:5, 8)

“If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal 1:8-9).

“He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among those who have believed.” (2 Thess 1:8-10)

“All will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” (2 Thes 2:12)

My belief is that Paul is does not use the language of “Hades” because it conjures ideas of Homer and Virgil in Roman audiences. And he does not use the language of “Gehenna” because it’s an exclusively Jewish idea. So “eternal condemnation” and “fire” are his favorite categories for Gentile audiences.

There is a lot of crazy stuff on the internet (and bookstores) on Saint Paul. If you want a concise Catholic commentary on all the writings of Saint Paul, please check out this book: The Catholic Perspective on Paul.

The post Saint Paul never once mentions the word Hell appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Check out this profound insight from Saint Athanasius about the relationship between the Word of the Father and the created universe:

He is God, the living and creative God of the universe, the Word of the good God, who is God in his own right. The Word is different from all created things: he is the unique Word belonging only to the good Father. This is the Word that created this whole world and enlightens it by his loving wisdom. He who is the good Word of the good Father produced the order in all creation, joining opposites together, and forming from them one harmonious sound. He is God, one and only-begotten, who proceeds in goodness from the Father as from the fountain of goodness, and gives order, direction and unity to creation. (Discourse Against the Pagans)

Consider the most complicated mathematical problems, the rate of gravity, the structure of DNA sequences, the speed of light, the chemical compounds of substances, the expanding universe, etc. All these things are designed, controlled, measured, and governed constantly by the divine Word of God.

Even before Christ entered the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, He was perfectly guiding and controlling the universe like a conductor over all reality.

But the Son of God does not simply govern over. He is not merely a conductor of trillion piece orchestra. He is also intimately present in every person, instrument, note, chord, and sound. He lives and moves in all of creation as the rational binding principle of everything. Here is Saint Athanasius again:

The almighty and most holy Word of the Father pervades the whole of reality, everywhere unfolding his power and shining on all things visible and invisible. He sustains it all and binds it all together in himself. He leaves nothing devoid of his power but gives life and keeps it in being throughout all of creation and in each individual creature.

This is not “pantheism,” which is the heresy that “God is everything,” or that “my pencil is God, and my table is God, and that tree is God.”

The post The Son of God pervades the Whole of Reality – St Athanasius on the Word appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Instead, we observe the media’s depiction of the father is a comical dolt. The children laugh at him. The mother goes around his back. Sitcoms and films are replete with foolish fathers who justify the claim that there is no hierarchy in family.

Society tells all men to “man up” and marry but as soon as he does, he is presumed to become an embarrassing caricature of manhood, as someone resembling Homer Simpson or George McFly from Back to the Future:

We find the perfect familiar order (and corrective to our times) in the Holy Family, which conforms perfectly with divine law and natural law. Moreover, God in providential irony set up the Holy Family so that the most wise and meritorious members of the family submit to the less wise and meritorious.

Here’s the breakdown:

1. Jesus Christ (Divine Logos and Son of God) submits to Mary and Joseph.
2. Mary (Immaculate Conception and Mother of God) submits to Joseph.
3. Joseph (neither divine person like Christ nor immaculate like Mary) is the Head of Holy Family.

If merit, grace, or dignity were the criteria for leadership and headship, clearly it would be Joseph at the bottom of the leadership chain. But not so. God honors the natural order of fathers in the family and he recognizes Joseph as the leader. Although Joseph is least gifted and least worthy, he is nonetheless submitted to and obeyed by the Divine Jesus and the Immaculate Mary.

Children often test their fathers: Is he truly a great man? Do I truly want to follow him? Wives do the same: Did I marry the right man? Is he the hero that chose me and swept me off my feet or is he George McFly?

We all question our leaders. For this reason, fathers should strive to be excellent and fulfill their mission in life. This earns respect from wives and children. It quiets their worries about whether he is the great man that they hope him to be. However, no man is perfect. Jesus and Mary were greater than Joseph, and yet they were patient with him as he understood less than they did.

