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 The best harmonization of the four gospels requires that the Last Supper was a New Rite or a New Passover that superseded the Passover instituted by Moses and happened 24 hours before the legal Passover meal of the Jews.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.

Hebrews 8:13: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.”

“Finally, He says to them: ‘Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure.’ You see what He means: it is not the present Sabbaths that are acceptable to Me, but the one which I have made, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make the beginning of an eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world.

Wherefore also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead, and after He had appeared, ascended into the heavens.”

Epistle of Barnabas 15:8–9 (Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], Vol. 1, p. 147).

Why Christians Worship on Sunday Instead of Saturday

From a Christian viewpoint, the shift from worshiping on Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) to Sunday (Christian Lord’s Day) is a profound theological and historical development rooted in the New Testament, early Church tradition, and the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ.

Today, I’ll explore why Christians do not communal worship on Saturday but instead on Sunday, drawing on Sacred Scripture—particularly the New Testament—and the writings of early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. We now belong to the New Testament and the New Creation in the New Adam, who is Jesus Christ.

Christ’s Resurrection and the Lord’s Day

The New Testament provides the foundational basis for Sunday worship, emphasizing Christ’s resurrection as the defining event that transforms the rhythm of Christian life. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus rises on “the first day of the week” (Matthew 28:1), which corresponds to Sunday in the Jewish reckoning of days beginning at sundown. Similarly, Mark 16:2 states, “And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb,” and Luke 24:1 echoes, “But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb.” John 20:1 reinforces this: “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early.” This consistent testimony across the Gospels identifies Sunday as the day of Christ’s triumph over death, a pivotal moment that Catholics see as inaugurating a new creation.

New Testament Witness

This resurrection significance extends to early Christian practice. Acts 20:7 records, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them.” The phrase “break bread” is widely understood in Catholic tradition as a reference to the Eucharist, the central act of worship. This gathering on Sunday reveals a shift from the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) to a new day of Eucharistic worship tied to Christ’s rising. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 16:2 advises, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up,” indicating a regular Sunday collection during worship, further evidencing its liturgical prominence.

Revelation 1:10 adds a theological layer: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Though not explicitly cited as “Sunday,” early Christians interpreted “the Lord’s Day” (kyriakē hēmera) as the first day of the week, commemorating Christ’s resurrection. The Didache (c. AD 70–120) and later Fathers confirm this usage. Thus, the New Testament establishes Sunday as the day when Christians gathered to celebrate the Eucharist and honor Christ’s victory, distinguishing it from the Jewish Sabbath.

Fulfillment of the Sabbath in Christ

The New Testament views the Sabbath—a commandment to rest on the seventh day (Exodus 20:8–11)—as part of the old creation and old covenant, fulfilled and transformed by Christ in the New Covenant.

Colossians 2:16–17 states, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” Paul here identifies the Sabbath as a “shadow,” a prefigurement of the spiritual rest found in Christ, not a perpetual obligation for Christians.

Hebrews 4:9–10 deepens this: “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” This “Sabbath rest” is eschatological, realized in Christ’s redemptive work, not tied to a specific day.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) further supports this shift. When debating whether Gentile converts must follow Mosaic Law, the apostles, led by Peter, ruled that only minimal requirements (e.g., abstaining from idolatry and immorality) were necessary, omitting Sabbath observance (Acts 15:28–29). This decision, authoritative for Christians, signals that the ceremonial laws, including the Saturday Sabbath, do not bind Christians.

Early Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. AD 108), a disciple of the Apostle John, provides early testimony to the abandonment of Saturday worship in favor of Sunday. In his Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1, he writes,

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny… how shall we be able to live apart from Him?” (ANF, Vol. 1, p. 62).

Ignatius contrasts the Jewish Sabbath with the Lord’s Day (Sunday), linking the latter to Christ’s resurrection as the source of new life. His phrase “no longer observing the Sabbath” explicitly rejects Saturday worship for Christians, emphasizing a theological shift rooted in Easter.
Ignatius’ context is anti-Judaizing: he warns against Christians reverting to Jewish practices, which he sees as denying Christ’s grace (Magnesians 8:1: “If we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace”). For Christians, Ignatius’ witness, as an Apostolic Father, carries weight, reflecting apostolic tradition that Sunday supplants Saturday as the day of worship.

Early Church Fathers: Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 70–132), though not canonical, offers a sharp critique of literal Sabbath-keeping, reinforcing the Catholic view. In Barnabas 15:8–9, the author declares,

“Finally, He says to them: ‘Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure.’ You see what He means: it is not the present Sabbaths that are acceptable to Me, but the one which I have made, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make the beginning of an eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world. Wherefore also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead” (ANF, Vol. 1, p. 147).

Citing Isaiah 1:13, the author argues that God rejects the Jewish Sabbath, reinterpreting it as an eschatological rest fulfilled in Christ. The “eighth day” (Sunday, following the seventh-day Sabbath) symbolizes this new era, aligning with resurrection theology.

Christians observe this as evidence of an early Christian consensus that Saturday worship is obsolete, replaced by Sunday’s celebration of the “new world” begun in Christ. While Barnabas is polemical and not magisterial, its influence on early theology underscores the shift away from Judaizing practices.

Theological Rationale: Sunday as the Day of the New Creation

Christian doctrine ties Sunday worship to the concept of a “new creation.” Just as God rested on the seventh day after creating the world (Genesis 2:2–3), Christ’s resurrection on the first day marks the renewal of a new creation. Christ fulfills the Sabbath’s purpose—rest and communion with God—in a new context, as Christ’s victory over sin and death (Romans 6:4) surpasses the old order.

The Church Fathers amplify this. Ignatius’ “life has sprung up again” (Magnesians 9) and Barnabas’ “beginning of another world” (15:8) echo 2 Corinthians 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” Sunday thus becomes the day when Catholics celebrate this renewal through the Mass, which re-presents Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection.

Traditional Witness and Authority

Historically, Christian Sunday communal worship emerged early, as seen in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, and was codified by Church authority. The Council of Laodicea (c. AD 363–364), Canon 29, later declared, “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day… preferring in honor the Lord’s Day” (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 14, p. 148). This reflects a Catholic reliance on apostolic tradition and the Magisterium to interpret Scripture, per 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us.”

Conclusion for Christians

Christians worship on Sunday, not Saturday, because the New Testament establishes it as the day of Christ’s resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Acts 20:7), fulfilling the Sabbath’s shadow (Colossians 2:16–17) in a New Covenant of grace (Acts 15). Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch confirm this shift, rejecting Sabbath observance for the Lord’s Day (Magnesians 9:1), while Barnabas redefines rest as an eschatological reality celebrated on the “eighth day” (15:8–9). Theologically, Sunday honors the new creation in Christ, a truth the Catholic Church, guided by apostolic authority, has upheld since the resurrection of Christ. For Christians, this is not a rejection of the Sabbath’s sanctity but its transformation into a higher celebration of redemption, lived out each Sunday in the Eucharist.

Are you interested in going deeper? Please sign up for my online Theology course at: nsti.com.

The post Should Christians Keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. Didache
2. Epistle of Clement of Rome
3. Epistle of Barnabas

Brief history of the Epistle of Barnabas:

1. The Epistle of Barnabas dates between AD 70 and AD 135 with an attribution to the Apostle Barnabas, the co-missionary with the Apostle Paul. “When the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying.” (Acts 14:13) Barnabas speaks of the Jerusalem temple being destroyed, an event that happened in AD 70.
2. Barnabas is quite familiar with New Testament literature and he refers to or cites Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Corinthains, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.
3. The complete text of Barnabas is preserved in the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus. It appears at the end of the New Testament, following the Book of Revelation and before the Shepherd of Hermas.
4. Some early Fathers of the Church ascribed it to the Barnabas mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Early Egyptian Christians, namely Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus the Blind quoted from Barnabas. May scholars today attribute it to an otherwise unknown early Christian teacher. I personally believe it was written by Saint Barnabas, who appears in Acts. The theological argument corresponds closely to the theology of Paul’s Galatians and Hebrews (yes, I also believe Paul is the author of Hebrews with Luke as a writer).

Who is the Evil Angel?

Barnabas on the Deception of Food Laws

1. Swine: Forgetfulness of God and ingratitude
2. Eagle, Hawk, Kite, Crow: Stealing dead meat as injustice, oppression, and greed
3. Fish Without Scales: Instability and wickedness living at the bottom in darkness
4. Rabbit: Sexual immorality, pederasty and promiscuity
5. Hyena: Sexual perversion and transgenderism
6. Weasel: Sins of the mouth, such as slander and oral sodomy

Is the Evil Angel the Demiurge or Satan?

Satan as Evil Angel

The post Who is the Evil Angel in the Epistle of Barnabas? Are the Rabbis Satanic? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. Baruch
2. Tobit,
3. 1 Maccabees,
4. 2 Maccabees
5. Judith
6. Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
7. Wisdom
8. In addition, the Septuagint Old Testament contains extra chapters and verses for Daniel and Esther

Christ and the Apostles

For example, in John 10:36, our Lord Jesus Christ accepts the inspiration of 2 Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

Christ our Lord also accepts Tobit, as His parable on the seven brothers who die in the context of marriage (Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29) refers back to the details about the seven brothers who die after marriage in Tobit 3:8 and 7:11.

Saint Paul also quotes the book of Wisdom in Romans 1 when he discusses the depravity of worshipping creation in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles. (See Wisdom 11:15;12:24-27;13:10;14:8). Moreover, Wisdom 14:24-27 describes how sexual degeneracy follows this idolatry. It’s easy to see that Paul had the book of Wisdom open before him when he wrote Romans, or had it memorized.

Dead Sea Scrolls

It was long assumed the Deuterocanonical books were Greek additions to the Hebrew Old Testament. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery has proved that these books had Hebrew originals and were widely read and circulated by Jews before Christ.

1. The Book of Sirach, whose Hebrew text was already known from the Cairo Geniza, has been found in two of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2QSir or 2Q18, 11QPs_a or 11Q5) in Hebrew.
2. The Hebrew scroll of Sirach has been found in Masada (MasSir).
3. Five fragments from the Book of Tobit have been found in Qumran written in Aramaic and in one written in Hebrew (papyri 4Q, nos. 196–200).
4. The Letter of Jeremiah, which is Baruch chapter 6, has been found in cave 7 (papyrus 7Q2) in Greek.

Early Councils

The Council of Rome (AD 382), Synod of Hippo (AD 393), followed by the Council of Carthage (AD 397) and the Council of Carthage (AD 419) affirm the exact canon received today by the Roman Catholic Church:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings IV books [1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], Chronicles II books, 150 Psalms, three books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs], Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Cinoth i.e. his lamentations, Ezechiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habbakuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Job, Tobit, Esdras II books [Ezra, Nehemiah], Ester, Judith, Maccabees II books.

Early Church Fathers

The Christians that lived after the Apostles and the subsequent Church Fathers also accepted these books:

1. Epistle of Barnabas
2. Didache
3. Clement of Rome
4. Polycarp of Smyrna
5. Irenaeus of Lyons
6. Tertullian
7. Clement of Alexndria
8. Origen of Alexandria
9. Hippolytus of Rome
10. Cyprian of Carthage
11. Cyril of Jersualem
12. Athanasius of Alexandria
13. Basil the Great
14. Gregory Nazianzus
15. Gregory Nyssa
16. Hilary of Poitiers
17. Ambrose of Milan
18. Damasus of Rome
19. Augustine of Hippo
20. John Chrysostom

Church Fathers Citing the Deuterocanonical Books:

Below are all the quotations of the Church Fathers citing the deuterocanonical books. This extensive list was paintstakenly compiled by “Scripture Catholic” and can be found at this link.

Here begins the list:

“What, then, again says the prophet? ‘The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,'[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and ‘upon my garment they cast lots'[Ps. 22:19]. Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us'[Wisdom 2:12]. And Moses also says to them, ‘Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware tto give to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey'[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24].” Epistle of Barnabas, 6 (A.D. 74).

“Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? Or, who shall resist the power of His strength?'[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.'[Ps. 19:1-3].” Clement of Rome,To the Corinthians, 27:5 (c. A.D. 80).

“‘Be just in your judgement’ [Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. ‘Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving’ [Sirach 4:31].” Didache, 4:3-5 (A.D. 90).

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death'[Tobit 4:10,12:9]. Be all of you subject one to another? [1 Pt 5:5] having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,’ [1 Pt 2:12] that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! [Isa 52:5] Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.” Polycarp, To the Phillipians, 10 (A.D. 135).

“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Melito of Sardes, Fragment in Eusebius’ Ecclesiatical History, 4:26 (A.D. 177).

“Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust perverted thy heart'[Daniel 13:56-Susanna]. Thou that art waxen old in wicked days, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light; for thou hast pronounced false judgments, and hast been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and the righteous shalt thou not slay’ [Daniel 13:52-53-Susanna]. Of whom also did the Lord say: “But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.’ [Matt 24:48].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:26:3 (A.D. 180).

“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: ‘And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth,’ And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that [His] kingdom shall be in it, saying, “Look around Jerusalem towards the east, and behold the joy which comes to thee from God Himself. Behold, thy sons shall come whom thou hast sent forth: they shall come in a band from the east even unto the west, by the word of that Holy One, rejoicing in that splendour which is from thy God. O Jerusalem, put off thy robe of mourning and of affliction, and put on that beauty of eternal splendour from thy God. Gird thyself with the double garment of that righteousness proceeding from thy God; place the mitre of eternal glory upon thine head. For God will show thy glory to the whole earth under heaven. For thy name shall for ever be called by God Himself, the peace of righteousness and glory to him that worships God. Arise, Jerusalem, stand on high, and look towards the east, and behold thy sons from the rising of the sun, even to the west, by the Word of that Holy One, rejoicing in the very remembrance of God. For the footmen have gone forth from thee, while they were drawn away by the enemy. God shall bring them in to thee, being borne with glory as the throne of a kingdom. For God has decreed that every high mountain shall be brought low, and the eternal hills, and that the valleys be filled, so that the surface of the earth be rendered smooth, that Israel, the glory of God, may walk in safety. The woods, too, shall make shady places, and every sweet-smelling tree shall be for Israel itself by the command of God. For God shall go before with joy in the light of His splendour, with the pity and righteousness which proceeds from Him.'[Baruch 4:36-5:9].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:35:1 (A.D. 180).

“For, when one reads of God as being ‘the searcher and witness of the heart’ [Wisdom 1:6]; when His prophet is reproved by His discovering to him the secrets of the heart; when God Himself anticipates in His people the thoughts of their heart, ‘Why think ye evil in your hearts?'[Matt 9:4] when David prays ‘Create in me a clean heart, O God'[Ps 51:12], and Paul declares, ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,'[Romans 10:10] and John says, ‘By his own heart is each man condemned’[1 John 3:20]; when, lastly, ‘he who looketh on a woman so as to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart’ [Matt 5:28],–then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul…” Tertullian, On the Soul, 15 (A.D. 197).

“[New Testament books…] The Epistle of Jude, indeed, and two belonging to the above-named John–or bearing the name of John–are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour.” Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 200).

“Our instruction comes from ‘the porch of Solomon,’ who had himself taught that ‘the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart'[Wisdom 1:1].” Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, 7 (A.D. 200).

“For they remembered also the words of Jeremias writing to those over whom that captivity was impending: ‘And now ye shall see borne upon men’s shoulders the gods of the Babylonians, of gold and silver and wood, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware, therefore, that ye also do not be altogether like the foreigners, and be seized with fear while ye behold crowds worshipping those gods before and behind, but say in your mind, Our duty is to worship Thee, O Lord'[Baruch 6:3]. Therefore, having got confidence from God, they said, when with strength of mind they set at defiance the king’ s threats against the disobedient: ‘There is no necessity for our making answer to this command of yours. For our God whom we worship is able to deliver us from the furnace of fire and from your hands; and then it will be made plain to you that we shall neither serve your idol, nor worship your golden image which you have set up'[Daniel 3:16]’” Tertullian, Scorpiace, 8 (A.D. 205).

“At this stage some rise up, saying that the Lord, by reason of the rod, and threatening, and fear, is not good; misapprehending, as appears, the Scripture which says, ‘And he that feareth the Lord will turn to his heart'[Sirach 21:6], and most of all, oblivious of His love, in that for us He became man. For more suitably to Him, the prophet prays in these words: ‘Remember us, for we are dust'[Ps 103:14]; that: is, Sympathize with us; for Thou knowest from personal experience of suffering the weakness of the flesh. In this respect, therefore, the Lord the Instructor is most good and unimpeachable, sympathizing as He does from the exceeding greatness of His love with the nature of each man. ‘For there is nothing which the Lord hates'[Wisdom 11:24]. For assuredly He does not hate anything, and yet wish that which He hates to exist Nor does He wish anything not to exist, and yet become the cause of existence to that which He wishes not to exist. Nor does He wish anything not to exist which yet exists. If, then, the Word hates anything, He does not wish it to exist. But nothing exists, the cause of whose existence is not supplied by God. Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one–that is, God. For He has said, ‘In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God'[John 1:1].’” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:8 (A.D. 202).

“And again He says, ‘Come all to Me, who labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'[Matt 11:28]; and that which is added the Lord speaks in His own person. And very clearly He calls to goodness by Solomon, when He says, ‘Blessed is the man who hath found wisdom, and the mortal who hath found understanding'[Prov 3:13]. ‘For the good is found by him who seeks it, and is wont to be seen by him who has found it'[Prov 2:4,5;3:15]. By Jeremiah, too, He sets forth prudence, when he says, ‘Blessed are we, Israel; for what is pleasing to God is known by us'[Baruch 4:4]–and it is known by the Word, by whom we are blessed and wise. For wisdom and knowledge are mentioned by the same prophet, when he says, ‘Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life, and give ear to know understanding.'[Baruch 3:9] By Moses, too, by reason of the love He has to man, He promises a gift to those who hasten to salvation. For He says, ‘And I will bring you into the good land, which the Lord sware to your fathers’ [Deut 31:20].” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor ,I:8 (A.D. 202).

“[H]aving heard the Scripture which says, ‘Fasting with prayer is a good thing'[Tobit 12:8].” Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6:12 (A.D. 202).

“But they said, ‘We will not come forth: neither will we do the king’s commandment; we will die in our innocency: and he slew of them a thousand souls'[1 Macc 2:33]. The things, therefore, which were spoken to the blessed Daniel are fulfilled: ‘And my servants shall be afflicted, and shall fall by famine, and by sword, and by captivity'[Dan. 11:33]. Daniel, however, adds: ‘And they shall be holpen with a little help.’ For at that time Matthias arose, and Judas Maccabaeus, and helped them, and delivered them from the hand of the Greeks.” Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 2:32 (A.D. 204).

“What is narrated here, happened at a later time, although it is placed before the first book at the beginning of the book [of Daniel]. For it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings…To all these things, therefore, we ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest any one be overtaken in any transgression, and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the Judge of all; and the Word Himself is the Eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah.” Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 6:1,61 (A.D. 204).

“‘For even now the angel of God.’ He shows also, that when Susannah prayed to God, and was heard, the angel was sent then to help her, just as was the case in the instance of Tobias [Tobit 3:17] and Sara. For when they prayed, the supplication of both of them was heard in the same day and the same hour, and the angel Raphael was sent to heal them both.” Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 6:55 (A.D. 204).

“‘[T]he prophet says, “The ungodly said, reasoning with themselves, but not aright,” that is, about Christ, “Let us lie in wait for the righteous, because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings and words, and upbraideth us with our offending the law, and professeth to have knowledge of God; and he calleth himself the Child of God'[Wisdom 2:1,12,13]. And then he says, ‘He is grievous to us even to behold; for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed [Wisdom 2:15,16].” Hippolytus, Against the Jews ,65 (ante A.D. 235).

“But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner. But they make use also of other testimonies, and say, Thus it is written: ‘This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant (son), and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men'[Baruch 3:25-38].” Hippolytus, Against the Noetus, 2 (A.D. 210).

“But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ‘ ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist'[2 Maccabees 7:28].” Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230).

“[T]he Wisdom of Solomon, a work which is certainly not esteemed authoritative by all. In that book, however, we find written as follows: “For thy almighty hand, that made the world out of shapeless matter, wanted not means to send among them a multitude of bears and fierce lions'[Wisdom 11:17].” Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230).

“‘It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.’ Farther on he says: ‘The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called’; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ‘ These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremiah[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.” Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 6:25 (A.D. 244).

“[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God'[Tobit 12:7],–in a way consistent with truth and God’s glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude.” Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19 (A.D. 248).

“But he ought tp know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, ‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense'[Sirach 21:18], and have learnt ‘to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us'[1 Pt 3:15].” Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248).

“In the Gospel according to John: ‘No one can receive anything, except it were given him from heaven'[John 3:27]. Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: ‘For what hast thou that thou hast not received? But if thou hast received it, why boastest thou, as if thou hadst not received it?'[1 Cor 4:7]. Also in the first of Kings: ‘Boast not, neither speak lofty things, and let not great speeches proceed out of your mouth, for the Lord is a God of knowledge.'[1 Sam 2:4] Also in the same place: ‘The bow of the mighty men has been made weak, and the weak are girt about with strength'[1 Sam 2:5]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees: ‘It is just to be subjected to God, and that a mortal should not think things equal to God'[2 Macc 9:12]. Also in the same place: ‘And fear not the words of a man that is a sinner, because his glory shall be filth and worms. Today he shall be lifted up, and to-morrow he shall not be found; because he is turned into his earth, and his thought has perished'[1 Macc 2:62,63].” Cyprian, Treatises, 12:3:4 (A.D. 248).