If any man in history were comparatively outclassed by his wife and child, it was Saint Joseph. This is an example to all families. The father of the home should be honored as the head of the wife and head of the family – even if he is less holy, less wise, less prudent, less pious than his mother and children: because that was once the case with Saint Joseph.

No doubt, the comments will be filled with testimonies such as: “My father was evil and he did XYZ.” I grant that these deep fractures exist in countless famliies. There are fathers out there that earn a score of F-.

But let’s be honest, many (most?) fathers out there are scoring As, Bs, and Cs on their report card. They work hard. The pay for Christmas. They tell bedtime stories. They play catch and teach children how to swim. They pay for insurance and health care. They fix the car. They live the faith. They take the family to church. They spend time investing in their children. They respect and love their wives. They are the oak.

So if your husband/father is scoring a B+ in your mind (and you think you’re scoring an A+), be like Mary and Joseph and honor him anyway as chosen by God to be your unworthy leader. The soul of a man is fueled by respect. I have no doubt that the soul of Joseph was rocket-boosted to highest heaven by the fuel of respect poured into him by his betters: by his wife Mary and his foster son Jesus.

Happy Feast of Holy Family. May Jesus protect all families from the Devil and from the Herods of the world,

Dr Taylor Marhall

The post Subordination to Joseph in the Holy Family appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

What was Saint Nicholas like as a young priest? Could he bi-locate? Could he read souls?

These are topics that I explored in my bestselling historical novel Sword and Serpent, in which I imagined a young and clairvoyant Saint Nicholas meeting a traveling pair of young future saints: Saint George and the recently baptized Saint Christopher.

These novels explore the historical martyrdoms of Christians under the Emperor Diocletian from the point of view of St George, St Christopher, St Nicholas, St Catherine of Alexandria, St Helena, Constantine, and dozens of other men and women who will go on to be known as Catholic saints. The novels are “clean” but contain gruesome and detailed accounts of martyrdoms, Roman battles, and gladiatorial bouts. If you mixed together Catholic Saint stories, The Princess Bride, and Lord of the Rings – you’d get the Sword and Serpent Trilogy.

Sword and Serpent Book 3: released today!

The first 2 novels were Amazon best-sellers in their categories – and on the feast of Saint Nicholas, we are announcing the print version of the third and final novel in the Sword and Serpent Trilogy is released: Storm of Fire and Blood.

The consensus from the reader reviews from the ebook version is that this third novel is exhilarating, well-researched, and the best of the three in the trilogy. Some have said it is the best book that they’ve read all year:

Here are the three novels in the Sword and Serpent Trilogy:

Just like first two novels in the series: we are having a Launch Party to get the word out with prizes.

How To Join the Party and Get FREE Books (hashtag: #SwordAndSerpent #TenthRegion #StormofFireandBlood)

Here are 8 epic ways you can do epic things and win epic stuff:

1. Take an Epic #Selfie with the Book
(Prize: a Free signed copy of Storm of Fire and Blood)

HOW TO ENTER: Take a photo with the book Storm of Fire and Blood. Extra points will be awarded for costumes or exotic places. We once had one taken in front of the Colosseum in Rome! The more epic, the more likely you are to win. Take a photo, post it on Facebook and then send an email to swordandserpent+selfie@gmail.com with a link to your picture.

RULES:

• This is not a random drawing. This is a performance-based contest that will be judged. Be epic. Get the family to dress up as Jurian, Sabra, Aikaterina, Menas, Helena, et al. and snap a selfie with the book. Or maybe take a photo of yourself holding the book in someplace amazing. If you get a photo of yourself standing next to Pope Francis holding the book, you win hands down!
• Selfies with any version of the Storm of Fire and Blood count (printed, ebook).

2. Just Get the Book Contest (Prize: $100 Amazon Gift Card)

HOW TO ENTER: Buy just one copy of Storm of Fire and Blood and then send an email to swordandserpent+boughtbook@gmail.com simply stating “I bought a copy.” If you buy more than one copy, please send one email for each copy you bought. *If you already reviewed the novel before today and emailed me about it, you’re already entered into this contest.

You can get a copy of Storm of Fire and Blood by clicking here.