“In Genesis: ‘And God, tempted Abraham, and said to him, Take thy only son whom thou lovest, Isaac, and go into the high land, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell thee'[Gen 22:1,2]. Of this same thing in Deuteronomy: ‘The Lord your God proveth you, that He may know if ye love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul’[Deut 13:3]. Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon: ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality; and having been in few things distressed, yet in many things they shall be happily ordered, because God tried them, and found them worthy of Himself. As gold in the furnace He proved them, and as a burnt-offering He received them. And in their time there shall be respect of them; they shall judge the nations, and shall rule over the people; and their Lord shall reign for ever'[Wisdom 3:4-8]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees: ‘Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness?'[1 Macc 2:52].” Cyprian, Treatises, 12:3:15 (A.D. 248).

“For since it is written, ‘God did not make death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living'[Wisdom 1:13].” Cyprian, Epistle 51/55:22 (A.D. 252).

“[T]his the faith of the sacred Scripture assures us, and in telling us how such as these prayed, gives an example which we ought to follow in our prayers, in order that we may be such as they were: ‘Then these three,’ it says, ‘as if from one mouth sang an hymn, and blessed the Lord'[3 Youths-Daniel 3:51].” Cyprian, Treatise 4,8 (A.D. 252).

“And thus Holy Scripture instructs us, saying, ‘Prayer is good with fasting and almsgiving'[Tobit 12:8].” Cyprian, Treatise 4,32 (A.D. 252).

“Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying, ‘My son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation'[Sirach 2:1,4]. And again: ‘In pain endure, and in thy humility have patience; for gold and silver is tried in the fire, but acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.[Sirach 2:5].” Cyprian, Treatise 7,9 (A.D. 252).

“In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.’ Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community.” Origen, To Africanus, 5 (defending the canonicity of Susanna [Daniel 13], Bel and the Dragon[Daniel 14], the prayers of Azarias[Daniel 3], and the hymn of praise of the three youths in the fiery furnace[Daniel 3]) (ante A.D. 254).

“And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them.” Origen, To Africanus, 5 (defending the canonicity of Susanna [Daniel 13], Bel and the Dragon[Daniel 14], the prayers of Azarias[Daniel 3], and the hymn of praise of the three youths in the fiery furnace[Daniel 3]) (ante A.D. 254).

“And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died.” Origen, To Africanus, 4 (defending the canonicity of Susanna [Daniel 13], Bel and the Dragon [Daniel 14], the prayers of Azarias[Daniel 3], and the hymn of praise of the three youths in the fiery furnace[Daniel 3]) (ante A.D. 254).

“[T]hat they worship Him alone, saying: ‘O king Nebuchodonosor, there is no need for us to answer thee in this matter. For the God whom we serve is able to deliver us out of the furnace of burning fire; and He will deliver us from thy hands, O king. And if not, be it known unto thee, that we do not serve thy gods, and we do not adore the golden image which thou hast set up'[Dan 3:16-18]. And Daniel, devoted to God, and filled with the Holy Spirit, exclaims and says: ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who founded the heaven and the earth'[Dan 14:5 Bel & Dragon]. Tobias also, although under a royal and tyrannical slavery, yet in feeling and spirit free, maintains his confession to God, and sublimely announces both the divine power and majesty, saying: ‘In the land of my captivity I confess to Him, and I show forth His power in a sinful nation'[Tobit 13:6].” Cyprian, Treatises, 11:11 (A.D. 257).

“Also in Daniel: ‘There was a man dwelling in Babylon whose name was Joachim; and he took a wife by name Susanna, the daughter of Helchias, a very beautiful woman, and one that feared the Lord. And her parents were righteous, and taught their daughter according to the law of Moses'[Susanna-Daniel 13:1-3]. Moreover, in Daniel: ‘And we are lowly this day in all the earth because of our sins, and there is not at this time any prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt-offering, or oblation, or sacrifice, or incense, or place to sacrifice before Thee, and to find mercy from Thee. And yet in the soul and spirit of lowliness let us be accepted as the burnt-offerings of rams and bulls, and as it were many thousands of lambs which are fattest. If our offering may be made in Thy presence this day, their power shall be consumed, for they shall not be ashamed who put their trust in Thee. And now we follow with our whole heart, and we fear and seek Thy face. Give us not over unto reproach, but do with us according to Thy tranquility, and according to the multitude of Thy mercy deliver us'[3 Youths-Daniel 3:37-43].” Cyprian, Testimonies, 20 (ante A.D. 258).

“But listen to the divine oracles: ‘The works of the Lord are in judgment; from the beginning, and from His making of them, He disposed the parts thereof. He garnished His works for ever, and their principles unto their generations'[Sirach 16:24-25].” Dionysius the Great, On Nature, 3 (ante A.D. 265).

“He is a Spirit–for says He, ‘God is a Spirit'[John 4:24]–fittingly again is Christ called Breath; for ‘He,’ saith He, ‘is the breath of God’s power'[Wisdom 7:25].” Dionysius the Great, To Dionsyius of Rome, 4 (ante A.D. 265).

“Solomon also shows that it is the Word of God, and no other, by whose hands these works of the world were made. ‘I,’ He says, ‘came forth out of the mouth of the Most High before all creatures: I caused the light that faileth not to arise in the heavens, and covered the whole earth with a cloud. I have dwelt in the height, and my throne is in the pillar of the cloud'[Sirach 24:3-5].” Lactanius, Institutions, 4:8 (A.D. 310).

“Therefore, I do not think men ought to be considered pious who presume to investigate this subject, in disobedience to the injunction, ‘Seek not what is too difficult for thee, neither enquire into what is too high for thee'[Sirach 3:21]. For if the knowledge of many other things incomparably inferior is beyond the capacity of the human mind, and cannot therefore be attained, as has been said by Paul, ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared far them that lave Him'[1 Cor 2:9], and as God also said to Abraham, that the stars could not be numbered by him; and it is likewise said,’ Who shall number the grains of sand by the sea-shore, or the drops of rain?'[Sirach 1:2].” Alexander of Alexandria, To brother Alexander, fragment in Theodoret of Cyrus’ Ecclesiastical History, 1:3 (A.D. 324).

“For this was accomplished at that time, when the venerable and aged Eleazar was slain, and the sons of the blessed Samuna, seven in number [2 Maccabees 6:18-31], and when Judas (Maccabeus) and his brethren were struggling on behalf of their people [2 Maccabees 5:27].” Aphraates the Persian Sage, Demonstrations, 5:19 (A.D. 345).

“He leads away to himself the wealthy, the sons of luxury; And ‘they leave their possessions as the waves of the sea'[Sirach 29:17].” Aphraates the Persian Sage, Demonstrations, 22:7 (A.D. 345).

“Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch [1-5] and Lamentations and the Epistle[of Jeremiah-Baruch 6]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

“The Divine Nature then it is impossible to see with eyes of flesh: but from the works, which are Divine, it is possible to attain to some conception of His power, according to Solomon, who says, ‘For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen'[Wisdom 13:5]. He said not that from the creatures the Maker is seen, but added proportionably. For God appears the greater to every man in proportion as he has grasped a larger survey of the creatures: and when his heart is uplifted by that larger survey, he gains withal a greater conception of God. Wouldest thou learn that to comprehend the nature of God is impossible? The Three Children in the furnace of fire, as they hymn the praises of God, say ‘Blessed art thou that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the Cherubim'[Daniel 3:55-Three Youths].” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:2,3 (A.D. 350).

“[L]earn from this instance the mightiness of God: for ‘He hath numbered the drops of rain'[Job 26:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. ‘Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon'[Sirach 3:20,21].” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 6:4 (A.D. 350).

“Hear the Prophet saying, ‘This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men'[Baruch 3:36-38].” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15 (A.D. 350).

“He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, ‘God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling'[Daniel 13:45-Susanna].” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16:31 (A.D. 350).

“For when they speak against the ascension of the Saviour, as being impossible, remember the account of the carrying away of Habakkuk: for if Habakkuk was transported by an Angel, being carried by the hair of his head[Daniel 14-Bel & the Dragon], much rather was the Lord of both Prophets and Angels, able by His own power to make His ascent into the Heavens on a cloud from the Mount of Olives.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 14:25 (A.D. 350).

“[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, ‘Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;'[Heb 1:3] and again, ‘For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;'[Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides lsrael, He says, ‘Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom'[Baruch 3:12]; and this Fountain it is which says, ‘They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters'[Jer 2:13].” Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Faith, 2:12 (A.D. 351).

“[F]or it is written of the other, ‘The foolish person will speak foolishness’ [Is 32:6 LXX]; but of these, ‘Ask counsel of all that are wise'[Tobit 4:18].” Athanasius, Defense before Constantius, 17 (A.D. 357).

“The Lord is now making trial of your love for Him. Now there is an opportunity for you, through your patience, to take the martyr’s lot. The mother of the Maccabees [2 Maccabees 7] saw the death of seven sons without a sigh, without even shedding one unworthy tear.” Basil, To the Wife of Nectarius, Epistle 6:2 (A.D. 358).

“They say that the Father has prescience of all things, as the blessed Susanna says, ‘O eternal God, that knowest secrets, and knowest all things before they be'[Daniel 13:42-Susanna].” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:8 (A.D. 359).

“As you have listened already to Moses and Isaiah, so listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as they:–‘This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and dwelt among men'[Baruch 3:36-38]. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:42 (A.D. 359).

“Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture. For all things, as the Prophet says[2 Maccabees 7:28], were made out of nothing; it was no transformation of existing things, but the creation into a perfect form of the non-existent.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:16 (A.D. 359).

“Then, while the devout soul was baffled and astray through its own feebleness, it caught from the prophet’s voice this scale of comparison for God, admirably expressed, ‘By the greatness of His works and the beauty of the things that He hath made the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned'[Wisdom 13:5].” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 1:7 (A.D. 359).

” And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,’ and ‘By whom He made the ages,'[Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, ‘The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth ‘[Is 40:28]; and Susanna said, ‘O Everlasting God'[Daniel 13:42-Susanna]; and Baruch wrote, ‘I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,’ and shortly after, ‘My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One'[Baruch 4:20,22;].” Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362).

“[I]t is written that ‘all things were made through the Word,’ and ‘without Him was not made one thing,'[John 1:3] and again, ‘One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things'[1 Cor 8:9], and ‘in Him all things consist'[Col 1:17], it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, ‘O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord'[Daniel 3:57-Three Youths].” Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362).

“Daniel said to Astyages, ‘I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh;'[Daniel 14:5-Bel & the Dragon].” Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 3:30 (A.D. 362).

“Passing by the elders in the book of Daniel [Daniel 13:5-Susanna]; for it is better to pass them by, together with the Lord’s righteous sentence and declaration concerning them…” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 2, Flight to Pontus 64 (A.D. 362).

“But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, ‘For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?'[1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a ‘multitude of wise men'[Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for ‘a wise man feareth and departeth from evil'[Prov 14:16]; and ‘through wisdom is a house builded'[Prov 24]; and the Preacher says, ‘A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine;’ and he blames those who are headstrong thus, ‘Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this'[Eccl 8:1,7:10]. But if, as the Son of Sirach says, ‘He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9].” Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362).

“[T]he Old Testament is reckoned as consisting of twenty-two books…so that of Moses there be five books…with the Lamentations and the Letter[Baruch 6-Epistle of Jeremiah], and Daniel…bringing the number of the books to twenty-two. It is to be noted also that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books, corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks.” Hilary of Poitiers, Prologue to the Psalms, 15 (A.D. 365).

“There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament…But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39:4,7 (A.D. 367).

“What Scripture says is very true, ‘As for a fool he changeth as the moon'[Sirach 27:11]. Basil, Hexaemeron, 6:10 (A.D. 370).

“[T]he Scripture tells us, ‘into the malicious soul Wisdom cannot come'[Wisdom 1:4].” Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 15 (A.D. 371).

“Not by raining down manna, as for Israel of old[Ex 16:14] or opening the rock, in order to give drink to His thirsting people,[ Ps 78:24] or feasting her by means of ravens, as Elijah,[1 Kings 17:6] or feeding her by a prophet carried through the air, as He did to Daniel when a-hungered in the den.[Daniel 14:33,34-Bel & Dragon].” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 18, On the Death of his Father 30 (A.D. 374).

“So as Judith says, ‘Thou hast thought, and what things thou didst determine were ready at hand’[Judith 9:5,6].” Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 8:19 (A.D. 375).

“The Lord ordereth ‘all things in measure and weight'[Wisdom 11:20].” Basil, To Clergy of Samosata, Epistle 219:1 (A.D. 375).

“Standing and sitting, I apprehend, indicate the fixity and entire stability of the nature, as Baruch, when he wishes to exhibit the immutability and immobility of the Divine mode of existence, says, ‘For thou sittest for ever and we perish utterly'[Baruch 3:3].” Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 6:15 (A.D. 375).

“But the Spirit is believed to have been operating at the saint time in Habakkuk and in Daniel at Babylon,[Daniel 14:35-Bel & the Dragon] and to have been at the prison with Jeremiah,[Jer 20:2] and with Ezekiel at the Chebar[Ez 1:1].” Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 23:54 (A.D. 375).

“Nor do I allege any opinion of my own, but I repeat that which the Holy Spirit spake by the prophet: ‘Blessed is the barren that is undefiled'[Wisdom 3:13].” Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, 7:35 (A.D. 378).

“So then, holy Judith,[Judith 10:3ff] strengthened by lengthened mourning and by daily fasting, sought not the enjoyments of the world regardless of danger, and strong in her contempt for death.” Ambrose, Concerning Widows, 7:38 (A.D. 378).

“[T]he prophetical writing says, ‘knoweth all things before they be'[Daniel 3:42-Susanna].” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Making of Man, 16 (A.D. 379).

“And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,'[Jer 23:24] and ‘The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world'[Wisdom 1:7], if God partly contains and partly is contained?” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 28, 2nd Theological 8 (A.D. 380).

“[T]he just man in the den, restraining the lions’ rage,[ref Daniel 6:22] and the struggle of the seven Maccabees,[2 Maccabees 7:1] who were perfected with their father and mother in blood, and in all kinds of tortures.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 43, Panegyric on Basil 74 (A.D. 381).

“Daniel also, unless he had received the Spirit of God, would never have been able to discover that lustful adultery, that fraudulent lie. For when Susanna, assailed by the conspiracy of the elders, saw that the mind of the people was moved by consideration for the old men, and destitute of all help, alone amongst men, conscious of her chastity she prayed God to judge; it is written: ‘The Lord heard her voice, when she was being led to be put to death, and the Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young youth, whose name was Daniel'[Daniel 13:44,45-Susanna].” Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, 3:6:39 (A.D. 381).

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).

“[I]n the Scripture the ‘Seed of the Chaldeans'[Judith 5:6] removed, and the children of Babylon dashed against the Rocks and destroyed.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 45, 2nd Oration on Easter 15 (A.D. 383).

“[T]he prophet says, ‘was seen upon earth and conversed with men'[3:38].” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 6:4 (A.D. 384).

“And the Lord bids them lay aside the garments of mourning, and to cease the groanings of repentance, saying: ‘Put off, O Jerusalem, the garment of thy mourning and affliction. and clothe thyself in beauty, the glory which God hath given thee for ever'[Baruch 5:1].” Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, I:9:43 (A.D. 384).

“And again; ‘Do not to another what thou hatest'[Tobit 4:15].” John Chrysostom, Concerning Statues, 7 (A.D. 387).

“Wherefore we must cast out all wickedness from our souls, and never more contrive any deceit; for, saith one, ‘To the perverse God sendeth crooked paths [Prov 21:8 LXX]; and, ‘The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding'[Wis. 1:5].” John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, 41 (A.D. 391).

“Let us then repeat to ourselves soothing charms drawn from the holy Scripture, and say, ‘Thou art earth and ashes.’ ‘Why is earth and ashes proud?’ [Sirach 10:9], and, ‘The sway of his fury shall be his destruction’ [Sirach 1:19] and, ‘The wrathful man is not comely’ [Prov. 11:25 LXX].” John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, 48 (A.D. 391).

“Wherefore the Scripture says well: ‘A wise man will keep silence until there is opportunity'[Sirach 20:6].” Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy, I:2:5 (A.D. 391).

“When Jeremiah understood what they wanted he said: ‘The spot will remain unknown until God shall gather His people together and be gracious to them. Then God shall reveal these things and the majesty of the Lord shall appear'[2 Maccabees 2:7].” Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy, III:17:101 (A.D. 391).

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a ‘helmeted’ introduction to all the books which we now turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom… the book of …Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be in Hebrew, the second in Greek, as can be proved from the very style.” Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings [Prologus Galeatus] (A.D. 391).

“Elsewhere the Scripture takes the term “old” in the sense of blame; for seeing that the things are of various aspect as being composed of many parts, it uses the same words both in a good and an evil import, not according to the same shade of meaning. Of which you may see an instance in the blame cast elsewhere on the old: [Ps. 17:46 LXX] ‘They waxed old, and they halted from their paths.’ And again, [Ps. 6:7 LXX] ‘I have become old in the midst of all mine enemies.’ And again, [Daniel 13:52-Susanna] ‘O thou that art become old in evil days.’ So also the ‘Leaven’ is often taken for the kingdom of Heaven, although here found fault with. But in that place it is used with one aspect, and in this with another.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1st Corinthians, 15 (A.D. 392).

“And to prove that I say not this upon conjecture; when they fell into the furnace, they bewailed themselves after this sort, saying [Daniel 3:29,33-Three Youths], ‘We have sinned, we have done iniquity, we cannot open our mouth.’ John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1st Corinthians, 18 (A.D. 392).

“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

“At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men'[Wisdom 4:9].” Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395).

“And what safety can there be for us unless we wash away our sins by fasting, since Scripture says that fasting and alms do away sin? [Tobit 12:8,9]” Ambrose, Epistle 63:16 (A.D. 396).

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

“We have the authentic book of Jesus son of Sirach, and another pseudepigraphic work, entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. I found the first in Hebrew, with the title, ‘Parables’, not Ecclesiasticus, as in Latin versions…The second finds no place in Hebrew texts, and its style is redolent of Greek eloquence: a number of ancient writers assert that it is a work of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them to the canon of Scripture; so let the Church read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, but not to support the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.” Jerome, Preface to Proverbs (A.D. 398).

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit'[Ps 51:17], and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death'[Ez 18:23], and those of Baruch, ‘Arise, arise, O Jerusalem'[Baruch 5:5], and many other proclamations made by the trumpets of the prophets.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399).

“Of the Old Covenant: the five books of Moses–Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty psalms; three books of Solomon–Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach.” Apostolic Constitutions, 47:85 (A.D. 400).

“What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.”
Jerome, Against Rufinus, 11:33 (A.D. 402).

“And Baruch in the book of Jeremiah says ‘this is our God: no other shall be reckoned by the side of Him: He found out every path of knowledge and gave it to Jacob His servant, and lsrael his beloved. After these things also He appeared upon the earth, and held converse with men'[Baruch 3:35-37]. And David signifying His incarnate presence said ‘He shall come down like the rain into a fleece of wool, and like the drop which distills upon the earth'[Ps 72:6] because He noiselessly and gently entered into the Virgin’s womb.” John Chrysostom, Against Marcionist & Manicheans (ante A.D. 403).

“[D]oes not the scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power'[Sirach 13:2]?” Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404).

“Which also the Prophet fore told when he said, ‘This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He showed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men'[Baruch 3:36-38].” Rufinus of Aquileia, The Apostles Creed, 37-38 (A.D. 404).

“Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament…But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees…These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.” Rufinus of Aquileia, The Apostles Creed,3 7-38 (A.D. 404).

“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are…of Moses five books…and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdra two, Paralipomenon two books…” Pope Innocent [regn. A.D. 401-417], To Exsuperius, Epistle 6 (A.D. 405).

“The words of 2 Maccabees v. 17, which say that Antiochus Epiphanes had power to overthrow the Temple, ‘because of the multitude of sins'[2 Macc 5:17], are quoted in connection with the confessions of Daniel.” Jerome, Against the Pelagians, II:30 (A.D. 415).

“Wherefore, as Scripture says, ‘when you go forth to serve the Lord stand in the fear of the Lord, and prepare your mind'[Sirach 2:1].” John Cassian, The Institutes, 4:37 (A.D. 426).

“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,(ie. Ezra & Nehemiah) 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.” Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II:8 (A.D. 426).

“[A]s Scripture itself testifies: ‘For God made not death, neither rejoiceth in the destruction of the living’[Wisdom 1:13].” John Cassian, Third Conference of Abbot Chaermon, 7 (A.D. 428).

“[T]he Prophet says, ‘the Lord Himself is God, who found out all the way of knowledge; who was seen upon earth and conversed with men’[Baruch 3:37,38].” John Cassian, The Incarnation of Christ, 4:13 (A.D. 430).

“[T]he divine Oracles cry aloud, ‘Remove not the landmarks, which thy fathers have set,'[Prov 22:28] and ‘Go not to law with a Judge'[Sirach 8:14,] and ‘Whoso breaketh through a fence a serpent shall bite him'[Eccles 10:8].” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Authenticity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 21:51 (A.D. 434).

“Two officers in the army, who were shield bearers in the imperial suite, at a certain banquet lamented in somewhat warm language the abomination of what was being done, and employed the admirable language of the glorious youths at Babylon, ‘Thou hast given us over to an impious Prince an apostate beyond all the nations on the earth'[Daniel 3:32-Three Youths].” Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, 3:11 (A.D. 440).

“And hence Tobias also, while instructing his son in the precepts of godliness, says, ‘Give alms of thy substance, and turn not thy face from any poor man: so shall it come to pass that the face of GOD shall not be turned from thee'[Tobit 4:7].” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], Sermon 10:4 (ante A.D. 461).

“[T]he sins which are washed away either by the waters of baptism, or the tears of repentance, may be also blotted out by alms-giving; for the Scripture says, ‘As water extinguisheth fire, so alms extinguisheth sin'[Sirach 3:29]. Through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], Sermon 49:6 (ante A.D. 461).

“But O ungodliest of men [Judas Iscariot], “thou seed of Chanaan and not of Juda'[Daniel 13:56-Susanna].” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], Sermon 67 (ante A.D. 461).

“Who[ie the Son] is equal with God the Father, have assumed the form of a slave and the likeness of sinful flesh. But because ‘by the devil’s malice death entered into the world'[Wisdom 2:24].” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], Sermon 78:2 (ante A.D. 461).

“A wise man who knew all this full well reasons about deaths of this kind and says, ‘Yea; speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding’[Wisdom 4:11].” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Cyrus Magistrianus, Epistle 136 (ante A.D. 466).

“For of him it is written, But by envy of the devil death entered into the world'[Wisdom 2:24].” Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], Pastoral Care, 10 (ante A.D. 604).

“[L]et them hear what is written, ‘Give to every man that asketh of thee'[Luke 6:30]. Lest they should give something, however little to those on whom they ought to bestow nothing at all, let them hear what is written. ‘Give to the good man, and receive not a sinner: do well to him that is lowly, and give not to the ungodly'[Sirach 12:4]. And again, ‘Set out thy bread and wine on the burial of the just, but eat and drink not thereof with sinners’ [Tobit 4:17].” Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], Pastoral Care, 20 (ante A.D. 604).

“The divine Scripture likewise saith that ‘the souls of the just are in God’s hand'[Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them.” John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:15 (A.D. 743).

“But others, though future, are put in the past tense, as, for instance, This is our God: ‘Therefore He[she] was seen upon the earth and dwell among men'[Baruch 3:38].” John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:18 (A.D. 743).

“[S]o that in them was fulfilled that which is written, ‘The service of God is abominable to the sinner'[Sirach 1:22].” 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II, Canon 6 (A.D. 787).

The post Did the Early Church accept the “extra” Deuterocanonical Books in their Bibles? Yes they did! appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Watch this crucial podcast episode by clicking here:

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

If you’d like to order a copy of Taylor’s new book Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within, you can order it in Hardback, Kindle, or Audiobook or I’ll send you a signed copy through Patreon: Click here to become a Patron.

Taylor Marshall was interviewed twice last week on Fox News by Lauren Green about how the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, and Catholic Church have been infiltrated demonically and compromised by human agents over the last 150 years based on historical facts, examples, and papal testimonies reaching back to the 1850s through the 1970s. Here are the two interviews:

First Interview: FoxNews Radio Show: Dr. Taylor Marshall Researches the Spiritual Roots of the Clergy Sex Abuse Crisis and More

Second Interview: FoxNews Digital Video Segment: Taylor Marshall: Is the devil behind the Catholic Church sex abuse crisis?

The Taylor Marshall Show Podcast is now also available on Spotify: Play “Taylor Marshall Show” inside Spotify.

Check out Patreon Patron Benefits!

All these video discussions are free. Do you want to recommend a show, get signed books, and show support? Here’s how: click on Patreon Patron link:

Become a Patron of this Podcast: I am hoping to produce more free weekly podcast Videos. Please help me launch these videos by working with me on Patreon to produce more free content. In gratitude, I’ll send you some signed books or even stream a theology event for you and your friends. Please become one of my patrons and check out the various tier benefits at: https://www.patreon.com/drtaylormarshall

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

If you find this podcast episode helpful, please share this podcast on Facebook.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies 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:

• iTunes: 2,669,090 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• Youtube: Leave a comment on Youtube here.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 1,181 (!) 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 on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, or Youtube:

• 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.

• Spotify Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Spotify, search in Spotify for “Taylor Marshall.”

• 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.

You can leave a comment by clicking here.

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

</tr

The post 267: Cardinal Tagle on Traitors, Bernadin and McCarrick PLUS Why Sunday Obligation appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Christmas is almost here: December 24th. We are baking, cooking, working on puzzles, and watching Christmas classics. Our eight children are in a frenzy. St Nick comes tonight and in the morning we will gather around the creche and sing “O Come Let us Adore Him” to the Christ Child.

I am grateful every year for all the readers, listeners, subscribers, and students at the New Saint Thomas Institute. We asked our new New Saint Thomas videographer to create a Christmas Card. It’s not much, but it shows a snapshot of our family. We pray for you all every night at Rosary and will continue to do so into the New Year.

I hope you like the “Christmas Video Card”:

If you do not see the Video Christmas Card below, click here.

Merry Christ-Mass,

Taylor Marshall and Family

PS: In case you missed it, here is the “Video defending Jesus as TRULY born on December 25”

The post Your Video Christmas Card from Dr Taylor Marshall appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Do you find benefit from my videos and podcasts? If so, please help me make more by becoming a Patron via Patreon (and I’ll send you some signed books as a Thank You. Click here to become a Patron.

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

https://youtu.be/TahlkqZAu1I

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

The Taylor Marshall Show Podcast is now also available on Spotify: Play “Taylor Marshall Show” inside Spotify.

Check out Patreon Patron Benefits!

All these video discussions are free. Do you want to recommend a show, get signed books, and show support? Here’s how: click on Patreon Patron link:

Become a Patron of this Podcast: I am hoping to produce more free weekly podcast Videos. Please help me launch these videos by working with me on Patreon to produce more free content. In gratitude, I’ll send you some signed books or even stream a theology event for you and your friends. Please become one of my patrons and check out the various tier benefits at: https://www.patreon.com/drtaylormarshall

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

If you find this podcast episode helpful, please share this podcast on Facebook.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies 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:

• iTunes: 1,706,247 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• Youtube: Leave a comment on Youtube here.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 832 (!) 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 on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, or Youtube:

• 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.

• Spotify Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Spotify, search in Spotify for “Taylor Marshall.”

• 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.

You can leave a comment by clicking here.

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

The post 185: JRR Tolkien and True Fairy Tales [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The Taylor Marshall Show Podcast is now also available on Spotify: Play “Taylor Marshall Show” inside Spotify.

Listen to audio or watch the Youtube video interview by clicking here.

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

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

If you find this podcast episode helpful, please share this podcast on Facebook.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies 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:

• iTunes: 1,706,247 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• Youtube: Leave a comment on Youtube here.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 832 (!) 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 on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, or Youtube:

• 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.

• Spotify Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Spotify, search in Spotify for “Taylor Marshall.”

• 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 173: First Secret of Fatima: Does Hell Exist? (Fatima 1) [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

In the video I explain how the invention of the Catholic “Mega-Diocese” has led to sexual scandals, corrupt clergy, and runs contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. I also lay out the case in light of Moses and Jethro in Exodus 18 and makes recommendations on how to fix this problem that originated with Pope Leo X and the advent of “auxiliary bishops.”

What the video below or watch it directly inside Youtube by clicking here.

Audio Podcast version is here:

Godspeed,
Dr Marshall

Please share the video and subscribe to my Youtube channel to get more info and updates.

The post 147: Against the Catholic Mega-Diocese: Scandal and Subsidiarity [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. the concept of pilgrimage from the time of Abraham
2. the meaning of the Old Testament name James (Jakov in Hebrew) and its relation to the Pilgrimage of Saint James in Spain
3. and my recent experience as a pilgrim on the Camino of Santiago in Spain

Please click here to check out this new three part series on Catholic Pilgrimages:

Here also is Part 2 and Part 3 to this “Video Micro-Trilogy” of Catholic Theology.

Godspeed,
Dr Marshall

The post Video: What is the Catholic Theology of Pilgrimage? PLUS St James in Spain appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Before 1964, the Rituale Romanum includes an exorcism of the water and the adding of exorcized salt to the making of holy water. Here is the pre-1964 exorcism of the water:

O water, creature of God, I exorcise you in the name of God the Father almighty, and in the name of Jesus Christ His Son, our Lord, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. I exorcise you so that you may put to flight all the power of the Enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that Enemy with his apostate angels: through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.

Almighty and everlasting God, we humbly implore Thee, in Thy immeasurable kindness and love, to bless + and sanctify + this salt which Thou did create and give over to the use of mankind, so that it may become a source of health for the minds and bodies of all who make use of it, and may rid whatever it touches or sprinkles of all uncleanness and protect it from every assault of evil spirits. Through our Lord, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. R. Amen.

After 1964, the new Rituale Romanum excludes both the exorcism and the salt. (Not a fantastic development in my non-magisterial layman’s opinion.)

Providentially, Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict XVI allows all priests to use the pre-1964 formula for making holy water – and many priests quietly do this.

So why salt?

The Levitical priesthood under Moses identifies salt with “covenant”:

“Every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt.” (Lev 2:13)

We find it again in Numbers:

All the holy offerings which the people of Israel present to the Lord I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt for ever before the Lord for you and for your offspring with you.” (Num 18:19)

And the Davidic Messianic Covenant is a “covenant of salt” (2 Chronicles 13:5).

Since all Catholic liturgical forms come from Israelite liturgical forms, we can expect salt to play an important role in our sacramental life.

Moreover, the waters over which the Spirit hovered in Genesis 1 were salty (Covenant of Creation). The Flood of Noah was salty (Covenant of Noah). The Red Sea was salty (Covenant of Moses).It also refers to the action of Elishah the Prophet:

19 Now the men of the city said to Elisha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” 20 He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him. 21 Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the Lord, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” 22 So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Elisha spoke.

Elisha uses something sterile (salt) to make other things unsterile (women’s wombs). This is polarity miracle. We see the same with Elijah before him. Elijah pours water on a sacrifice and it burns anyway. The effect of a thing is opposite its purpose and creates a miraculous outcome.

Salt placed in the mouth of the Baptized:

The fifth canon of the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397) states that Catechumens should repeatedly consumed holy salt as they prepared for baptism. Saint Augustine refers to himself having been made a “catechumen” at birth (Patristic baby dedication) but not having been baptized:

Even as a boy I had heard of eternal life promised to us through the humility of the Lord our God condescending to our pride, and I was signed with the sign of the cross, and was seasoned with His salt even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted in You. Confessions 1, 14.

Prior to Vatican II, the priest placed a touch of holy salt into the mouth of all the newly baptized (including infants).

Priest: N., Receive the salt of wisdom; let it be propitiation for you unto eternal life.

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.

Priest: Peace be with you.

Sponsor/Catechumen: And with your spirit.

Priest: Let us pray: O God of our fathers, O God the Author of all truth, vouchsafe, we humbly beseech Thee, to look graciously down upon this Thy servant, N., and as he (she) tastes this first nutriment of salt, allow him (her) no longer to hunger for lack of heavenly food, to the end that he (she) may be always fervent in spirit, rejoicing in hope, always serving Thy name. Lead him (her), O Lord, we beseech Thee, to the laver of the new regeneration, that, together with Thy faithful, he may deserve to attain the everlasting rewards of Thy promises. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Here’s a video of one of my children being baptized with the 1962 ritual of baptism. You can see the blessing and administration of holy salt at about 0:50:

This salt is given to whet the catechumens appetite for the Eucharist. It further demonstrates that everyone in the Roman Rite received the Eucharist after baptism – including infants well into the 5th century. Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine refer matter-of-factly to infants receiving the Eucharist. Christian parents should fight for this Apostolic practice to be returned to the Roman Rite.

[bctt tweet=”Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine refer matter-of-factly to infants receiving the Eucharist. Christian parents should fight for this Apostolic practice to be returned to the Roman Rite.” username=”@taylorrmarshall”]

If a Catholic altar is disturbed or desecrated (as this one was desecrated in Ireland), it must be reconsecrated but this time with holy salt to purify and cleanse it from the demonic.

Theology of Salt from the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Our Lord Jesus Christ also states: “For every one will be salted with fire.” (Mark 9:49) Why is this? We are all to be holocaust sacrifices to the Father through Jesus Christ. In the next verse, he states: “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another” (Mark 9:50). (Which is why the subtitle of this blog is “Stay salty my friends.”)

Christ says that all will be salted with fire. Every human will experience this salt as we pass through death. It is the judgment of Christ over our lives. Note that this means that Jesus the High Priest will treat everyone person as an animal sacrifice as in the Old Testament. Blood also is salty. Jewish texts also state that the one of the jobs of the Levites was to cast salt everywhere on the ground of the altar area so that the priests would not slip on all the sacrificial blood.

We have two models of salt and final judgment:

• The first is that of the salt of damnation. Salt is sterile. Lot’s wife “turned back” and turned into a pillar (statue) of salt. She is grouped with the valley of Sodom and Gomorrah (sterile sexual immorality), which now lies condemned beneath the Dead Sea (a salty body of water).
  
• The second is that of the salt of salvation. Salt preserves. The fisherman Apostles daily dealt in salt. There was no refrigeration and fish were always transported in salt. Fishermen needed boats, nets, and lots and lots of salt to be successful merchants.
  As Apostles (and their successors) are “fishers of men” it’s not enough to merely catch men. The fish of Jesus must be confirmed in grace and preserved by the “salt of the covenant.” Hence, salt becomes a sign against contagion and corruption. It’s a sign of orthodox preaching, teaching, and sacramental integrity within the Catholic Church.

[bctt tweet=”As Apostles (and their successors) are fishers of men it’s not enough to merely catch men. The fish of Jesus must be confirmed in grace and preserved by the salt of the covenant.Hence, salt becomes a sign against contagion and corruption.” username=”@taylorrmarshall”]

[reminder]If you found this helpful, please share it on Facebook.[/reminder]

PS: If you want to discover more about Old Testament rites and their relationship to Catholic liturgy, check out this book: The Crucified Rabbi.

The post Why does Holy Water have salt in it? Elisha, Jesus, and Salted Fish appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

In this podcast I explain the epic botafumeiro. As promised, in the the podcast I include my video footage of the botafumeiro in action.

Godspeed,
Dr Taylor Marshall

The post 143: Shoveling Incense into the Cathedral’s Botafumeiro (Camino 7) [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Today we arrived at the historic Benedictine monastery at Samos. I detail the building and lament on the collapse of Christianity in Spain (and especially the collapse of monasticism). Click below to listen:

Dr Taylor Marshall

The post 141: Monastery at Samos, Spain (Camino 5) [Podcast] 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.

Over the past five years, between two and six men have entered the seminary every fall but that’s not the case this year.

“Entering the fall we don’t have any new seminarians applying for the Diocese of Providence, which is rare,” Fr. Chris Murphy, the Catholic Diocese of Providence’s assistant vocation director, said Tuesday.

“I cannot remember in recent memory when the last time was,” he added.
A look back at the numbers shows a declining trend. Five men entered the seminary in 2012 and six entered in 2013, then the numbers drop to three, two and four in the years that followed.

Over the years, whenever the “priestly shortage” comes up in conversation, someone is quick to reply with some encouragement like this: “Oh yes, but we have so many young orthodox vocations! Things will change in a few years!”

I agree with this encouraging fact: We have some great seminarians! I’ve personally taught Catholic seminarians in America and in Rome and I can confirm that there are some dynamic, orthodox, and impressive seminarians moving into the sacerdotal pipeline.

But I am also aware of a gaping problem that hardly anyone mentions. The seminarian numbers are not there. We are about to fall off a demographic cliff of priestly vocations.

• Yes, an impressive seminarian or deacon-seminarian visits your parish during the summer and does fantastic work.
• Yes, you see lots of faces on the “Meet our Seminarians” color poster in the narthex after Mass.
• Yes, you’re bishop announces yet another round of ordinations this year.

Praise God! I rejoice in all of it…but still…the numbers are lacking. Let’s take a look at priestly demographics:

For priests, we need to pray for quality and quantity:

Here is table of the number of priests in the USA from 1930 to 2015:

The number of priests exploded in 1950 (partly through migration) and peaked out in 1970. After 1975, you see a slow but steady decrease in the number of priests until the decline becomes steep around 1990. 

More troubling is the fact that the tsunami of priests ordained from 1970-1980, will be reaching retirement age between the years 2015-2025 (age 25 + 45 years of service = retirement age 70).

Discovering the 1 Priest to every Catholic Ratio:

We have already begun to feel the scarcity of priests and you’ll understand why when you examine the numbers in light of the ratio of priest per Catholics. Check out these numbers:

• In 1950, there was 1 priest to every 652 Catholics in the United States.
• In 2010, there was 1 priest to every 1,653 Catholics in the United States.
• In 2016, there was 1 priest to every 1,843 Catholics in the United States.

A numeric study shows that the tipping point in the USA happened around the year 1983. This is when our priest/Catholics ratio began to tank:

When it comes to priest/Catholics ratio, our priestly manpower is 33% of what it was 1950. Meanwhile there millions more lay Catholics in the pews.

And depending on the city, the ratio can be much worse. Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles have pretty discouraging ratios, but none are hurting as badly as my neighboring diocese of Dallas:

• Diocese of Dallas: 1 priest to every 6,229 Catholics.
• Diocese of Los Angeles: 1 priest to every 3,931 Catholics.
• Diocese of New York: 1 priest to every 2,055 Catholics.
• Diocese of Chicago: 1 priest to every 1,624 Catholics.

Meanwhile there are model dioceses that have wonderful ratios that beat even the 1950 national ratio:

• Diocese of Lincoln: 1 priest to every 598 Catholics.

And the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), which offers the Latin Mass from the 1962 Missale Romanum currently has this ratio in its parishes:

• FSSP: 1 priest to every 250 Catholics.

Vocation Decrease among the Jesuits

Compare the growth of the FSSP to that of the global membership of the Society of Jesus:

• In 1977, the Jesuits had 28,038 members.
• In 2016, the Jesuits had 16,378 members.

The Jesuits have declined 41.5% since 1977. The average age of a Jesuit priest in 2018 is 63.4 years old. Considering that mandatory priestly retirement is age 70, this does not look good for the Jesuits. They will decline by more than 50% in the coming decade. If things don’t change, there will be less than 10,000 Jesuits on earth in the next few years.

[For reference, there are 6,058 (male and female) Dominicans on planet earth in 2018. That’s the size of three Texas high schools.]

Sad but True (plus some Hope):

It is true that we have many great young men in formation to be holy Catholic priests. I’ve spent hours talking with them after class and I know that we will have an excellent crop. The sad news is that it is small crop. A priest is only one man and if you spread him over 3 parishes, he will be less effective.

My prediction is that we will see a great Catholic migration over the next three decades. As that surge of vocations from 1970-1980 begins to retire and depart to their reward, we will see massive parish closings and consolidations. Priests will be rare. It is already obvious that bishops and dioceses like Lincoln Nebraska attract vocations to the holy priesthood. These bishops and their dioceses will thrive. Meanwhile, dioceses like Providence will shrink while they try to import priests from other parts of the world.

The solution is to pray for vocations, but also beg the question:

Why does Lincoln, Nebraska have a plethora of vocations (1 priest to every 598 Catholics!) while others are not only short on vocations but losing priests year after year?

1. Is it liturgical?
2. Is it ethnic or based somehow on immigration?
3. Is it doctrinal?
4. What leads young men to inquire about a priestly vocation?
5. How do they organize their altar server programs?
6. Does youth ministry play a role or not?
7. How do pastors play a role?
8. To which seminaries does each diocese send seminarians?
9. How does seminarian retention rate differ from diocese to diocese?
10. How is the bishop involved in the vocation process?

If “coffee is for closers,” Bishop Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska is drinking Roman double espressos. 1 priest to every 598 Catholics. Someone should study the vocations process in place under Bishop Conley of Lincoln.

My personal acquaintance with Bishop Conley (he helped guide me into the Catholic Church in 2006) is that he is orthodox, Thomistic, dignified, fatherly, and favors the template of Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy.” And if I’m honest, every single impressive seminarian that I meet…is shaped from the same mold. Like begets like. Like father, like son.

And even if you aren’t on board with the template of “orthodox, Thomistic, dignified, fatherly, Spirit of the Liturgy,” the numbers don’t lie.

Pray for holy bishops, holy priests, and holy seminarians!

[reminder]How is your part of the world doing with priestly vocations? What makes for a good seminarian?[/reminder]

The post Our Sad Decline in Priestly Vocations: Most Priests will Retire in 2015-2025 appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Sometime around the 200s BC a Jewish document called “Book of Enoch” or 1 Enoch was produced. It gives all the details on how angelic beings copulated with human women and created a cosmic mess before the Flood. And here’s the interesting problem we have:

Saint Jude (Jude 1:14-15) directly quotes this non-biblical document known as “Book of Enoch” or 1 Enoch:

It’s not only this direct quotation of 1 Enoch by Jude, but Jude (and 2 Peter) allude to the fantastical events of 1 Enoch, namely the sexual encounters of fallen angels with human women, which gives birth to the nephilim or “giants.” The birth of the giants, according to 1 Enoch, is the reason for the Noah’s Flood.