RULES:

• You can enter for each copy purchased. (For example, if you buy four copies, send an email saying “I bought 4” in the subject line.)
• Winner will be drawn at random on December 24.

3. St Nicholas Gift Contest (Prize: an iPad Mini mailed to your house! AND a free signed copy of Storm of Fire and Blood)

HOW TO ENTER: Several reviewers on amazon.com said that Sword and Serpent would be a perfect Christmas gift. This contest honors Saint Nicholas who is an important character in the book – it’s also his feast day this week. To win this prize, purchase at least 4 copies (1 for yourself and 3 as gifts to give away at Christmas) and send an email to swordandserpent+gifts@gmail.com. You can order copies by clicking here.

RULES:

• You must purchase at least 4 copies to enter.
• If you purchase multiples of 4, you can enter that many times (8 copies = 2 entries; 12 copies = 3 entries; 80 copies = 20 entries – enter how many copies you got in the subject line: “I got 8 copies as Christmas gifts” – that’s 2 entries in this prize)
• Winner will be drawn at random on December 24 and will receive an iPad for free.

4. Review the Novel at Amazon.com (Prize: $100 Amazon Gift Card AND a free signed copy of Storm of Fire and Blood)

HOW TO ENTER: Read the book and leave a friendly review at amazon.com. Next, send an email to swordandserpent+reviewed@gmail.com with a link to your review.

RULES:

• Please leave a review at amazon.com before December 24.
• Even though GoodReads is not a retailer, we’ll count GoodReads reviews too. So if you review at Amazon and goodreads, that’s two entries. Way to go! Click here for GoodReeds reviews.
• Send an email to swordandserpent+reviewed@gmail.com with a link to your review.
• Winner will be drawn at random on December 24.

5. Write a Blog Post about Storm of Fire and Blood
(Prize: $50 Amazon Gift Card + a promo link to your blog from my blog)

HOW TO ENTER: Write a blog post about Storm of Fire and Blood with the amazon link to the book in your review. Next, send an email to swordandserpent+blog@gmail.com with a link to your review.

RULES:

• The post does not have to be a “book review.” It can be a theological reflection or an interview with me about the book.
• Please include this exact amazon.com link: http://amzn.to/2BFTyWh
• Winner will be drawn at random on December 24.

6. Facebook The Book (Prize: $50 Amazon Gift Card)

HOW TO ENTER: Write an update on your Facebook wall about Sword and Serpent and include a link to the amazon link and the link to the book trailer. Next send an email to swordandserpent+facebook@gmail.com.

Please use this photo and this link to the book: http://amzn.to/2BFTyWhRULES:

• Please feel free to use the book video trailer from Book I: http://youtu.be/lN8dFJEOQ_8
• Please include the amazon.com link to the book: http://amzn.to/2BFTyWh
• Winner will be drawn at random.

Okay, there are the contests. They all end on Dec 24 2016. Get busy taking epic selfies. By the way the easiest contest to win is #3 – Just Get the Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.

To everyone who already made Storm of Fire and Blood possible and helped it get to #1, THANK YOU!

Happy winnings and Happy Advent!

Saint George, pray for us!
Taylor

Epic Book Trailer for Sword and Serpent, Book I:

Saint George pray for us,
Taylor Marshall

The post What was St Nicholas like as a Young Priest: Sword and Serpent Book 3 released! appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

I’ve been listening to The Story of the Goths by Henry Bradley (get the audible version for free by using this link) and it’s fantastic. A recurrent theme is the fact that the Goths were Arians going back to their evangelization by the Arian missionary Ulfilas or Wulfila (“Little Wolf”).

Ulfilas was ordained by that conniving villain of a bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia – the same Arian bishop who baptized Constantine and sought to exonerate Arius. Ulfilas carried the Semi-Arian version of Christianity to the Goths and they adopted it contrary to the Faith of Rome.

The Arian Goths divided into Ostrogoths (Eastern/German and Italian Goths) and Visigoths (Western/Spanish Goths).

In AD 587, King Reccared I (Visigothic King of Spain) renounced the Arian heresy and embraced Catholicism. This marks the transition of Spain from Arian to Catholic.