And this belief is also found in the canonical book of Wisdom:

“And from the beginning also when the proud giants (γιγάντων) perished, the hope of the world fleeing to a vessel, which was governed by thy hand, left to the world seed of generation.” (Wisdom 14:6)

The author of Wisdom clearly associates the flood to a divine genocide of the race of the giants (γιγάντων) to leave the world a “seed of generation.” (Saint Paul quotes from Wisdom about 7 times – so Saint Paul also likely hold this belief.)

Let me tell you the story of Angels and Giants that 1 Enoch tells:

In 1 Enoch, Yahweh sends 200 angels to guide and instruct humanity. These 200 angels are called “Irin” in Aramaic and “Egregoroi” in Greek. Both words mean “Watchers.” These Watchers corrupt humanity by teaching them evil arts such as cosmetology (sorry ladies), sorcery, astrology, and the arts of war.

These angels also seduce human women and copulate with them. The women give birth to nephilim or giants. God causes these giants to fight and die. Then the souls of the giants turn into demons that haunt and tempt humans for the rest of time.

• So Yahweh binds these 200 evil angelic Watchers into “Tartarus.”
• What is Tartarus? In the Homer’s Iliad, Zeus teaches that Tartarus is “as far beneath Hades as heaven is above earth.” Tartarus is the deepest part of the underworld, far below Hades.
• It’s noteworthy that the term “tartarus” is used by Enoch and 2 Peter. This signals the blending of Hebrew history with Greek mythology since Greek myth depict Zeus (after 10 years of battle or titanomachy) sending the older primordial deities called Titans into the deep dungeon abyss of “tartarus.”

Notably 2 Peter explicitly uses Enoch’s word “Tartarus” for the condemnation of fallen “angels.” Jude and 2 Peter use almost the same words, but 2 Peter uses “Tartarus”:

It seems that 1 Enoch (and maybe Jude and 2 Peter) have assimilated the titanomachy legend of Zeus condemning the Titans into Tartaus into a legend about Yahweh condemning the 200 angelic Watchers into the chains of Tartarus. But in the 1 Enoch legend the crime is that of angels procreating mutant giants with human women.

“And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.” (1 Enoch 7:2)

The resulting children are called nephilim in Hebrew or gigantes (giants) in Latin and Greek. In 1 Enoch, the historical Enoch goes to God and seeks to make intercession for the forgiveness of the giants. God refuses and the giants are condemned. This part of the story is referred to in Sirach:

“He was not propitiated for the ancient giants who revolted in their might.” (Sirach 16:7)

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain 10 copies (!) of the Book of Giants – a work that describes in detail the conception of giants in Genesis 6 from the union of women and angelic watchers. The giants were warriors and cannibals. This theology was an important part of the theology of Second Temple Judaism.

Church Fathers who explicitly teach that angels copulated with women and bred giants in Genesis 6:

Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Commodianus, Ambrose of Milan.

In the City of God, Saint Augustine taught that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were simply human ancestors of Seth and that they bred with the evil daughters of men/Cain. This became the received tradition in the post Augustinian Christian West. It’s notable, however, that his mentor Saint Ambrose believed that the “sons of God” were in fact angels that copulated with humans.

What’s going on here in the Hebrew tradition?

The “Legend of the Watchers” in 1 Enoch was written in the Maccabean period before Christ. It’s could be a Jewish appropriation of a Greek myth but it’s likely explaining how the Hellenistic invaders are:

1. The Gentile invaders of the Holy Land (312-63 BC)
2. Greeks teaching and requiring Jews to follow pagan customs
3. Greeks marrying and copulating with Jewish women
4. The production of “hybrid” Greek/Jewish children that are considered “monstrous”
5. The need to destroy and drive out the Greeks by means of the Maccabean Revolt (167-160 BC)

The titanomachy of Enoch is not historically “Zeus vs. Titans” or “Yahweh vs. Watchers,” but Judah Maccabeus vs. Greeks.

How does Catholic Christianity understand the “angels and tartarus” sections?

Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas (both had not read 1 Enoch) interpretted the passages in Jude and 2 Peter in this way:

1. Before the flood, the “sons of God” were the righteous humans and the “daughters of men” were the female daughters of evil humans from Cain. These women were evil and and they seduced the noble and righteous sons of Seth.
2. They interbred and this lead to the moral corruption of humanity.
3. God sent a flood to kill everyone since they were all now a mixture of sons of Seth and daughters of Cain.

The solution here is to read “sons of God” not as “angelic beings” but as holy humans. It’s plausible and it has become the accepted tradition in Catholicism. However, ever since the Flood, good people have been interbreeding with evil people. And we know that the child of a holy mother and an evil father can turn out either good or bad. There are not “evil genetics.”

We can see here that the problem of intermarrying between the righteous and the wicked didn’t suddenly stop because water covered the land.

So it seems that Genesis describes a “water genocide” of a corrupted angel-human species. And certainly 1 Enoch is following the idea. If Jude (and 2 Peter) considered 1 Enoch as theological true, this would mean that at least one (or two) Apostle(s) believed the Enochic legend of the Watcher angels being sent to “Tartarus” because they had deceived humans and copulated with them.

The Enochic Legend as a theological device in Jude and 2 Peter:

Regardless of whether Jude and 2 Peter believed the Enochic “Watcher-Angel legend,” we know for a fact that they applied it as a teaching paradigm for their contemporary Apostolic Church:

1. There are false heretical teachers that were once part of the Apostolic Church
2. These have fallen away from Christ and are teaching Christians false doctrine and sin
3. These heretics are having illicit sex with Christians (their lust here and in Revelation is highlighted)
4. These heretics will be judged in the same way as the Watchers: they will be locked up in the dark tartarus forever.

If Jude and 2 Peter did not quote and/or reference 1 Enoch, we could cast off 1 Enoch forever as a Jewish oddity. But since there is a theological reference of 1 Enoch within Jude and 2 Peter, it provides a challenge.

I’m curious, how do you read the canonical passages of Genesis 6, Jude, 2 Peter (as well as Wisdom, Sirach and several Dead Sea Scrolls that promote the idea of giants as children of human women and demonic angels) in light of 1 Enoch? Secondly, do you think Jude and 2 Peter take the Enochic Watcher-Legend literally or are they simply using it to make an contemporary application against lustful heretics?

[reminder]

Godspeed,
Dr Taylor Marshall

PS: I recorded a podcast on the role of 1 Enoch in the Noah film that came out a few years ago starring Russell Crowe as Noah. You can listen to it by clicking here: Podcast on Noah (2014 Film) and 1 Enoch.

The post Angels having Relations with Humans within Jude and 2 Peter and 1 Enoch appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Scholars suggest that about 1 million people lived in the Holy Land during the time of Jesus. For perspective, one million people is the population of the state of Rhode Island at 1 million people.

Houston Texas has about 2.2 million people. So when Jesus was walking around Galilee, Samaria, and Judea, he was engaging with a population less than half of Houston, Texas.

Here’s something else to consider about the impact of Jesus on the population:

Jesus fed 5,000 and 4,000 people on two separate occasions. Assuming that they these two groups did not overlap, that means that Jesus personally fed about 1% of the population of the Holy Land (9,000 / 1,000,000). 1 out 100 people had been fed miraculously by Jesus Christ. If you add in Christ’s travel, preaching, and teaching it’s not far off to estimate that 10% of the populace had seen or heard Jesus in person.

That’s a low estimate since we know that Jesus was preaching and teaching at least annually in Jerusalem when most people were assembled there in the city for Passover. So it could be that as much as 25-50% of people living in the Holy Land had heard or witnessed Jesus Christ. This is why Peter on Pentecost AD 33 speaks to the crowd there about “Jesus” and they know who he is talking about.

To use an analogy, how many people living in Houston know of the local preacher Joel Osteen? All of them. And this is why the High Priest and Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus so badly. Jesus was a big deal. Everyone knew him or knew of him.

This should change how we understand both the historicity of Jesus but also impact of Jesus ministry.

Practical question:

If Jesus Christ could touch so many lives in three years, shouldn’t we be able to touch so many now with the power of literacy, digital communication, and social media?

[reminder] What is lacking in modern Christianity that makes it so easily dismissed?[/reminder]

PS: To learn more about Catholic History and the birth date and death date of Jesus Christ, check out my book The Eternal City.

The post Jesus’s Holy Land only had 1 Million People and He fed 1 Percent of Them appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. What does the name “Joseph” mean?
2. Where is he mentioned in the 4 Gospels?
3. Was Joseph really a “carpenter” or something more?
4. What languages would he have spoken? Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin?
5. Was Joseph young or old when he married Mary?
6. Was he truly married to Mary even those it was a Josephite marriage?
7. Did Joseph ever commit sins?
8. Why are there no relics of Joseph?
9. Should you bury his statue to sell your home?

Listen to this brief podcast as I tackle each of these questions:

Or download the mp3 directly by clicking here.

The post 133: Saint Joseph in 9 Points Podcast (Should You Bury His Statue?) appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Since the Apostles and Church Fathers universally recognized that baptism was the instrumental means by which Jesus Christ removes sin and infuses grace, they also received the pastoral question of what happens to unbaptized babies. Before we look St Gregory the Theologian, let that sink in. The presumption is that infants should be baptized.

Not only that, but we know from the Eastern Fathers and from Western Fathers like Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine that baptized infants were confirmed and received the Holy Eucharist. We Roman Catholics would do well to request that the Apostolic and Patristic practice of paedo-communion (infant communion) be rightfully restored to our children.

Here is Saint Gregory “the Theologian” Nazianzus on the death of unbaptized children:

“And so also in those who fail to receive the gift [of baptism]…perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish…will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed [by baptism] and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honored; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished.”

-Saint Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 40 on the Topic of Baptism, AD 329-390)

Let’s break all this down in bullet point format for clarity:

• Gregory begins with those that die without baptism as adults who are not baptized because of “involuntary circumstance.”
• Gregory then distinguishes those that die without baptism “on account of infancy.”
• Gregory states such persons are neither glorified or punished.

“neither glorified nor punished”

The terms “glorified” and “punished” are most important. What do they mean here?

Let’s start with “punished.” There are two forms of punishment in the afterlife. The first punishment of Gehenna is eternal. It is the punishment of everlasting damnation. The second punishment of therapeutic and cleanses the soul. This is the fire of purification in 1 Corinthians 3:15, and what we call purgative fire.

Clearly an unbaptized baby is not going to be burning in Gehenna forever (Augustine is the only known Christian theologian to even suggest this, and he admits it being untenable). Moreover, it is also untenable to suggest that unbaptized infants go into purgative fires after death, because there is not evil in the soul to cleanse. What is lacking is the gift of sanctifying grace.

In conclusion, no infant (by which we mean ages 0-7 years) would ever go into the eternal fires of Gehenna or the temporary fires of Purgatory.

What is Glorification?

Let’s now look at the term “glorified.” Saint Paul uses the language of “glorification” to describe the final transformation of the Christian after death in the presence of God:

“And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)

Glorified means to enter the glory of God. It refers to the human soul partaking of the divine nature. Thomas Aquinas calls this becoming “deiform.”

Saint Gregory Nazianzus teaches that the unbaptized infant would not enter the divine glory or partake of the divine nature. So where does this leave the unbaptized baby?

It would seem that the Church Fathers were open to the idea of a natural paradise in the afterlife that was not the same as the supernatural glory paradise of Heaven. What is a “natural paradise”? Well it would entail perfect natural happiness. This would include all pleasure that could be naturally experienced. Saint Thomas Aquinas even suggests that angels infuse light and knowledge into the souls of unbaptized infants. However, it would stop short of the beatific vision and partaking of the divine nature.

Example: the Mother and Child in the Louvre

I once heard a priest suggest that it might be like a 3 year old accompanying his mother the Louvre Museum in Paris. The mother is in awe as she studies the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa. However, the 3 year old child does not possess the capacity to admire the Mona Lisa like his mother. The child may be perfectly happy holding the mother’s hand, or examining the pattern of her mother’s dress, or watching the janitor mop the floor in the adjacent gallery.

1. Is the child happy? Yes.
2. Is the child suffering or being punished? No.
3. Are the mother and child together? Yes.
4. Are the mother and child experiencing the same thing? No.
5. Can the child appreciate the Louvre more than he would appreciate a playground? Probably not – and that is perfectly fine!

Whether we call it Limbo, natural paradise, or something else, it doesn’t seem that we must rush to “all dogs and all babies go to Heaven no matter what.” One of the richest elements of Catholicism (that I constantly stress this on Youtube) is that there is a rich and exotic geography in the Catholic afterlife.

The Catholic Geography of the Afterlife:

There are “many mansions” in Heaven. There are various levels along the way. There is Hades or Inferno which contains up to 4 sections, including Purgatory which also contains various levels. Catholicism does have a binary finality of “Heaven and Hell” but that there are many levels, provinces, guilds, and neighborhoods within each. Every person in Heaven experiences God is a particular way relative to his life on earth. Every person in Hell experiences a varying degree of punishment and intensity relative to his life on earth. God is perfectly just and he doesn’t punish people inordinately.

You sometimes hear someone say: “So you’re saying that if I skip Mass on Sunday, I’m going to burn in Hell forever just like Adolf Hitler?”

That is not what we are saying. We are saying that there is a Hell and if you sin mortally you will be rightfully punished in Hell. That punishment for neglecting Mass will justly be less than the person who performed 5,000 abortions, raped 10 people, donated to the Nazi party, tortured pets, and was ordained as a priest of the Church of Satan. If there are a million and four people in Hell, there are one million and four justly arranged penalties for each and every inhabitant. God is infinitely and perfectly just, and he would never punish someone beyond the measure of their crimes.

The reverse is also true of Heaven. If there are one million and four people in Heaven, there are one million and four different ways of reward and experience of the divine nature. Saint Francis’s proximity and experience of the Holy Trinity is different than that of Saint Mary Magdalene or Saint Ambrose. Each has a various level of charity and merit based on their life and decisions. This delights God.

In conclusion, whether we speak of the Saints, the Old Testament righteous before Christ, those in purgatory, the unbaptized infant, or even the damned in Hell, the afterlife is indeed “customized” by the providential and perfect judgment of God in response to our faith, works, and charity. Nobody, as Gregory states, is punished for something he never performed.

If you’d like to take an online course in Church Fathers (including Gregory Nazianzus) or New Testament Studies (including St Paul on baptism), please visit our online classes for Catholic students:

• Certificate in Church Fathers
• Certificate in New Testament Studies

The post Concerning the Death of Unbaptized Infants by St Gregory Nazianzus appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Most Protestants claim (as well as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) that in the early 300s, the first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine co-opted Christianity for political purposes and transformed Rome’s pagan theology, imagery and titles into Christian versions:

1. pagan Temples became Christian Churches
2. the title “Queen of Heaven” was transferred from the Roman goddess Magna Dea to Jesus Christ’s mother Mary
3. Pontifex Maximus was transferred as title for Bishop of Rome
4. patron deities were modified into patron saints
5. The first day of the week, dedicated as “Sun-Day” became the day of Christian worship rather than the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday

Other examples could be listed. I’ve argued that Constantine was truly Christian and that paganization did not occur in The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity. Rather, I defend the (Catholic) belief that the Holy Trinity planned from creation to use the Roman Empire as the means of salvation through the Roman crucifixion of the eternal Son of God under Roman domination.

Today we address the title “Queen of Heaven” as applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants adhere to the principle of sola scripture (only scripture). In doing so, they search the pages of Scripture for “Queen of Heaven” and they find it in the Old Testament:

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. (Jer 7:18)

and again:

But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil. (Jer 44:7)

The prophet Jeremiah here condemns how Israelites adopted then pagan practice of offering cakes and drink offerings to “the queen of heaven.” This “queen of heaven” was the goddess Asherah who was universally worshipped in the Middle East as a consort bride to Baal or even Yahweh.

We have, in fact, found an archeological pithos sherd found at Kuntillet Ajrud be with an inscription reading: “Yahweh and his Asherah” as depicted below:

There is biblical and archeological evidence for devotion to God’s wife Asherah. But this devotion was contrary to the monotheism practiced by Abraham, Moses, and David. The Israelite prophets were constantly recalling Israel away from worship of Asherah and back to the monotheistic worship of Yahweh.

It would seem, then, to the Protestant that the Catholic practice of calling Mary “Queen of Heaven” is a return to this banned practice in Jeremiah. Epiphanius of Salamis even writes of an early female Christian heresy around AD 375, whereby women devotees in Arabia would worship Mary and offer bread-rolls (Greek κολλυρις or kollyris) to Mary as if she were a goddess. This seems to be a holdover from worship of Asherah as described by Jeremiah.

And yet the Catholic Church does NOT give worship (Greek latria) to Mary. She receives the highest form of praise for a created human (Greek hyperdulia), since she is a human and will always remain a human. However, she is the earthly mother of the King of Heaven and Earth. And by that honor, she is Queen of Heaven.

Moreover, Revelation chapter 12 depicts the mother of the Messiah as crowned with 12 stars, clothed with the sun, and standing on the moon. She is no doubt the Queen of Heaven, just as she is also the Queen of the Jews.

And we should remember that pagan kings were also called Messiah, Son of God, King of Kings, King of Heaven, etc. and yet we do not hesitate to grant these titles to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The abuse of a term by pagans (e.g. Son of God, Queen of Heaven, Pontifex Maximus) does not forfeit their proper use by God-fearing Christians in an orthodox sense.

[reminder]Do you honor the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven[/reminder]

The post Did Israel’s God have a Wife? “Queen of Heaven” in Jeremiah 7 appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Tertullian and Origen spoke against Pope Callixtus for his laxity. And Saint Hippolytus became the Catholic Church’s first antipope in resistance to Pope Callixtus who he saw as promoting and allowing: contraception, abortion, heresy, and easy-penance.

Why the conflict?

Before we get started I want to stress that all this happened 100 years before Constantine legalized Catholicism. Some wrongly assume that before Constantine the Church of Rome was a happy assembly of saints without church politics. Not quite. The Church of Rome has been plagued with conflict and controversy from the very beginning (as detailed in this book).

The document Philosophumena (attributed to Saint Hippolytus of Rome) recounts how Pope Callixtus had once been a Roman slave belonging to a Christian master named Carpophorus. Carpophorus placed his slave Callixtus (the future pope) in charge of funds that he had collected from other Christians for the care of orphans, widows, and the poor.

Callixtus the slave who lost all the money. He fled Rome but was discovered boarding a ship near Portus, the harbor city of Rome. Callixtus jumped overboard to avoid capture but was arrested nonetheless and taken back to his Christian master Carpophorus.

In an attempt to recover the money, Callixtus the slave physically assaulted Jews inside a Roman synagogue in attempt to either get a loan from the Jews or to collect debts from Jews. He was re-arrested. At this time, he was denounced as a Christian (probably by the Roman Jews) and sent as a prisoner to the mines of Sardinia.

Enter Emperor Commodus. Commodus was the son of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. You likely remember him from the film Gladiator:

Emperor Commodus had a “Christian” mistress named Marcia (you might be surprised to learn that Rome one hundred years later had a collection of so-called “Christian prostitutes” that were regulated by Constantine’s son). The “Christian mistress” Marcia was served by a eunuch named Hyacinth who was also an ordained presbyter. (100 years later, eunuchs were banned from ordination at the Council of Nicea).

Marcia and Hyacinth appealed to the Roman Emperor Commodus for the release of Christian prisoners from the mines of Sardinia. This imperial intervention affected the release of Callixtus and other Christians in the mines. Life in the mines was rough and they had suffered there as witnesses to our Lord Jesus Christ. These Christians were honored by Christians back in Rome as quasi-martyrs.

Callixtus’s Rise to the Papacy:

• Pope Victor I as Bishop of Rome honored Callixtus with a monthly pension from the Catholic Church, supposedly to honor him as a living confessor (one who suffered for Christ, but did not die).
• Pope Zephyrinus (successor of Victor I) honored Callixtus in AD 199 by ordaining him as one of the prestigious “seven deacons of Rome,” and appointed him as guardian of the catacombs along the Appian Way. To this day, these catacombs are named after Callixtus as the “Catacombs of Saint Callixtus.” From his time until the time of Constantine, this catacomb became the ceremonial burial place for nine bishops of Rome. (Origen visited Rome during the reign of Pope Zephyrinus.)
• Deacon Callixtus became the chief advisor of Pope Zephyrinus in Rome.
• In AD 217, Pope Zephyrinus received the crown of martyrdom and the Deacon Callixtus was the obvious choice for Bishop of Rome.
• Callixtus became Pope in AD 217 and established Santa Maria in Trastevere as his principle “cathedral” in Rome (this was before the Lateran basilica was given to the Church by Constantine and before the construction of the basilica at the Vatican).

Pope Callixtus as a “Lax Pope”:

Callixtus’s “pre-mining” life had been one of financial controversy, and yet he had proved himself faithful to Christ in the mines and worthy of respect and office in the Church of Rome. Perhaps it was his controversial past that lead to his position of laxity for the Church in Rome.

In AD 217 (the first year of his Pontificate), Pope Callixtus issued the “Decree of 217” which scandalized many, especially Tertullian who documents the episode. The Decree of 217 stated that penance and absolution would be enough to re-admit Christians to the Eucharist for the seven sins previously restricted. These seven sins were:

1. murder
2. idolatry
3. fraud
4. apostasy (publicly renouncing Jesus Christ)
5. blasphemy
6. adultery (sex with someone besides your spouse)
7. fornication (sex outside marriage)
   (this list is found in Tertullian’s De Pudicitia*, Ch 19).

Pope Callixtus also allowed:

• not requiring public penance from heretics entering the Catholic Church.
• clergy t0 marry before and after ordination.
• noblewomen to contract Christian marriages with plebs and slaves (forbidden by Roman law).

The Christians at the time were divided on this lax approach to sinners.

• Tertullian openly wrote and taught against the lax novelties of Pope Callixtus.
• The Greek-speaking Roman priest Hippolytus was elected as a rival Bishop of Rome and became the Church’s first Anti-Pope.
• Origen relates how when he was in Rome he heard the famous Hippolytus preach – showing that Origen was sympathetic with Hippolytus’ theology. It seems however that Origen greatly respected the Bishop of Rome and that he heard Hippolytus preach before Hippolytus presumed to become a rival Bishop in Rome. Nevertheless, Origen’s strictness would seem to make him more sympathetic with the ancient practice of making sacramental absolution rare.

In general, opponents of Pope Callixtus alleged that his policies would lead to a lower of morals among Christians, and this proved to the case with regard to contraception and abortion.

The Problem of Abortion and Contraception among Christians during the time of Pope Callixtus:

Hippolytus laments that Catholic women in Rome began to engage in contraception and abortion during the lax reign of Pope Callixtus:

Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round [their belly], so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church.

For Hippolytus, this rise in contraception and abortion among Roman Christian women was a sign that the laxity of Pope Callixtus was bearing evil fruit.

Five or six years later, Pope Callixtus received the crown of martyrdom in AD 222 or 223 and was enrolled in the number of the saints. His feast day is October 14.

Conclusion:

Do grace and mercy lead to laxity? It’s a common question: If God forgives me no matter what, why not just keep sinning? Why change my life at all?

This precise question is tackled by Saint Paul in his epistle to the Romans 6:

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried[a] therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

It was and will be a perennial question for Christians in every age. If a Christian can just “pray the prayer” (as Evangelicals say), just be baptized, just go to confession, or just get an indulgence, why live like a saint?

Problems also with Rigorism:

But there is an opposite error. If the forgiveness of sin is rigorous (as it was before AD 217), two results follow:

1. First, is simply despair. If forgiveness if far off, why even try?
2. There is a second result that I would like to suggest that I rarely see in Patristic studies. I believe that the popularity of Gnosticism and Gnostic sects the exploded in the 100s was partly due to the lack of access to sacramental absolution. Gnostics promised that there were secret ways (not depending on morality or absolution) that allowed access to God. If a Christian had fallen into apostasy, murder, or adultery and could not find forgiveness and communion within the Catholic Church, there would be extreme pressure to join a Gnostic cult where immediate salvation and access to God was assured.

All Catholics today would grant that Pope Callixtus made the correct move, by allowing for “easy” absolution of grave sins before the time of death. (Easy, by the way, still entailed periods of public penance.) Did this new laxity come with a price? Yes. Did Catholic women try to “get away” with contraception and abortion? Yes. Does that still happen today? Yes.

Is the solution to this form of laxity to make the conditions for sacramental absolution more strict? No. I don’t think so. People can and will take advantage of grace in every age. There is no way to prevent that. However, we must always be in a position to recognize the forgiveness and mercy of Christ who was ready to immediately forgive the repentant Peter, Thomas, Paul, et al.

[reminder]I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic of lax vs. rigorous absolution.[/reminder]

The post Pope Saint Callixtus I – Laxity, Contraception, Abortion in AD 217 appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

It became quite stylish in the liturgical reforms of the 1960s and 1970s to teach that the Greek word for liturgy is λειτουργία (leitourgia) and that this word means “work of the people.” This led to the new idea that λειτουργία or “liturgy” is something that lay people should be leading and even performing within the context of worship.

Does λειτουργία mean “work of the people”? No.

Liturgy certainly does not mean “work of the people,” and I’ll show you why from examples in Sacred Scripture. But before looking at Scripture, let’s look at the actual Greek word:

The Word “Liturgy” in Greek

λειτουργία, like so many words in Greek, is a composite. The first word half of the word derives form the Greek word “laos” meaning “people.” (There is also the variation of “leos” which is the Attic Greek version of the same word for “people.”) This word “laos” (or “leos” in Attic) is where we get laity and laypeople. It’s a generic word for a collection of people. The Greek name Menelaos means “withstanding the people” and the Greek name Nikolaos means “conquering the people.”

The second part of the word derives from the Greek word “ergon” meaning “work,” as in ergonomic, energy, and synergy.

When you smash the two Greek words together to describe something you get: leitourgia or λειτουργία.

Does λειτουργία mean “work of the people” or “work for the people”?

So the term contains the two Greek words for “people” and “work,” but how do we arrange it for its meaning? On one hand, it could be “work of the people,” meaning something the people work out together. On the other hand, it could be “work for the people,” meaning something done for the benefit of the people.

Option 1: Liturgy as “Work of the People”

The kumbaya (Elvis liturgy) crowd of the 1960s and 1970s insisted that it was former – something people work out when they come together. This led to the idea that lay people should lead prayers, read the lessons, prepare the altar, handle chalices, handle the Eucharist, distribute the Eucharist, bless people in the Communion line, and cleanse the vessels. After all, if liturgy means “work of the people,” then the people ought to be up there doing active work.

Option 2: Liturgy as “Work Done for the People”:

The historical, traditional, and received definition of liturgy or λειτουργία is that it is something done by one for the sake of the people. This may come as a crushing blow to the legions of Christians who were taught that liturgy was the “work of the people,” but it’s the plain truth. In Plato and other Greek authors, λειτουργία is something done by one for the sake of the people. Consequently, the Greek term is usually a priestly or political term depending on the context. And in the Bible, it is usually a priestly term, but we will examine one passage in Romans that is expressly political:

Let’s look at Sacred Scripture to settle the debate:

In the account of the birth of John the Baptist, we discover that his father Zacharias is an Aaronic priest of the tribe of Levi. As such, he serves in the Temple as a priest when it is the time of his allotment. [I explain elsewhere how this detail leads us to know that Christ as born in late December.] The passage explains that St Zacharias goes to the Temple to minister and the original Greek word is that he goes there to do liturgy:

And when his time of service (λειτουργίας) was ended, he went to his home. (Luke 1:23)

Did Zacharias gather a bunch of people to worship the Lord? No, the passage explains that his duty was to go into the Temple and offer incense to Yahweh. He did this to ceremoniously present the prayers of the people to God. It becomes obvious that his “liturgy” was something he did as a priest for the benefit of the people, not something he did as a priest with other people present.

Let’s look at another example from Hebrews:

And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship (λειτουργίας). (Heb 9:22)

This is a description of how Moses consecrated the tabernacle and vessels for divine worship in the Old Testament. The tent/tabernacle and the vessels could only be handled and used by the Levites, as they administered them for the benefit of Israel. Once again we see that λειτουργία refers to what is done by a priestly class on behalf of the laity.

The Liturgy of Christ as for the people:

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry (λειτουργίας) which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. (Heb 8:6)

The author describes Christ as a High Priest who now administers a better New Covenant through a better λειτουργία or Liturgy. Once again, this λειτουργία is something Christ is administering on our behalf for our salvation. Notably it is His presentation of His Body and Blood to the Father for our redemption – something that is presented in every Liturgy of the Mass.

Roman Emperor as Liturgizer:

And let’s not forget that Saint Paul calls the evil Emperor Nero a “liturgizer.” In Romans 13, Saint Paul explains how the Roman Emperor (at that time Nero) and all political rulers are “liturgizers””

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant (διάκονός or diakonos) of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers (λειτουργοὶ or leitourgoi) of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Saint Paul identifies the Emperor as διάκονός or deacon and as all rulers as λειτουργοὶ or liturgizers. Be mindful that this Emperor was Nero, and yet he receives sacerdotal titles from Paul.

In fact, the dalmatic (which is worn by deacons) is an imperial garment traditionally reserved for the Byzantine court. I cannot find the source at the moment, but I recall reading once that Constantine was allowed to read Scripture in liturgy while still unbaptized because he was considered to be a quasi-deacon by virtue of his status as Emperor. And the Emperor in Constantinople processed with the Patriarch and the clergy, often in a dalmatic.

Back to “liturgy” in Romans 13. It’s manifest that the Roman Emperor and other Roman rulers are accorded the title of λειτουργοὶ. They are not liturgists designing services. Nero isn’t leading the people in “Gather us in, the rich and the haughty.” Rather these Roman rulers are, according to Paul, appointed by God to administer justice for the people. 

Liturgy as Something Done for People

Liturgy, at least in the Old and New Testament is something priestly or political that is done for the sake of the people. It is communal only in that it is done for others.

A priest saying the Mass alone in a Russian hotel room is doing “work for the people” without anyone else gathered together with him.

Likewise, the Pope gathered at a Mass of 10,000 people is doing “work for the people,” but the people being present doesn’t make it “liturgy.” The liturgy is accomplished in persona Christi for the people. Just as Zacharias was able to do “liturgy” all alone with his thurible in the Temple.

When Christ died on the cross, He administered a new λειτουργία for the people of the world. It was a liturgical act in which nobody participated by dancing, performing, reading from a book, or carrying a vessel. The truly “active participation” was accomplished by the Mother of God, Saint Mary Magdalene, the other women, and by the Apostle John when they lifted up their hearts to the divine Crucified Rabbi on the cross. They painfully and silently received the bloody λειτουργία of Christ on their behalf.

The time has come for us to understand liturgy as sacerdotal and as something done by Christ for His people. Cardinal Sarah summed this up recently with these words:

Liturgy is about God and His work for His people. Whoever tells us that we must celebrate ourselves in the liturgy is undermining biblical liturgy. Liturgy as “work of the people” is liturgical Pelagianism – the heresy that says that man can naturally work for his salvation.

If you’d like to learn about Sacramental Theology and earn your Certificate in Catholic Theology along the way, please join us at the New Saint Thomas Institute. We have a 2 part video on the “Mystical Meanings of the Mass according to Thomas Aquinas” waiting for you:

Learn more about our online theology courses and earn up to 6 Certificates in Philosophy, Theology, and Church History at newsaintthomas.com, the largest global online Institute for theological studies.

Godspeed,
Dr. Taylor Marshall

The post Liturgy does NOT mean Work of the People (Against Liturgical Pelagianism) 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.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal.

So where is Irenaeus getting his Christology?

Irenaeus heard the teaching of Saint Polycarp of Smyrna. Perhaps Irenaeus was originally from Smyrna. Regardless, it’s universally agreed that Irenaeus was from Asia Minor.

The Christology of Smyrna (and Asia Minor) is that the canonical Apocalypse which repeatedly depicts Jesus Christ as “Yahweh” who repeats the words and actions of “Yahweh” from the books of Daniel and Ezekiel. This is why there is no subordinationism of the Son below the Father and the Spirit below the Son in Irenaeus.

The historical Jesus is Yahweh for the seven churches and seven angels/bishops of the Apocalypse.

If you’d like to learn more about the Christology of the Book of Revelation, check out my free audio commentary on the Book of Revelation: Catholic Perspective on the Book of Revelation Podcast. which begins with the “fiery apparition of Christ in chapter 1.

The post Christology in the Book of Revelation (and in Saint Irenaeus) 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.

This belief goes back to the heretical Encratites. The Encratites were a rigorist Christian sect that condemned not only sexual relations within Christian marriage (that is, that said that even married people must abstain after baptism), but they also condemned the consumption of alcohol – even omitting wine in the Eucharistic liturgy.

This latter point is ironic since Jesus turned water into wine at a marriage.

Perhaps the most infamous Encratite was Tatian – the disciple of Saint Justin Martyr. This proves that even the greatest theologians and teachers can have disciples that become heretics!

So since today is the feast of Saint Justin Martyr, here is a free Catholic Church History lesson from the New Saint Thomas Institute:

Catholic Course on Saint Justin Martyr and Tatian the Heretic:

If you’d like to join thousands of other online students, and take online classes in Catholic history, theology, apologetics, philosophy, Church Councils, Christology, Mariology, etc. please sign up and begin one of our curricula at the New Saint Thomas Institute.

The post Catholic Theology Video: St Justin Martyr and His Heretic Disciple Tatian appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The post Is Our Salvation Based on the Concepts of Debt and Law? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

There is however a [late] Christian tradition that Christ first appeared to His Mother Mary and then afterwards appeared to Saint Mary Magdalene as depicted in the Gospel accounts. This would explain why the Blessed Mother felt no need to go to the tomb of Christ. She already knew and believed that He had risen from the dead early Sunday morning.

It also explains why Christ is not at the tomb Sunday morning when Mary Magdalene arrives. He is somewhere else and then arrives to speak with her. Where was He at that moment? Well, some say Christ was visiting His mother on the third day – just as she also discovered Christ again “in His Father’s house” when she had lost Him at age twelve in the Temple after three days.

So did Christ appear first to His Mother Mary?

We find Saint Anselm as the first Catholic Doctor of the Church to teach that Christ secretly appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and then appeared to Saint Mary Magdalene. This is the opinion of Saint Ignatius Loyola and Saint Teresa of Avila.

The visionary Blessed Maria of Agreda also received a vision showing that Christ first appeared to the Blessed Mother before visiting Saint Mary Magdalene. Even Saint John Paul II affirmed the possibility that Christ secretly appeared to His Mother first of all:

“It is legitimate to think that the Mother may really have been the first person to whom the risen Jesus appeared.” (Saint John Paul II, May 21, 1997)

We already explored the idea that Mary was not at the tomb Sunday morning because Christ had already appeared to her and she was confirmed already in her belief in the resurrection. However, one might assert that the Mother of God’s faith was already so strong that she had not need to see the resurrected Christ. She already believed without proof.

My own opinion (which carries no weight) is that Mary’s soul was so united to that of Christ at His death and even to His soul’s descent to the dead that she was aware of His ministry to the dead (including her husband Saint Joseph and her kinfoll such as Saint John the Baptist, Saint Zechariah, and Saint Elizabeth, Saint Anna, et al.), that she knew the precise moment of His resurrection and saw it in her soul. Whether Christ appeared outwardly to her physical eyes or only in her heart – her perception of Christ by Faith was more than any saint will have when they “see” Jesus Christ.

Christos anesti,

Dr. Taylor Marshall

The post Did Christ Appear First to His Mother after Resurrection? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

In our New Saint Thomas Institute Catholic Church History series on the Arian Heresy Controversy and the Council of Constantinople, our student Alicia asks:

Is there a reason why the name of Pontius Pilate was included in the second creed?

Pontius Pilate’s name is in the Creeds because it anchors the life of Christ into human history, specifically Roman history. If you interested in the redemptive meaning of Rome, the Roman Pontius Pilate, and the Roman cross of execution in the redemption of man by a Jewish Messiah, please see my book The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholicism. 

There is a “tradition” that Pontius Pilate’s wife Claudia Procula had a dream of billions of people chanting “sub Pontio Pilato” over and over and over.

What she was hearing was the billions of Christians who recite “He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.”

Most woman would be honored to know that their husband’s name would be on the lips of billions over a period of 20 centuries. But in the case of this Prefect of Judaea, it is the notorious reputation of being the remote efficient cause of Christ’s crucifixion.

The dream of “Claudia” is referred to in Matthew 27:19:

While Pilate was sitting in the judgment hall, his wife sent him a message: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, because in a dream last night, I suffered much on account of him.”

If the tradition is true, she dreamed of the countless recitations and liturgical chants of “under Pontius Pilate.”

Origen is the first to mention that she converted to Christianity. She is a saint. In art, she is depicted as whispering into the ear of Pontius. Mel Gibson’s Passion depicts Claudia giving linens to the Blessed Mother to collect the Blood of Christ from the scourging.

Saint Claudia, pray for us.

If you’d like to take our courses on Historical Theology, the Creeds, the Councils, and Catholic Tradition, please sign up with us at newsaintthomas.com.

The post The Horrific Dream of the Wife of Pontius Pilate (about the Nicene Creed) appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

One of our New Saint Thomas Institute students named Jana from Slovakia had a question about the translation of “descended into Hell” from the Apostles’ Creed:

I am from from Slovakia and in our language we do not use the word “hell” in the Creed, rather we use “he descended to those who died / departed”. We use “hell” only in the meaning of gehenna. Therefore I was a bit confused at first when I saw the title of this lesson: “he descended into hell” – I immediately associated hell with gehenna, but now I understand that hell is more like a collective term.

Jana, it’s so great to have members from Slovakia!

In English, we usually recite the Apostles’ Creed with the translation “He descended into hell.” To get to the bottom of this, let’s look at both the Greek and Latin versions of the Apostles’ Creed.

The Greek version of the Apostles’ Creed reads κατελθόντα εἰς τὰ κατώτατα, (“katelthonta eis ta katôtata“) meaning “descended to lower ones,” or you could translate it as “descended to those below.”

The Latin version reads “descendit ad inferos,” where “inferos” (not infernos with an “n”) means “those below” like the word “inferior.” So the Latin “inferos” corresponds pretty accurately with the Greek κατώτατα.

There are, however, early textual variants for this line in the Apostles’ Creed:

1. ad inferos “to those below” (in current usage, standardized by Trent, in use in Vatican documents)
2. ad infernos “to those below” (rare and later usage – but often reprinted in Catholic literature)
3. ad inferna (neuter accusative plural) “to the underworlds” (from Rufinus, circa AD 390 & Gallican Sacramentary circa AD 650)
4. ad infernum (accustive singular) “to the underworld” (from Poitiers, France circa AD 600)

The Latin versions that I see read both “inferos” or “infernos” in Catholic texts. The Council of Trent and the the Vatican’s edition of the Catechism has it printed as “inferos” so that’s the official version. It’s worth noting that the Latin version of the Athanasian Creed also reads “inferos” or “those below.”

To be grammatically accurate, the Apostles’ Creed is stating that Christ is descending to persons “inferos” and not to a place “infernum,” though Scripture and Tradition identify the Old Testament righteous souls as waiting in Limbo or “Abraham’s Bosom.”

If you want to see how Saint Thomas Aquinas divides the underworld or “hell” into four sections, please watch this video on the “Four Sections of Hell“:

If you’d like to take online classes like this in Philosophy, Theology, Apologetics, and Church History and Historical Theology, sign up at the New Saint Thomas Institute:

[reminder]

Godspeed,

Dr. Taylor Marshall

The post Descended into Hell – Latin and Greek versions of Apostles Creed appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

This collection of cardinal deacons, cardinal priests, and the cardinal bishops established the “College of Cardinals” that elected the Bishop of Rome from amongst themselves.

• Before the 1900s, it was possible for a man in minor orders to become a “lay” cardinal in the order of cardinal deacons.
• For example, in the 16th century, the Englishman Reginald Pole was a cardinal for 18 years before he was ordained a priest.
• In 1917 it was established that all cardinals, even cardinal deacons, had to be ordained priests.
• In 1962, Pope John XXIII ruled that all cardinals must be ordained as bishops unless given a papal dispensation to remain as a priest. One might recall that John Henry Cardinal Newman (d. 1890) was a cardinal while being a priest and not a bishop.
• For example, His Eminence Albert Cardinal Vanhoye is a cardinal who has not been ordained as a bishop.
• A cardinal who is not a bishop does wear the pontificalia associated with the bishop (mitre, crozier, zucchetto, pectoral cross, ring).
• Here’s the amazing thing about cardinals: even if not ordained as a bishop, any cardinal possesses ecclesial and liturgical precedence above a bishop, and even above an Archbishop or a Patriarch!
• This is why Eastern Patriarchs are now usually made Cardinals.

[reminder]

The post Cardinals who are not Bishops and a Short History on Cardinals appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. He was a Pope
2. He denied Christ publicly
3. He repented and died a martyr’s death

Lets take a look at his life:

• The Liber Pontificalis records that during Diocletian’s persecution (AD 303) Marcellinus was captured and commanded to offer incense to the Roman idols.
• Fearful of death, he scattered incense to the false gods.
• Remorseful after a few days, he confessed his faith of Christ.
• He was captured again, stayed true to Christ and received martyrdom.
• Marcellinus was buried on 26 April 304 in the cemetery of Priscilla, on the Via Salaria, 25 days after his martyrdom.

These details are hotly debated. For example, Saint Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430) denies that Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols – although he knows of the story and the accusation (see St Augustine, Against Petilian 2.202). The Church Historian Eusebius does not mention it at all.

However, scholars have noted that the pontificate of “Marcellinus” is notably omitted in the Roman “Chronograph” of AD 336. He had undoubtedly been the bishop of Rome, so this absence on the list reveals some doubt about his status as Bishop of Rome.

I wish that we had a way to know the truth of the matter.