[callout]I record how the old statue of Saint Luke known as Our Lady of Guadalupe was then given to Catholic Spain by Saint Gregory the Great to celebrate the conversion of Reccared and his kingdom. Learn the full story of “old and new Guadalupe” in full video “Our Lady of Guadalupe” lesson at New Saint Thomas Institute.[/callout]

This conversion meant that King Reccared rejected the Arian Creed of Ulfilas and instead adopted the Orthodox Creed of Nicea and Constantinople – the same one we recite every Sunday at Mass. Two years later, historians observe the insertion of the Latin term Filioque (Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son”) into the Nicene Creed at the Third Synod of Toledo in AD 589.

The Usual Theological Consensus on “Why Filioque?”

If you take any theological class (including my own) on the topic of Filioque, you will hear something like this typical explanation:

The Goths had been Arian since the days of Ulfilas, and thus they believed that the Son of God was created, less than the Father, and was not co-eternal or consubstantial with the Father. So when the Goths became Catholic and rejected the heresy of Arianism, they felt the need to beef up the Nicene Creed. These Gothic Catholic converts added that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son” so as to establish the Son as fully God and the Holy Spirit as fully God. And this addition eventually became standard in the Latin version of the Creed – even though the Greeks protest to this day.

This is the standard historical theology narrative, and I have taught it to my students dozens of times. However, I have recently come to reject this explanation after studying Gothic Arianism and the Creed of Ulfilas. Here’s why:

New Theory on the Filioque

My new theory is that the Filioque was added so as to make the Nicene Creed o fAD 381 sound more like the Arian Creed of Ulfilas while remaining 100% orthodox. Let me explain:

1. The Nicene Creed is enough against the Arians

The Nicene Creed in its Greek (and Latin) text thoroughly demolishes the heresy of Arius. There is no room for the position of Arius within the text:

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father,
through him all things were made.”

Arians (beginning with Arius himself in the early 300s) hated this language from Nicea. Adding “proceeds from the Son” later into the Creed really does not add anything against the Arian case. Arians, as far as we know, did not regard the text about the procession of the Holy Spirit as a battleground text in the Nicene Creed. So something else seems to be happening with “and from the Son” or Filioque.

2. The Arian Creed of Ulfilas has a lot to say about the relationship between the Son and the Spirit:

So if “and from the Son” was not an extra prop up for the divinity of Christ, what was it? After reading a translation of the Gothic “Creed of Ulfilas,” it jumped off the page to me. I reproduce  the full known text of the Arian Creed of Ulfilas here with my comments in red:

I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord:

I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible.

And in his only-begotten Son [Arians used “only begotten” but in the sense of being a singular creature.], our Lord and God, [Arians said the Son of God was “a God” by divine privilege, but not “the one and only God.” For Arians this distinction of “the God” was for the Father alone, for Arians the Son of God was “a God” and “our God”.] the designer and maker of all creation [Arians grant that the creation came through the Son], having none other like him [radical Arian claim that the Son is unlike the Father], so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God). [Here again is the Arian distinction that the Father is “the God” and that the Son is “a god” by privilege our “our god” in relation to fallen humans.]

And in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: [here Ulfilas cites two Scripture passages having the Spirit proceed from the Son or Filioque:]

“And behold, I send [Jesus does the sending of the Spirit] the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) and again,
“But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you [in the context of Jesus ascending and sending an advocate]” (Acts 1:8);

being neither God (the Father) nor our God (Christ), but the minister of Christ [Holy Spirit is a minister of Christ and related to Christ rather than to the Father]…subject and obedient in all things to the Son [Spirit subordinated to the Son]; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father… (whom) he ordained in the Holy Spirit through his Christ.

So in the Gothic Arian Creed, the understanding of their “Trinity” looks like this:

In the Gothic Arian mock up, I placed a dashed line between the Father and the Son do show that this generation is not consubstantial but signals a new created substance for the Son.