I incorporated Pope Marcellinus into my best-selling historical fiction novel: Sword and Serpent: A Historical Retelling of Saint George and the Dragon. The novel features Saint George visiting Pope Marcellinus hiding in a cavern-like catacomb and receiving a sword from him (which will eventually become the sword of King Arthur). The novel has received great reviews and a shining endorsement from Father Dwight Longenecker. I hope you enjoy it. You can get a copy on amazon.com (or check out the 340 reviews) by clicking here.

[reminder]

The post The Pope That Rejected Christ: Pope Marcellinus appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

February 2 marks the 40th day from Christmas, and as Saint Luke tells us, Mary and Joseph presented Our Infant Lord at the Temple on the 40th day after his birth.

There are 2 things happening here:

1. Leviticus 12 states that when an Israelite woman gives birth she becomes ritually unclean:
   1. if child is a boy, she is unclean 7 days after birth and that her uncleanness endures for an additional 33 days due to the flow of her post-partum blood flow. So after 40 days, she is presented herself at the Temple to be purified and readmitted to the liturgical life of Israel.
   2. if child is a girl, she is unclean 14 days after birth and that her uncleanness endures for an additional 66 days due to the flow of her post-partum blood flow. So after 80 days, she is presented herself at the Temple to be purified and readmitted to the liturgical life of Israel.
   3. Jesus is male and so the timeline is 40 days. Dec 25 + 40 days = Feb 2.
2. The woman is to bring a sacrifice to the Temple to dedicate the son or daughter:
   1. Ideally, she brings a lamb.
   2. However, “if she cannot lay her hand on a lamb fit to be offered, she must bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, one as a burnt-sacrifice and one by way of amends.”
   3. Mary, being poor, brought two doves – but in reality she brought THE Lamb of God.

There are two theological conundrums here:

1. Jesus is the Son of God. Why would he need sacrifice offered for Him?
2. How could Jesus, the Pure One, make Mary impure through birth? And isn’t Mary immaculate and entirely pure?

The answer is found in the Baptism of Christ. Christ submitted to Baptism not because he needed grace or the remission of Original Sin, but because He wanted to unite himself to sinners while at the same time instituting the Sacrament of Baptism.

Christ indeed submitted to every law of Moses so as to fulfill the Old Law perfectly (hence, we Christians do not need to submit the ceremonial and judicial precepts of Moses – like not eating pork).

Mary and the Rites of the Old Law and New Law

The same is true of Mary – both for the Old Law and the New Law. She submitted to the entire Old Law even though she knew that her Son fulfilled the Law and stood above the Law as God. She beautifully conformed to His pattern and example. Same goes for Joseph.

It is Catholic tradition that Mary was full of grace and that she did not need the sacraments, but that she submitted to the rites and sacraments of the New Law – namely that she was baptized, confirmed, and fervently received the Eucharist – even though all the graces were already present within her.

There is a tradition that Christ only baptized two persons by His own hand: Peter and Mary. Peter then baptized the other 11 Apostles and then the 12 Apostles baptized the multitudes.

Catholic commentator Cornelius Lapide even speculates that Mary received Extreme Unction from the hand of an Apostle before her Dormition, even though she didn’t need it since corruption could not touch her. Lapide is clear that she would have never gone to confession, however. Confession requires the matter of actual sins committed in order for the form of absolution to be proclaimed. Mary had nothing at all to confess.

[reminder]Are you humbled that Jesus and Mary submitted to rules and rites that she did not need?[/reminder]

PS: Joy and I were once able to attend Mass with Pope Benedict XVI (when we were not yet Catholics) on February 2 for the feast of the Presentation of Christ. It was a moment of conversion for us to Catholicism – since I in that moment came to know that I was not in communion with the Successor of Saint Peter.

The post Why was Mary purified at the Temple? And did she receive Sacraments? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

I’m rather amazed that neither side is currently examining (and boldly appealing to) the Eastern practice. It’s likely only a matter of time, so I thought I’d try to put some things together in the timeline.

Deacon Daniel Gordon Dozier (Eastern Catholic) helped me find some primary sources on this matter.

• Patriarch Alexius I of Constantinople (Patriarch from 1025-1043) no longer upheld the practice of suspending priests who blessed second marriages after divorce. Patriarch Alexius, however, only allowed second marriages to the innocent party in a separation. That is, if the husband abandoned a wife, she (but not him) could have a second church wedding while that offending husband still lived. And vice versa.
• Archbishop Cyril Vasil, S.J. observes that in 1086 (after the schism with Rome), the Byzantine Empire made the Orthodox Church the “only institution with legal competence for the celebration of matrimony…As a consequence the Eastern Church had to conform its practices to State and civil legislation (a regretful consequence of caesaropapism). Then once civil legislation began to allow divorce and successive remarriages, the Eastern Church was obligated to recognize these practices.”
• It seems to me as the Eastern Church fell away from union with Rome, it inevitably followed the secular practice of the Empire.

It’s notable that the initial changes in practice happened in Constantinople while Rome and Constantinople were in formal union (even if only for a few decades). It was the successor of Alexius I, Michael Cerularius who formally established schism between Rome and Constantinople in 1054. The practice was officially changed in 1086. So the entire process seems to have taken about 50 years in Constantinople.

[reminder]What do you think? Will the Eastern Orthodox practice become part of this debate on divorce and remarriage at Rome?[/reminder]

The post The Eastern Orthodox on Divorce and Remarriage appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

This man emphasized that we are not simply a soul and body, but that we are spirit, soul, and body.

So what is the Catholic to say?

This the bipartite vs. tripartite debate on human anthropology. The majority position in the Catholic Church is that we have a physical element (body headed by the brain) and a metaphysical element (soul headed by the spirit). The spirit is the highest intellectual faculty of the soul.

The locus classicus on this topic is Hebrews 4:12

“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

Tripartite advocates point here showing that “soul and spirit” are distinguished and thus separate. The problem here is that if soul and spirit are different entities then our body is also twofold with different entities, namely joins and marrow.

Soul Vocab in Scripture

Let’s review the terminology in Hebrew and Greek:

Hebrew

• Basar: flesh or body. In Genesis, this comes from dirt, mud, or grime. It is the lowest basest element of man.
• Nephesh: soul or life force. In Genesis this is the life of a living thing. It can be said that animals and perhaps plants have nephesh or a living force within them.
• Ruach: spirit or breath. In Genesis, God breathes this into Adam and it is what makes human unique from all other animals. It is something we share with God – the intellectual and voluntary faculty that makes us rational animals or human.

Greek

• Sarx: flesh. In Greek it is the body but also includes the animal passions of the body for nutrition and sex. Saint Paul typically uses sarx to include the effects of original sin in all humans. Hence sarx has a somewhat pejorative meaning in the New Testament as in the sinful “law of the flesh.”
• Soma: body. This is a physical body and doesn’t necessarily include the passionate elements of sarx above, but it can. Used 129 times in NT.
• Psyche: soul or life force. The Greeks explicitly stated that all living things have a “soul” or psyche, including plants, animals, and humans. Some speculated whether each star and planet had a psyche since they also had an interior principle of motion similar to life. Used 105 times.
• Nous: mind. In Greek this refers to the highest intellectual faculty of the human.
• Pneuma: spirit or breath. This is a spiritual or supernatural element in man. Used 385 times, but about 80 times for the human spirit, as opposed to the Holy Spirit.

The Church Father Origen (who spoke Greek) speculated that “nous” referred to the human mind, but “pneuma” referred to the human mind redeemed and filled with grace. I rather like Origen’s suggestion. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Early Gnostics (drawing from Paul in 1 Corinthians, esp. chs. 2 and 15) spoke of three kinds of people:

1. sarkic or fleshly people. He relates this to Jews and unsaved people who have not the ability to see Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior. They live according to sight and according to the flesh. For Paul, the Jewish preoccupation with circumcision is an example of them living “by the flesh.”
2. pscyhic or soulish people. Common people in the mainstream church who have not been initiated into the deeper knowledge of the Gnostic teachers.
3. pneumatic or spiritual people. Those who have acquired the secret teachings passed along by visions or by secret traditions allegedly derived from the Paul or the Apostles.

Church Fathers on Bipartite vs. Tripartite

The Eastern Orthodox Church tends toward a tripartite anthropology and this likely derives from the distinctions of Saint Paul, but especially from the writings of Origen and, through his influence, the writings of the three Cappadocian Fathers Saint Basil, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and Saint Gregory Nazianzus. If you are interested in learning more about Origen and these three sainted teachers and their theology, please watch the NSTI video lessons on them in our Historical Theology Modules.

In the West, the Pelagian heretics wrongly taught that the soul and body were corrupted by sin, but that the human spirit remained unaffected by sin and remained righteous and good. Consequently, Saint Augustine and others blew a hole in the Pelagian tripartite anthropology showing that the moral state of the soul was the same as the moral state of the human spirit. The strict tripartite arrangement was associated with Pelagianism and was thus held suspect in the Latin West.

What and How Can We Speak of “Spirit and Soul”?

When speak of the soul by the Hebrews (nephesh) and by the Greeks (psyche), they spoke chiefly of life and motion. Oak trees, weeds, crabs, fish, squirrels, and gorillas possess this “life force” or “soul.” The Jews by divine revelation and the Greeks through philosophy were speaking of the same thing.

Even more, both understand that within the human person, there was something beyond the life force. Beyond our motion across earth. Beyond our pursuit for food and sex. It was something that set us apart. Something that made us religious and reflective. It is what made us homo liturgicus. It was the rational spirit they sparks within us the questions of “Why am I alive? What is the purpose of life? Who made us? What are we supposed to be doing? Where are we headed? What happens after all this?”

In the Latin West, we call this the “rational soul” or the “intellectus.” Those terms work, but I rather like the poetic distinction between the “soul” and the “spirit” in Scripture. As Saint Paul said, Adam had for us a soul. But Christ became for us a “life giving spirit.” Here Paul doesn’t mean that Christ was a docetic or solely spiritual phantasm. Rather, he is capturing that Christ becomes for us the means by which we find the answers to the spiritual questions that I’ve listed above.

And as Origen (though not a saint and somewhat dangerous) observed, his suggestion that “mind/intellect” and “spirit” are simply two ways of referring to the same thing but from different points of view – with the spirit being the way to refer to the illuminated and redeemed mind.

It seems that the presence of the divine Holy Spirit in our soul transforms our intellect into a spiritual intellect or into a spirit. My guess is that the liturgical response “and with your spirit” is an acknowledgment of this reality in the communal life of the Church. When we respond that way, we aren’t just saying “and also with you,” but we are acknowledging the transformative power of the Holy Spirit within the celebrant.

The post Do we have spirit, soul, and body or just soul and body? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

In 2014, I published a historical fiction novel about the legend of Saint George and the dragon (titled Sword and Serpent) that debuted at #1 on Amazon.com in Young Adult Religious at both Historical and Action!!! I’m grateful to everyone who read it and reviewed it!

Yesterday I published the sequel to Sword and Serpent titled The Tenth Region of the Night: Sword and Serpent Book II. It also has reached #1 Bestseller status in those categories as well as in “Hot New Releases.”

The new novel’s cover depicts a Greek ouroboros – a snake eating itself. Evil always turns in on itself – and this is the plot of the novel. Just before daybreak (what the Egyptians call the “Tenth Region of the Night”), evil is thoroughly destroyed by the dawning light – Saint George, the martyrs, and Constantine’s conversion.

If you’d like to immerse yourself into the life of early persecuted Christians (circa AD 299) with the likes of Saint George (Jurian), Saint Nicholas (Nikolaos), Saint Christopher (Menas), Saint Catherine (Aikaterina), Constantine, and Saint Helen, then please explore these novels.

It’s what would happen if you mishmashed stories like The Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, and Hunger Games with historic truths about relics, miracles, bilocating saints, popes, and self-sacrifice. What if epic adventures didn’t have in a far away fantasy world…but happened in the Roman Empire in AD 299. That’s this story…and it has something like a dragon it!

Just like last time, 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)

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

1. Take an Epic #Selfie with the Book
(Prize: $50 Amazon Gift Card AND a free signed copy of Tenth Region)

HOW TO ENTER: Take a photo with the book The Tenth Region of the Night. Extra points will be awarded for costumes or exotic places. 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 The Tenth Region count (printed, ebook).

2. Create The Tenth Region of the Night Cocktail/Beverage (Prize: $25 Amazon Gift Card)

HOW TO ENTER: That’s right mixologists, here’s a contest for you! Using ideas, concepts, locations, items, people, or ingredients mentioned in the book Tenth Region (Saint Anastasia is a pharmacist in the novel!), create the official The Tenth Region of the Night cocktail or beverage. Send an email to swordandserpent+drink@gmail.com and write down the recipe, take a photo of the drink, and the explain how it relates to the book.

RULES:

• This is not a drawing. It is performance based. The best concotion wins.
• The drink need not be alcoholic. It could be a kid’s milk shake or soda concoction. Or it could be “Menas Mojito” inspired by dragons, the Aikaterina Sleeper Martini, Constantine, and/or the sword of Saint George. Get epic. Get crazy. Have fun with it. Take pics.

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

HOW TO ENTER: Buy just one copy of The Tenth Region of the Night 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 The Tenth Region of the Night 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.

4. Christmas Contest (Prize: an iPad Mini mailed to your house! AND a free signed copy of Tenth Region)

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.

5. Review the Novel at Amazon.com (Prize: $100 Amazon Gift Card AND a free signed copy of Tenth Region)

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.

6. Write a Blog Post about Sword and Serpent
(Prize: $50 Amazon Gift Card + a promo link to your blog from my blog)

HOW TO ENTER: Write a blog post about The Tenth Region of the Night 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 the amazon.com link: http://amzn.to/2gOQq3N
• Winner will be drawn at random on December 24.

7. 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/2gOQq3N

RULES:

• Please feel free to use the book video trailer from Book I: http://youtu.be/lN8dFJEOQ_8
• Please include the amazon.com link to Tenth Region of the Night: http://amzn.to/1HPEMLf
• Winner will be drawn at random.

8. Book Club Contest (Prize $75 Gift Card to Restaurant and Skype Chat with Me and your Group AND a free signed copy of Tenth Region)

HOW TO ENTER: Gather a book group of at least five friends who will read the The Tenth Region of the Night and meet to discuss. The winner will get a $75 restaurant gift certificate to pay for food or drinks for your book club. I will also sit down with you via internet interview in Skype or Google Hangout for 15 minutes to talk about the book and answer group questions. Send an email to swordandserpent+bookclub@gmail.com with a link to an Evite or other online invitation showing four or more attendees.

RULES:

• The primary purpose of the meeting should be discussion of The Tenth Region of the Night.
• One entry per group.
• You can choose the restaurant, but please find one that has gift cards so I can pay for it.
• Winner will be drawn at random.
• I will arrange my schedule around the winner’s book club meeting to do the Skype interview. It’ll be fun!

Okay, there are the 8 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: The Tenth Region of the Night.

To everyone who already made The Tenth Region of the Night 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 Orthodox Catholic Fiction Novel = #1 Bestseller in Youth Historical/Action appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

For Audio Podcast version of: “My True Opinion of Martin Luther” click here.

Essentially, Francis teaches us that we cannot fight heresy by creating new heresies. Francis always submitted to the Church, the popes, and the bishops.

The post How St Francis differed from Martin Luther or Catholic Reform vs. Protestant Reform appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

[If you don’t see the video in your browser or email, click here to begin watching.]

This is lesson 7 of Church History: Module 2 – Redemptive History: Christ of the Covenants. To sign up and watch the rest of the lessons and modules in this Catholic Church History Course (and earn a Certificate), please visit: New Saint Thomas Institute’s Certificate in Catholic History:

[reminder]Do you agree that dating the Dormition/Assumption to AD 63 makes the most sense?[/reminder]

And here are some interesting resources for you as we celebrate Our Lady’s Dormition and Assumption:

1. Did the Virgin Mary Die? The Answer May Surprise You (The majority tradition in Catholic history is that Our Lady did experience the separation of body and soul.)
2. Audio: Mary as Assumed in Revelation 12 Podcast: Our Lady of the Apocalypse
3. Did Christ receive an assumption or ascension or both?
4. The year of the assumption according to Maria Agreda
5. The Assumption of Saint Joseph – A forgotten tradition
6. If you deny the Assumption – You have fallen away!
7. Saint Gregory of Tours on the Assumption
8. The Assumption of Mary in the Book of Psalms
9. Does the Rosary Pre-Date Dominic?
10. Mary’s Special Role over Purgatory
11. Mary’s Empty Tomb Information
12. Did Pope Pius XII Teach that Mary died? Yes he did

Enjoy!

to Jesus through Mary,
Taylor Marshall

The post Catholic Video: What is the Historical Date of Mary’s Assumption? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

But in reality, she looks like Saint Clare of Assisi:

St Clare is a Virgin Warrior against Islamic Terror!

In AD 1240, Saint Clare shielded her convent from Muslims through the power of the Eucharist.

The Muslims (and the Vikings) were increasingly aware that Catholic convents contained gold, treasure, and…virgins.

As the Muslims invaded the walls of her convent, Saint Clare of Assisi entered into spiritual battle and she took up the most powerful shield known to men or angels:

“By imperial order, regiments of Saracen soldiers and bowmen were stationed there (the convent of San Damiano in Assisi, Italy), massed like bees, ready to devastate the encampments and seize the cities. Once, during an enemy attack against Assisi, city beloved of the Lord, and while the army was approaching the gates, the fierce Saracens invaded San Damiano, entered the confines of the monastery and even the very cloister of the virgins. The women swooned in terror, their voices trembling with fear as they cried to their Holy Mother Clare.

Saint Clare, with a fearless heart, commanded them to lead her, sick as she was, to the enemy, preceded by a silver and ivory monstrance in which the Body of the Holy of Holies was kept with great devotion. And prostrating herself before the Lord, she spoke tearfully to her Christ:

‘Behold, my Lord, is it possible You want to deliver into the hands of pagans Your defenseless handmaids, whom I have taught out of love for You? I pray You, Lord, protect these Your handmaids whom I cannot now save by myself.’

Suddenly a voice like that of a child resounded in her ears from the tabernacle: ‘I will always protect you!’ ‘My Lord,’ she added, ‘if it is Your wish, protect also this city which is sustained by Your love.’ Christ replied, ‘It will have to undergo trials, but it will be defended by My protection.’

Then the virgin, raising a face bathed in tears, comforted the sisters: ‘I assure you, daughters, that you will suffer no evil; only have faith in Christ.’

Upon seeing the courage of the sisters, the Saracens took flight and fled back over the walls they had scaled, unnerved by the strength of she who prayed. And Clare immediately admonished those who heard the voice I spoke of above, telling them severely: ‘Take care not to tell anyone about that voice while I am still alive, dearest daughters.’” (The History of Saint Clare the Virgin by Tommaso da Celano)

This episode is the reason that Saint Clare is so often depicted holding a Eucharistic monstrance (sometimes against the Muslim invaders in the photo below):

I was recently at the tomb of Saint Clare in Assisi. I have a twin daughter named after Saint Clare and so this 800 year old saint from Assisi holds a special place in my heart. Here’s a photo of my with my twin daughters praying at the tomb of the Saint Clare:

And me with my daughter named after Saint Clare still down in the crypt of Saint Clare of Assisi:

And with another daughter sneaking in from below:

St Clare is the patroness of television, and you can read about how she had a flat screen TV 800 years ago by clicking here.

Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall

The post St Clare: Virgin Warrior against Islamic Terror! appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. Edith was born on the Jewish feast day of the Day of Atonement.
   From an early age she perceived herself as special chosen by God and situated her own life into the Jewish theology of atonement. Whereas ancient Old Testament Judaism has a rich theology of blood atonement, contemporary rabbinical Judaism (as I cover The Crucified Rabbi) has no way of providing blood atonement according to the precepts of Moses.
2. Edith lost faith in early Feminist movement.
   She described herself as a “radical suffragette” who eventually “lost interest in the whole issue.” She turned to philosophy and then eventually Catholicism to provide answers to the problems facing women in the 20th century. Ultimately, she found those answers in the Carmelite convent as a place of silence, religious obedience, mortification, study, and prayer.
3. Edith studied phenomenology under the guidance philosopher Max Scheler.
   Philosophy has been plagued by the problem of how the mind knows and interacts with the world. If our perceptions are different from one another and different at various times of life, is there truly an objective reality outside our mind. Phenomenology seeks to bridge the real world to the phenomena of our mind. Ultimately, it took a Catholic guide in the person of Max Scheler to guide Edith to the philosophical Realism that Catholicism offers. Scheler called his philosophy a “return to things” or a “turn to reality.”
4. Edith’s dissertation thesis was titled “The Problem of Empathy.”
   As a professor myself, you can tell a lot about a professor by just knowing the title of the doctoral dissertation. The philosophy of empathy (literally “suffering in another”) maps neatly onto Catholicism, with its universal call to mercy and its pattern of faithful suffering and martyrdom. Even before she was a Catholic, she wrote the following in her dissertation: “There have been people who believed that a sudden change had occurred within them and that this was a result of God’s grace.” Clearly, she was already finding her way to Christ.
5. Edith read the autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila in one night.
   During her philosophical struggles with empathy, psychology, and suffering, she came across a book about the Carmelite spiritual master Saint Teresa Avila. “When I had finished the book, I said to myself: This is the truth.” Notice she said “the truth” and not simply “truth.” She had found Christ Himself.

I’m sure there are dozens of other events and inspirations that led Edith Stein into the Catholic Church. She was baptized on the feast of the Circumcision of Christ (Jan 1) in 1922. She entered the Carmelite convent twelve years later in 1934 taking the name Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (German: Teresia Benedicta vom Kreuz). She received the crown of martyrdom under the Nazis on August 9, 1942

Saint John Paul II canonized Edith on Oct 11 1998 as “a daughter of Israel” and as a martyr of the Catholic Church.

One interesting fact is that the final miracle for her canonization came from Eastern Catholic devotion to her. You can read about that miracle among the Melkite Catholics here.

[reminder]Do you have devotion to Saint Teresa Benedicta? Do you know of any other intimate details from her life?[/reminder]

The post 5 Reasons Why Jewish Prof. Edith Stein Became a Catholic Nun appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Ever since Cardinal Sarah’s ad orientem endorsement, and subsequent slap down by voices in the Holy See, there is debate on both sides favoring ad orientem celebration of the Holy Mass.

My goal here is show that both ad orientem AND versus populum are part of the ancient Roman Rite – and to show how the ciborium/baldacchino is a determining factor in the architecture governing each. Before we get started, let’s define vocab and issue a clarification to the liturgical police on each extreme:

Defining Terms of the Debate

ad orientem: Latin for “to the East.” For those new to the debate, ad orientem refers to the priest celebrating Mass on the same side of the altar as the people. People wrongfully call this “priest with his back to the people.”

versus populum: Latin for “toward the people.” This refers to the priest celebrating Mass on the opposite side of altar so that he is facing the people in the nave.

ad Deum: People wrongfully use ad Deum (Latin for “toward God”) as a synonym for ad orientem. I dislike this usage because it’s confusing and it presumes that versus populum is not ad Deum or “toward God.” When Pope Boniface VIII celebrated Holy Mass in AD 1300 at Old Saint Peter’s Basilica versus populum, he was celebrating Mass ad Deum (to God). It’s blasphemous to say otherwise. A valid Mass is always ad Deum no matter where the priest stands.

ciborium: Usually this refers to the precious vessel that holds the hosts during Mass. It can also roofed baldacchino that stands over the altar.

Showing My Liturgical Preference Cards Up Front

When writing about liturgy, everyone wants to size you up and classify you: Is he trad, is he liberal, is he reform-of-the-reform, whatever. So here is my perspective. I prefer the EF Latin Mass and I’m a member of a FSSP parish. But I attend the so-called Novus Ordo for daily Mass – and I usually attend the Novus Ordo when I travel. I have attended the Novus Ordo in Saint Peter’s Rome. I’ve attended the EF Latin Mass in Saint Peter’s in Rome. I received Jesus Christ and for this I’m grateful.

I can serve the EF. I’m good at Latin and I understand most of it in the Mass. I can listen to the Epistle and Gospel in Latin and understand it.

I love ad orientem. I find priests smiling over the altar as distracting. Personally, I find the priest facing with the congregation more Christocentric. For me, the elevation is more dramatic and devltional ad orientem. Silent canon makes more sense ad orientem, in my opinion. All pluses from my point of view.

Conclusion: I like the Latin Mass, but I never make a stink of it. I’m not exclusivist.

Talking Latin Mass Will Always Get You Judged…

I almost hate writing about anything Latin Mass because it gets me labeled by both extremes in the Church. So let me just issue a clarification:

For liturgical progressives who want to judge me: I don’t believe that attending the EF Latin Mass is a statement or that it means that one is “rad trad” or hates his local bishop or the Pope. Far from it. I love the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I attend it daily. I love my local bishop and pray for him daily. I love the Holy Father and pray for him daily and was even honored to shake his hand recently when he kissed my baby. I know that these hostile elements can exist in the “trad movement” but I’m not into that. So if you want to lump me in with the “mean Latin Mass haters,” you’re wrong.

For Traddies who want to judge me: I don’t think that Latin EF Mass and ad orientem is divinely mandated liturgy, nor do I think it’s always the best. If you think for saying this, I’m a Freemason, heretic, idolator, New World Order-ist, Novus Ordo-ist, Neo-Catholic – you’re incorrect and I’ll ignore your comments.

Both Versus Populum and Ad Orientem in the Roman Tradition

I just got back from Rome. If you’ve been there, you know already that the major churches in Rome have always had the priest facing the people over the altar (photos at the end of the post):

• St Peter’s
• St Paul’s outside the Walls
• St John Lateran
• St Mary Major
• St Clement’s
• St Maria in Trastavere

Why? Because versus populum was part of the ancient Roman tradition. Where there was space and a big budget (as in these important Roman churches), they worked it versus populum. However, this elegant arrangement usually requires the presence of a ciborium (a stone canopy or baldacchino) over the altar.

Where there isn’t space to do it right (that is, no ciborium over altar), they worked ad orientem with dignity.

Those that study the issue know that it has to do with whether a Roman ciborium/baldacchino can be built over the altar. Generally speaking, if there is a ciborium, it’s versus populum. If not, there’s ad orientem.

There is a Roman way of doing versus populum and Pope Benedict pointed that out: screens and/or baldacchino, candles on the altar (causing visual disruption), and especially a crucifix in the middle. The silent canon especially balances out versus populum and the attention on the priest.

My personal preference would be that everything should be ad orientem – unless you can install a ciborium/baldacchino over the altar – ideally with a sunken confessio for relics under the altar. If not, it should be ad orientem.

The problem, in my unimportant layman’s point of view, is that parishes in the 1950s-1980s plunged into versus populum altars without understanding the ancient Roman requisites for such people-facing altars. So now we have a churches where the altar lacks dignity and is often dwarfed by “the presiders chair” and the ambo. The ciborium canopy magnified the dignity of the altar within the versus populum context. We need to rediscover this feature of Roman liturgy and architecture. We need to start building a ciborium canopy over the altar.

Photos of Examples of Versus Populum with Proper Ciborium

Here are photos of the churches above showing how the ancient Roman versus populum worked with the ciborium canopy or baldacchino:

Here’s Pope Pius XII celebrating versus populum…but under the baldacchino with candle and crucifix “obstruction.”

Here’s the Pope’s cathedral Saint John Lateran. Note the amazing baldacchino which contains the skulls of Saint Paul and Saint Peter behind the gold grating above the altar:

Here’s my favorite church Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome. Historic versus populum, but with a baldacchino. This church is so God-honoring. Beauty. Truth. Goodness. I try to attend Sunday Mass here (Ordinary Form) whenever I can:

And here’s San Clemente in Rome. Small church with versus populum with a modest baldacchino:

I could also include Saint Mary Major and Saint Paul’s outside the Walls. The point is, if you’re going to do versus populum, you need a baldacchino/ciborium over the altar. If not, ad orientem tends to be the “traditional” way to construct a church.

Comments

[reminder]I’d love to hear your thoughts and comments. Do you have a preference? How is your parish set up? Do you like it or not? How could we improve our altars using the Roman churches as models?[/reminder]

The post Which is MORE Traditional: Mass ad orientem or versus populum? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

NSTI Catholic Video Lesson on the Life and Theology of Origen, student member link here:

But today we are getting crazy and talking about Origen…and his view of predestination as it relates to pre-existent souls.

Catholics and the Problem of Predestination

We have often discussed the intramural Catholic debate about Predestination over at the New Saint Thomas Institute: Augustine, double predestination, Molinism, Thomas Aquinas, Jansenism, etc.

Most new Catholic students react by saying, “Well we’re Catholics. We don’t believe in predestination.” The problem is that it is in the Bible and so we have to account for what it means. Saint Paul refers to predestination:

Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

The Greek word is προορίζω (proorizó).

To lay my cards on the table, I float back and forth between Molinism and Thomas Aquinas’s solution. If you are interested in this topic in Catholic theology and history, please use the search function at taylormarshall.com or better yet watch some of our videos on Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and the topic of predestination.

Origen and Predestination

One perspective that I’ve avoided entirely is the solution to predestination presented by Origen of Alexandria. This really out there, so hang with me.

Origen, in his book Peri Archon, states repeatedly that all rational creatures were once equally ranked minds prior to the creation of the universe.

According to Origen, God created millions of minds. He then tested these minds and they strayed from God to greater or lesser degrees.

1. Those that hardly strayed became angels and were arranged in an angelic hierarchy in accord to their fidelity to God.
2. Those that strayed more were destined to become humans in the future.
3. Those that strayed far away from God became demons and were arranged in a demonic hierarchy in accord to their hatred for God.

One of Origen’s favorites verses was Jeremiah 1:5:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

For Origen this proves that Jeremiah (and all humans) existed before they were formed in the womb – and some were already consecrated.

Another one from the canonical scriptures would be Wisdom 8:19-20:

“As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.”

This verse seem to hold that “a good soul feel to my lot” and that the soul pre-existed the body and entered into it.

Origen also states that out of the millions of minds, one single mind did not stray at all. This one single soul remained 100% allied with God’s will and so it was immediately united with the Divine Logos – the Second Person of the Trinity. This was the soul that would eventually assume a body in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Now Origen, then claims that it appears entirely unjust for some people to be born as Moses, Abraham, David, or John the Baptist while others are born as heathens. That’s totally unfair and this is often a topic of debate in youth groups and philosophical symposia about God’s justice.

Origen, says: “The answer is easy! Everyone is given a perfectly crafted life in conformity to their fidelity to God in the test prior to creation.”

So if a baby dies early. If a person is born in idolatrous India. If a girls is born in 1873 into the Martin family in Lisieux, France. If a boy is born into the Polish Wojtyła family in 1920…All these scenarios follow from God’s judgment of a soul’s response to God before creation.

Origen states that every person’s life was designed for their salvation based on their previous inclination (or lack thereof) in the test prior to the creation of the galaxy.

Origen says that Taylor Marshall was born into a nominally Christian home in Fort Worth Texas and given all by set backs and privileges based on how my pre-existent mind behaved toward God zillions of years ago.

Assessment of Origen and Predestination

Mormons have taken Origen’s doctrine of pre-existent souls. They hold something similar. Catholics, however, reject these schema. It has, however, been held by Catholics:

• Origen died in good standing.
• It’s likely that Clement of Alexandria held to this view of pre-existent souls.
• Didymus the Blind (a saint in the Oriental Orthodox Churches) held it.
• Perhaps Saint Gregory of Nyssa held it.
• The early Saint Basil the Great and the early Saint Gregory of Nazianzus held it. They later reject it.
• Allegedly, Saint Jerome held to this view in his early priesthood but later condemned it loudly and insistently.
• And there is no doubt that Evagrius Ponticus held to this view of pre-existence of souls and especially held to the role of the one sinless mind that became the soul of Christ which united to the Logos.
• The doctrine of pre-existent souls was condemned by the local Synod of Constantinople (AD 543) then again by the Emperor Justinian in his Edict of AD 544.
• The 5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II in 553) allegedly condemned this theology, but modern scholars are divided on whether the Fathers of the Council truly ratified the rulings of the Synod of Constantinople in AD 543.
• Notably, many of the quotes condemned as “Origenist” actually come from a book written by Evagrius Ponticus.

I don’t see how a Catholic would want to follow this view of predestination by Origen. I can see why a Catholic would be attracted to it. It levels out divine justice. It’s almost like Hindu karma. It allows a Christian to say, “So you don’t like your life? Sorry, but you earned it millions of years ago in a spiritual realm where you tested and apparently you failed. If you had acted better, you’d be Saint Michael the Archangel or a cherub. As it is, you are merely you. God has given you this particular life because it is the best way for you to be saved. Offer it up!”

Despite Jeremiah 1:5 stating “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you,” Sacred Scripture teaches that we come into being in our mother’s womb. We don’t pre-exist. The mystery of why Moses was born Moses and Pharoah was born Pharaoh remains a mystery. The tension I read in Romans 8-10 seems to keep this tension and does nothing to resolve it.

For this reason, the Catholic tradition has sought to find alternate views of predestination. Augustine holding to an unconditional predestination. Molinism holding to foreseen merits. And then various versions of the two systems.

One final strike against pre-existent souls is that none of us remember it. It seems that if we are punished or rewarded, we should know. That alone seems unjust.

[reminder]The first time I heard, my mind was blown. I’m interested to hear your thoughts and questions on this topic. I look forward to your thoughts.[/reminder]

The post Origen’s Solution to the Predestination Debate appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Ms. Horner writes:

Every single day before communion, millions of Christians verbally declare one of the most destructive phrases in human history.

Stop the press.The tribunal of the Huffington Post’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has made a judgment. According to them, Catholics are daily reciting: “one of the most destructive phrases in human history.” How awful. Catholics are ruining their self-esteem daily by saying these words in public:

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

This statement, a recitation of Matthew 8:8, is one of the most destructive phrases in human history…and it has a long history. Every Roman Catholic Pope, bishop, priest, and pious laymen has been reciting this (biblical) phrase daily for over 1,300 years. Yet according to Ms. Horner this acclamation of “unworthiness” is one of the most destructive things a Christian can say.

She is incorrect, but I can see where she is coming form. Our American culture is a cult of self-esteem. In the United States, we are taught that depression, theft, rape, murder, racism, war, unemployment, etc. are essentially caused by a lack of self-esteem.

Dignus, Dignity, and the Imago Deo

Since our culture has lost its roots in the virtue tradition of Christendom, we no longer understand human dignity in terms of being conformed to the imago Dei (image of God). Our worth is no longer related to a divine being that loved to create us and loves to redeem us.

True human dignity relies on theism. When we say in Mass “Lord, I am not worthy, the Latin is “Domine, non sum dignus.” You don’t need to know Latin to see that dignus (Latin: “worthy”) is related to our English term “dignity.”

This is where Ms. Horner at the Huffington Post misses the mark. She claims that our saying, “Lord I am not worthy” is a form “negative reinforcement.” For her it confirms the alleged Catholic strategy of drowning people in guilt and unworthiness – which to her translates as fostering low self-esteem.

Self-Esteem or God-Esteem

The Huffington Post lacks the theological foundation to understand that promoting self-esteem without God-esteem is the path to destruction and sorrow. The “You go girl!” culture of self-affirmation and self-esteem trumpeted by secularist outlets like the Huff-Po for the last 30 years attempts to produce “esteem” from a collective. If enough people say, “You are so beautiful” then this will translate to a girl truly believing she is beautiful. If enough people just say, “You are so intelligent,” it will translate into intelligent people.

The problem for them is that this approach to esteem relies on a consistent collective that reinforces the message. This is why “bullies” are such a problem in the modern self-esteem cult. They are destroying the collective affirmation process. And then there is also the inconsistent messaging. Every one is told they are equally special and worthy, but the media outlets quietly suggest that some are more special and worthy. Taylor Swift, Robert Downey Jr, Jennifer Lawrence, Johnny Depp, Ryan Gosling, and Emma Stone seem be more worthy than the rest of us.

So where do we find find esteem or worthiness?

Worthiness, Suffering, and Martyrdom

When we look at Christianity at the turn of the 4th century, we find Christians standing up to the supreme arbitrator and law giver (the Roman Emperor) and the entire political/social collective (the Roman Empire) for the sake of a dignus that was not granted by collective, the media, the culture, or the secular state.

They discovered a divine dignus.

Saint Agnes of Rome cannot be persuaded to abandon Christ, her virginity, her modesty, or her virtue. Why is she so strong? Because the collective is coming together to affirm her?

No, she is so strong because she finds herself unworthy of anything outside of her life in Christo. Her esteem is thousands of times higher than the richest matrons of Rome – even higher than that of the senator or emperor himself. If Christ rose from the dead, and Christ is truly “under her roof,” well then she has it all.

The Huffington Post and the women’s mags at the supermarket checkout line are trying to lift “self-esteem” to empower people to love themselves and value themselves.

They are telling us, “Don’t say ‘I’m unworthy,’ but rather say ‘I am worthy of everything.’ Deep down inside say to yourself, ‘I have a perfect body. I’m rich. I’m popular. I’m basically Leonardo DiCaprio/Taylor Swift,’ and then you will be so!'”

But let’s be honest. That doesn’t work. And even if you are the sexiest or richest person of the year, does that translate to worthiness and happiness? Apparently not.

Liturgical Worthiness

Our liturgical affirmation Domine non sum dignus is not isolated. It is placed in a context. Let’s look at its location within the Roman Rite:

• Eucharistic Prayer
• Our Father
• “The peace of the Lord be with you always.”
• Agnus Dei
• “Lord I’m not worthy…”
• Reception of Communion

The acclamation, “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) by Saint John the Baptist is theologically proximate to “I am not worthy,” since John the Baptist also says, “even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (John 1:27).

The Christian who says, “I am not worthy” has just recited the Our Father, declaring that God is our Father. Not something we are inherently worthy of, but something He grants as a gratuitous gift. Next, the believer hears “The peace of the Lord be with you.” The liturgical context is essential familial, peaceful, and redemptive.

We do say, “I am not worthy,” but the “but” is important. We say, “but only say the word and my soul shall be cleaned.” This statement is an affirmation of hope!

And what is the next phrase that the priest proclaims to the Christian? He proclaims, “The Body of Christ,” and the believer receives the Eucharist. That is the word that makes clean. That is the word that makes worthy.

Conclusion on “Being Worthy”

Ms. Horner does a disservice by isolating one line of liturgical text from the whole of the Eucharistic liturgy. Most non-Catholics have no idea about its placement proximate to the Our Father, the peace, or the climax of Catholic liturgy in the reception of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Most non-Catholic readers do not understand that Christ enters “under the roof” of our mouths and that we become one in Him and He in us. Yet this is where we find our worthiness. When we esteem God, we find our dignity fully. God designed it that way.

Sadly, the cultural self-esteem cult of finding an ever larger and louder voice of affirmation will not transform a man or woman into something beautiful or truly worthy. Only God can do that for us. Without this Eucharistic miracle “under our roofs,” we will continue to be plagued by cultural decline, despair, and violence. With your kindness and love, share the Gospel with others. Invite them to Mass with you this Sunday. Let others see the hope that we have in the Eucharist.

Godspeed,

Taylor Marshall

The post In defense of “I am not worthy” in the Roman Mass appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Having just returned from teaching Roman Church History in Rome, I’ve been reviewing the history of Roman cardinals. Here’s a brief timeline:

• 6th century – In Rome the first cardinals were the seven deacons of the seven regions of the city. The deacons, not the presbyters, had immediate access to the Pope of Rome. This is why deacons in Rome were granted the privilege of wearing a more dignified vestment (the dalmatic) than that of the priest (the chasuble).
• 8th century – The term “cardinal” is attached to the senior priest (pastor) in each of the titular churches of Rome. For the significance of titulus in relation to the churches in Rome, see my book The Eternal City where I relate how the Latin term titulus was used to denote licensed altars in the city of Rome based on the Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) translation of the Old Testament.
• By decree of the Lateran Council of 769, only a cardinal priest or deacon was eligible to become pope. This is no longer the case. Any Catholic male may be elected as Pope. Laity could not participate in the election. Armed men could not be present for papal elections.
• 9th century – Pope Stephen V (816-17) decreed that all 7 cardinal bishops were bound to sing Mass on rotation at the high altar at St. Peter’s Basilica, one every Sunday. He also mentions the distinction of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and cardinal deacons.
• 11th century – In 1059, during the pontificate of Nicholas II, cardinal bishops were given the right to elect the pope under the Papal Bull In nomine Domini. Emperors could not nominate candidates or veto a winner. Emperors could still “confirm” the election. Election must take place in Rome. Pope is pope from moment of election and consent and not from coronation or enthronement.
• 12th century – At the Third Lateran Council in 1179 the right to the whole body of cardinals – bishops, priests and deacons – to elect the pope was re-established for the first time in over 100 years.
  Also, a 2/3 majority was required for a valid election.
• 13th century – In 1244, cardinals were granted the privilege of wearing the red hat by Pope Innocent IV.

Cardinals in Post-Tridentine Era

• The chief clergy of any diocese were often called cardinals. However, the use of the title “cardianl” was reserved for the cardinals of Rome in 1567 by Pope Saint Pius V.
• In 1517, Pope Leo X added 31 additional cardinals, bringing the total to a staggering 65 cadinals!
• Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) capped the number of cardinals to 70, comprising of:
  • 6 cardinal bishops,
  • 50 cardinal priests,
  • 14 cardinal deacons.
  • This was modeled on the Sandhedrin pattern of Moses and the Old Testament – seventy elders to assist in judging Israel.
• During the pontificate of Pope Saint John XXIII, the limit exceeded 70.
• 1965 Pope Paul VI also increased the number of cardinal bishops by giving that rank to patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
• In 1970, Pope Paul VI raised the number of cardinal electors at a cap of 120 cardinal electors while at the same time fixing the maximum age for cardinal electors at the age of 80 years. Hence, for the first time in history, elderly cardinals could no longer vote.
• Of the 117 cardinals under the age of 80 at the time of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, 115 participated in the conclave of March 2013 that elected his successor. The two who did not participate were Julius Riyadi Darmaatmadja (for health reasons) and Keith O’Brien (following allegations of sexual misconduct).
• As of 9 July 2016, there are a total of 212 cardinals, of whom 113 are cardinal electors under the age 80.

Pray for our current Holy Father Francis of Rome, and pray for our Cardinals who have been chosen by God to elect the next Holy Father.