Whereas the original Nicene Creed of AD 381, read strictly, looks more like this:

So what I’m suggesting is that the Filioque was added so as to make the Nicene Creed conform intellectually with the way Ulfilas’s Gothic Arians spoke of the Holy Spirit. So this Option 1:

Which can be moved around to be envisioned like this Option 2:

Option 2 has the same arrows and same processions, but different arrangement. It should become obvious that the theological jump from the Gothic Arian Creed of Ulfilas (left) to that of the Spanish Filioque Nicene Creed (center) is less of theological jump than to the Greek Strict Nicene chart (right)

Conclusion:

To summarize then, the Filioque was introduced into Spain in AD 589 not to “prop up” God the Son’s divinity (that was already accomplished in the Christology section of the Nicene Creed), but rather to illustrate an Orthodox read to the way that the Gothic Arian Creed spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Moreover, orthodox Catholic saints had often and approvingly spoke of the Spirit’s procession from the Son:

• St Basil the Great
• St Gregory Nazianzus
• St Gregory Nyssa
• St Hilary of Poitiers
• St Ambrose
• St Augustine

So the Filioque was an orthodox addition that helped the Visigoths embrace Nicene Orthodoxy. Visigoths knew that they were abandoning Arianism with regard to the Son of God, but what may have been more difficult to understand for them was how the original Nicene Creed does not explicitly express any relation between the Son and Spirit since the Gothic Arian Creed speaks only of a relation between the Son and Spirit.

All that being said, I’m fully supportive of the Filioque in the Creed because: A) it’s in Scripture, B) it’s in the great Greek and Latin Fathers, and C) the Pope has power to bind and loose dogmas, councils, patriarchs, and even Creeds.

I’m certainly open to rebuttal, objections, and criticisms. So let them roll.

[reminder]Is the Filioque a response to the Gothic Arian understanding of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Son?[/reminder]

The post The Filioque as Nicene Theology for Arian Goths and the Creed of Ulfilas appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

I’m sorry that I have not been posting articles for the last two weeks. I’ve been teaching a class in Rome to Seminarians called “The History and Theology of Rome” (based on The Eternal City) and it has been a rich blessing.

Since I have not been posting theology articles, I’ve been posting a stream of photos and videos. For example, here is a video of the bishops and cardinals processing with the Holy Eucharist for the feast of Corpus Christi:

If you’d like to see a constant stream of photos of Roman and Italian relics, saints, churches, architecture, sites, and food, please check out my daily photo posts on Instagram (DrTaylorMarshall): click here to see photos.

Godspeed,
Dr Taylor Marshall

PS: I’ll be back in the US next week and will resume theological blog posts.

The post Photos from Pilgrimage to Rome, Assisi, Florence, Venice appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The image above depicts Nestorius. Note the x on his mitre – this signifies that he is a heretical bishop.

124: Heretic Nestorius: Is Mary Mother of God? Are there 2 Christs? [Podcast]

If the audio player does not show up in your email or browser, please click here to listen.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on Youtube.com
  • Sword and Serpent 2: Tenth Region of the Night is now a published bestseller. Get your copy now at amazon.com: The Tenth Region of the Night.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our Medieval Catholic Church History curriculum. Please visit: newsaintthomas.com for more details.

I’d love to read your feedback: While you listen to today’s podcast, would you please take 30 seconds to write a review? Please click here to Rate this Podcast!

Please Share Your Feedback:

• POPULARITY: 1,068,658 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 520 (!) of you who wrote amazing 5-star reviews at iTunes. Please rate this podcast by clicking here. From there you can leave a review. I appreciate you for this! Thank you!

Subscribe to This Weekly Podcast:

• Apple/Mac Users: Please subscribe via iTunes by clicking here and then clicking on “View in iTunes.”

• Android Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Android devices (free) using the Stitcher app.

• Android Users can also listen to the show with:
  • Android Beyond Pod app from the Google Play Store.
  • Android Pocketcasts app.
• Our you can listen/watch to the Taylor Marshall Show via Youtube:

• SURVEY: Please view our Podcast Listener Poll by clicking here.

[reminder]

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

The post 124: Heretic Nestorius: Is Mary Mother of God? Are there 2 Christs? [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.