And I just can’t resist, here’s the video from a week ago of Pope Francis kissing my baby: Click here to watch.

https://youtu.be/5nvvRd8GhkE

The post History of Catholic Cardinals: Their Power and Number appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

When you enter or leave your pew, you genuflect (bend the right knee all the way to touching the ground) to show your adoration for the Son of God who is present in the tabernacle.

Even if the tabernacle is in another place or room, I genuflect toward the crucifix at or on the altar since the Second Council of Nicea II of AD 787 (7th Ecumenical Council) teaches that the devotion we show to sacred images passes beyond the images to their prototypes (in this case from the crucifix to Christ Himself). It is perfectly orthodox to genuflect before a cross, crucifix, or image of Christ.

There is some confusion about whether to genuflect upon returning to your pew. The general custom is not to genuflect after receiving Holy Communion for devotional purposes. By not genuflecting you are confessing that you have become a filled tabernacle. The Holy Eucharist is in you. It’s not appropriate to genuflect in any direction because the Holy Eucharist is literally in your core. The orientation of worship is now interior.

There are stories of children genuflecting before their mothers coming back from the altar after just having received Holy Communion – which is beautiful and orthodox.

There is no official teaching, rule, or law (that I know of) about not genuflecting in the aisle after receiving Holy Communion, but the custom is not to genuflect – because Jesus the Lord is now inside you. You are a walking tabernacle.

[reminder]What do you do after Communion? Do you genuflect. Please share your thoughts or customs after Holy Communion.[/reminder]

PS: A double genuflection (both knees) is called for when the Holy Eucharist is exposed for adoration.

PPS: It’s traditional custom to genuflect on the left knee for a bishop or dignitary.

PPPS: If you have a bad knee, do whatever you can. It’s the heart that matters.

The post Why You Don’t Genuflect After Receiving Communion appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

30 Then Eli′jah said to all the people, “Come near to me”; and all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the Lord that had been thrown down; 31 Eli′jah took twelve stones [prefigures the 12 Apostles], according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord came, saying, “Israel shall be your name”; 32 and with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord. And he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed [2 measures of seed comes again with Elisha as a prophetic sign in 2 Kings 7]. 33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bull in pieces and laid it on the wood. And he said, “Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the burnt offering, and on the wood.” 34 And he said, “Do it a second time”; and they did it a second time. And he said, “Do it a third time”; and they did it a third time [triple pouring on the sacrifice with water – as a kind of baptism]. 35 And the water ran round about the altar, and filled the trench also with water.

36 And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. 37 Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that thou, O Lord, art God, and that thou hast turned their hearts back.” 38 Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. [here we have a prefigurement of Pentecost with the fire coming down from Heaven upon the “baptized sacrifice”] 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, “The Lord, he is God; the Lord, he is God.” 40 And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Ba′al; let not one of them escape.” And they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and killed them there.

The Church East and West conforms to a triple affusion (pouring) or triple immersion (dunking) with the recognition of the three Divine Persons of the Trinity. Prophetically, Elijah has the attendants pour water on the slaughtered sacrifice three times. It’s also no accident that Saint John the Baptist was the “new Elijah” teaching a new baptism.

Elijah poured water on the sacrifice to show that God’s fire is so hot and powerful that water cannot prevent it from burning the sacrifice.

I recently spoke of the life of the follower of Jesus as “being on sacrificial fire” (click here to read “Do you have fire in your soul?”). You may also want to listen to my presentation on on the apocryphal 1 Enoch and Tongues of fire here.

There is a connection between the mystery of water (baptism in Christ) and the mystery of fire (confirmation or chrismation in Christ), as Saint John the Baptist relates in his speaking of baptism by water and fire.

We do this every day. We wash our food and then we place it in the fire. When you slaughter animals, you wash the meat and then cook it. The many mikvehs of the Old Covenant were washings to prepare the believer for becoming a burnt sacrifice for God.

Hence, Christ’s baptism is a preparation for His burnt sacrifice (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, pentecost).

The priest washes his hands ceremonially because his hands are about to hold the burning coal of the sacrificial body of Christ.

In the Solemn High Mass (pre 1970), the priest sprinkled the faithful in the pews – to prepare them to become a burning sacrifice.

And of course, we will all be “salted with fire” when we die. It’s just a matter of whether we burn in this life (as sacrificial love) or burn some in the next age (in the purgatorial fires of 1 Cor 3:15).

Make your life into a bonfire.

Godspeed,

Taylor

PS: If you want to learn more about Old Testament and Jewish origins of Catholic sacraments and Catholic theology, check out my book The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholicism.

The post Elijah as a Type of Triple Baptism and Pentecost appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

[reminder]Do you have questions about Saint Justin Martyr? If so leave a comment.[/reminder]

The post Video Class: St Justin Martyr and Tatian the Heretic appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

A major theological controversy broke out in in the Catholic Church around the year AD 217 regarding adultery and fornication.

In 217, Pope Saint Callixtus I of Rome issued a decree that the sins of adultery and fornication could be remitted by the Catholic Church through the office of the bishop.

Tertullian, who rejected the Pope for this reason, directly quotes and preserves Pope Callixtus’s decree:

I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus, that is, the bishop of bishops, issues an edict:

“I remit, to such as have discharged the requirements of repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.”

It’s notable that Tertullian refers to the Bishop of Rome as the “bishop of bishops” and “Pontifiex Maximus.” Tertullian scholars believe that he was saying this tongue in cheek, because Tertullian held the lowest esteem for Bishop of Rome and Pope Callixtus in particular.

This merciful papal decree of 217 led to general scandal because it was generally believed that certain sins could not be absolved by the visible church. According to Tertullian (a great theological enemy of Pope Callixtus), once a baptized person committed any of the seven sins on the list below, he or she could not be absolved by the visible church:

1. murder
2. idolatry
3. fraud
4. apostasy (publicly renouncing Jesus Christ)
5. blasphemy
6. adultery (sex with someone besides your spouse)
7. fornication (sex outside marriage)
   (this list is found in Tertullian’s De Pudicitia*, Ch 19).

Tertullian vs. Pope Calixtus

Tertullian, citing ancient custom, claimed that a sinner could be forgiven directly by Jesus Christ for these seven sins; however, the Catholic Church on earth could not absolve these seven sins and those that committed them would and should remain excommunicated and outside the Catholic Church until death. If you were baptized and committed one of these seven sins, you could never in your life receive the Holy Eucharist. Period. End of story. Close the book.

Anti-Pope Hippolytus vs. Pope Callixtus

The Catholic Church’s first Anti-Pope (a man falsely claiming to be Pope against a valid Pope) arose in response to the 217 decree of Pope Callixtus allowing the absolution of fornication and adultery. While Tertullian was railing against Pope Callixtus’s laxity, some traditions say that a priest in Rome named Hippolytus rebelled against his Pope Callixtus and set himself up as a rival Bishop of Rome against Callixtus on the issue of absolution for adulterers and fornicators. It is unclear if Hippolytus claimed to be a full blown “Bishop of Rome” or merely a reformer set against the laxity of Callixtus. Either way we can see that even the clergy of Rome were divided over this issue.

Hippolytus writes that during the pontificate of Pope Callixtus, men in holy orders began taking wives and Callixtus did not censure them for sin or depose them (Refutation of All Heresies 9, 7). Hippolytus claims that clergy were even being married two to three times after ordination. Divorce and remarriage among the clergy!

Concerning Pope Callixtus, Hippolytus writes:

And in justification, [Callixtus] alleges that what has been spoken by the Apostle has been declared in reference to this person: “Who are you that judges another man’s servant?”

Hippolytus goes on to lament that Catholic women in Rome began to engage in contraception and abortion:

Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round [their belly], so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church!

And so there was great scandal in Rome concerning Pope Callixtus (who is a canonized Catholic saint).

Can Mortal Sins Be Forgiven? Callixtus says Yes

Center to the debate between Pope Calixtus and Tertullian/Hippolytus was the passage in 1 John concerning “mortal sins”:

And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. (1 Jn 5:15-16)

Both Tertullian and Hippolytus claimed that the Apostle John taught the Catholic Church that prayer should not be made for those whose sin is mortal. Saint John explicitly says: “I do not say that one is to pray for that.” So for them, there was Apostolic teaching that mortal sins should not receive the intercession of the public and visible Church. According to Tertullian and Hippolytus, if you committed apostasy or adultery or fornication, then the Church had nothing for you. No prayer. No Eucharist. Nothing. After all, didn’t Saint John teach the same thing?

Binding and Loosing in Saint Peter’s Rome

We don’t have the exegetical response of Pope Saint Callixtus but I can make a conjecture of his orthodox response: Saint John said that we are not obliged to pray for mortal sins. However, we find two truths in the Gospels that show us that the visible Catholic Church can and should absolve mortal sins (even the mortal sins on Tertullian’s list of seven):

1. The power to bind and loose on earth as given by Christ to Peter in Matthew 16. Saint Peter and the bishops of Rome do have the power to bind and loose sins and to modify customs for the sake of Christ’s mercy and salvation for sinners. Pope Callixtus was using the power of the keys as the Successor of Saint Peter.
2. Peter committed apostasy on Good Friday. He was reestablished visibly and publicly by Christ. Christ did not leave Peter without prayer and sacraments until death. He publicly raised Peter back to his rank with the question: “Simon do you love me” three times.

The Catholic Church, the Pope, and the Ministry of Mercy

Nowadays it seems unthinkable that the austere rigorism of Tertullian and Hippolytus was once normative in the Catholic Church of AD 217. Back then it was generally assumed that after baptism, Catholics did not commit adultery, fornication, murder, apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy, or fraud. It just wasn’t supposed to happen. Remember, this was the persecuted Catholic Church of the martyrs. If you were baptized, you were signing up for possible martyrdom!

Origen (who died in 254), it seems, was baptized as an infant, but 90% or more of Christians at this time were not baptized as children. They made a careful and prayerful decision to follow Christ and receive baptism. Most of them had friends or family who were actual martyrs for Christ. These were serious Christians and once we recognize this reality, we see how “mortal sins” were a real issue.

In the Catholic Church, we see a theological shift happening in AD 217. The reality of Romans 7 comes alive: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” For this reason, the Church as the Body of Christ can visibly execute the mercy of Christ to mortal sinners.

Many Catholics began to report that the Rigorist position against absolving sin removed forgiveness and yet did not remove sin – because even the Rigorists had scandalous sins among them.

Repentance and Mercy

Pope Callixtus and the Catholic tradition afterward was not entirely lax, and she always required the act of ecclesial repentance for sin. “Going straight to Jesus” for the forgiveness of mortal sin has never been approved. If we commit a mortal sin, we must go and confess it to a priest in confession. We believe that forgiveness is tied to the Church and her powers that she received directly from Jesus Christ.

If a sin can be absolved through the bishop and the priests he appoints, then any sin can be absolved through the bishop and the priests. This is the great mercy and comfort of being a Catholic

Godspeed,

Taylor Marshall

PS: If you are interested in these types of topics, can get all three volumes of my Origins of Catholic Christianity at amazon.com.

* Of note, Tertullian in De Pudicitia claims that Saint Barnabas wrote the Epistle of Hebrews in union with Saint Paul. I claim that Tertullian is wrong on this point and Hebrews was written by Saint Luke and give my reasons in my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul.

The post Could Adultery and Fornication be Forgiven in the Early Catholic Church? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Renee, a student member of the New Saint Thomas Institute recently asked this question:

Ok, I am confused about something in regard to this subject.
As Jesus hung on the cross, one of the crucified thieves acknowledged Him as the Son of God, acknowledged Christ’s innocence, confessed his own sins, and asked to be remembered. The Bible says: (Luke 23:43) ‘Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” ‘
Since Jesus truly died, then descended into hell to preach, and then rose again on the third day, how is the construction of the sentence in Luke 23:43 possible? It makes sense to me if you move the comma like so: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise”.

What is going on with this passage? How can the thief be with Jesus in paradise on THAT day when Jesus has descended (or will descend) into hell? Does the original Greek have a different context? Any help would be appreciated.

And here is my answer:

In Catholic tradition, we speak of Hell as “Infernum” in Latin, “Hades” in Greek, or “Sheol” in Hebrew. All three terms refer to the “grave” or the place “below” where the dead go.

The great Catholic scholastic theologians (eg, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, et al.) teach that infernum has four sections or abodes:

Gehenna (where damned people go – the lake of fire)
Purgatory (where saved people go to be purified – 1 Cor 3:15)
Limbo of the Fathers (a natural paradise where Old Testament believers waited for Christ to die – Abraham’s bosom)
Limbo of the Children (a natural paradise for children)

[Limbus in Latin means “out edge” or “hem.” It’s the place or state of being away from the fires of hell. it is described as a natural paradise.]

Catholic doctrine holds that when Christ died on the cross on Good Friday, His soul descended ad inferos “to the dead” in the Limbo of the Fathers. This is where we get “waiting in Limbo” from – since the OT believers were “waiting in Limbo” for Christ to die for their sins.

When Christ died, he went down into this natural paradise of Limbo (located inside “hell” or infernum) as a victorious champion over Satan, Hell, and death. He did not go there to suffer the pains of hell.

So Jesus met Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, David, Ruth, Anne, Joseph, John the Baptist, and all the saints of the OT and the thief on the cross in Limbo, which was a paradise and then he lifted this reality up to Heaven with the beatific vision.

In this way Jesus both descended ad inferos and opened Heaven to them in Heaven.

Godspeed,

Taylor Marshall

PS: Log into the New Saint Thomas Institute and follow the discussion.

The post Descended into Hell and Today you will be with me in Paradise: How does this fit? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The Council of Elvira (Spain, AD 305) prohibited the washing of feet because heretical ideas were being associated with it: “The feet of the newly baptized are not to be washed by the priests or clerics” (Elvira 48). Saint Ambrose of Milan, against this rulings of the Council, considered foot washing to be “sacrament” of great importance. In Milan and other places, “foot washing” was a prelude to sacramental baptism.

The Albigensian heretics held foot washing in high esteem and assigned to it a theological importance without parallel in the orthodox Catholic Church. Up until the last century, Popes, Abbots, and Kings would wash the feet of the poor as a sign of humility and servant leadership. More on that later.

Foot Washing Enters the Mass in 1955

Up until 60 years ago, the custom of foot washing did not appear in the Roman Eucharistic liturgy. Until 1955, the Roman Missal included a rite of foot washing detached from the Mass. Pope Pius XII was the first Pope to have foot washing included in the Mass and it was stipulated that it would be the feet of men, presumably as a sign of the male-only priesthood.

Hence, foot washing is relatively new liturgical rite. 

In 2013, Pope Francis washed the feet of two women and non-Christians (Muslims) at a juvenile detention center in Rome 2013. Pope Francis revised the direction of the Roman Missal in 2016 to include men and women as a sign of inclusion.

Theology of Foot Washing? Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine:

I wrote a well-known book on Judaism and Catholicism that covers the liturgical and sacramental connections between the Old Testament and Catholic Christianity called The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity. It’s a popular text now in Catholic schools and seminaries. You can read reviews of it on amazon here.Unfortunately, I did not include a section on foot washing. So here goes:

Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Pope Damasus states that Christ washed His Apostles’ feet to prepare them for the preaching of the gospel, in fulfillment to the prophecy of Isaiah:

“How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, of them that bring good tidings.” (Isa. 52:7)

The Apostles were ordained as sacerdotal priests at the Last Supper and so the foot washing is to prepare them to carry the Gospel to foreign lands. It’s a commissioning rite to “preach the Gospel of peace.”

Saint Ambrose associates the foot washing to original sin and the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 since it is with “the heel” that the Messiah and His followers will crush Satan’s head:

“Because Adam was tripped up by the devil and the venom was poured out over thy feet, therefore dost thou wash thy feet that in that part where the serpent ensnared thee there may be added the more abundant aid of sanctification, so that he be not able to trip thee up hereafter.” Saint Ambrose De Sacramentis3, 1)

Saint Augustine and Cyprian associate the washing of feet with the removal of venial sins. This is why Christ says: “He that has been washed needs not but to wash his feet, but is clean throughout.” The Apostles were already baptized. Peter asks for a second baptism (his head) but Christ refuses. The Apostles had already been baptized and their sins removed, however, the lower sins that trip us up also have to be remitted before receiving the Holy Eucharist. Hence, the foot washing was a liturgical penitential rite prior to the First Communion of the Apostles.

Is Right to Allow Women?

Prior to Francis, the men chosen to receive foot washing symbolized the 12 Apostles. As described above, foot washing seems to be a priestly rite preparing the Apostles to have the “beautiful feet” foretold by Isaiah. Since men alone can be Catholic priests, only men were chosen for the washing of feet.

One might argue, however, that Christ calls all men and women to proclaim the Gospel with beautiful feet. Proclaiming or sharing the Good News is not exclusively a sacerdotal action. Moreover, Saint Paul states that all Christians are called to crush Satan under their (beautiful) feet (Rom 16:19). The Coptic liturgy includes the act of the priest washing the feet of the entire congregation! So there is liturgical precedent for including women in the washing of the feet.

Is it Right to Allow Non-Christians?

What I cannot reconcile theologically is the act of washing the feet of non-baptized members of other religions, namely adherents of Islam, within the Eucharistic liturgy. Peter’s words and Christ’s response presume that the recipients are “washed already,” that is, baptized. Foot washing is an intra-baptized experience.

There is precedent for foot washing as a pre-baptismal rite (in the catechetical context of Easter baptisms), but it’s not clear that the Muslims receiving papal foot washing are preparing for baptism.

My personal belief is that foot washings should be returned to their pre-1955 status. Popes, Abbots, Kings, Presidents, parents, et al. can wash the feet of anyone they like as a sign of humility outside the Eucharistic liturgical rites of the Church.

If a Pope or King washes the feet of another outside of the liturgy, then it is simply a sign of humility. When it’s placed inside the context of Eucharistic liturgy, then we strain to attach a theological meaning to it…and that’s where we run into trouble.

If we want to show outward acts of “inclusion” to the non-baptized, we could give give them blessed bread or other gifts. Or we could wash their feet in contexts that aren’t sacramental. 

[reminder]I would love to hear your thoughts on foot washing. Please keep the comments respectful. No bashing of the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is our Holy Father.[/reminder]

The post Why Did Jesus Wash the Feet of the Apostles? Pope Francis, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The man who described Himself to be “one with the Father” and the “Son of God” and “Son of Man” conquered death.

In 2016, we believers are united to the resurrected Christ. He is in us and we are in Him.

Whatever trouble(s) you face today: addiction, illness, financial difficulty, bankruptcy, death, divorce, a lost relationship, a broken relationship, estrangement, mortal sin, etc. the infinite resurrection power of Jesus Christ can change everything.

Your story can and will change. Do not lose faith and do not lose hope.

Jesus Christ is the only name by which humans may be saved. Trust in His name and claim the power of His resurrection in your life.

Happy Easter! Christ is risen!

Taylor Marshall

The post Christ Has Risen – And So Will You appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1) Read the entire Gospel of Saint John. John is the Holy Week Gospel par excellence. Read it from beginning to end. It’s only 25 pages long. Read it.

2) Attend two of the three major liturgies this week: Maundy on Thursday evening, Good Friday, or Paschal Vigil on Saturday night.

3) Bring a non-Catholic friend to one of these liturgies. These are powerful liturgies…in the Year of Mercy. Be prepared for conversions.

4) On Good Friday, perform a complete

fast. No food (no meals, no snacks, no juice, no calories) from Thursday night until Saturday morning. Try just having tea or coffee in the morning. You will not die and it will be a profound spiritual experience as you enter into the Passion of Christ on Good Friday. If you have health problems, don’t do this. If you are relatively healthy, go for it. Everybody alive should have experienced the sensation of hunger for an entire day. Don’t tell anyone that you are fasting. Make it private and personal.

5) Dedicate your Friday fast to the #1 prayer intention that you have in your life. Make it big. Pray for a miracle! God loves answering gigantic prayers – because it reveals our humility. We can’t take credit for giant favors.

Have a great Holy Week!

[reminder]

The post Your 5 Challenges for Holy Week appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day. I hope you are wearing green!

This is one of the most interesting relics of which I have heard: Saint Patrick’s Bell of the Testament. This is the outer reliquary that covers the ancient bell:

And here’s the actual bell of Saint Patrick from within the jeweled covering:

Saint Patrick died in AD 493. According to the “Book of Cuanu” dating to AD 552, Saint Columcille acquired three relics from Saint Patrick’s tomb:

1. Saint Patrick’s Chalice
2. Saint Patrick’s Gospel book (called the Angels Gospel)
3. Saint Patrick’s Bell of the Testament

These three items were signs of Saint Patrick’s office as a Catholic bishop. The bell in particular became an important Irish relic. The bishop would be rung to announce the activities of Saint Patrick, in particular his famous preaching.

The bell itself is simple in design, hammered into shape with a small handle fixed to the top with rivets. The bell was forged from iron and plated in bronze.

King Domnall Ua Lochlainn placed the bell in a reliquary sometime between 1091 and 1105. The reliquary is an example of Viking-influenced Celtic art as you can see in the photo above.

Saint Patrick, pray for us.

The post Relic Photo: Saint Patrick’s Bell of the Testament appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

We must create out own tribes of relationships. The nation, diocese, and parish are no longer the units of society. With the automobile and the internet, tribes can be created that transcend the nation, state, diocese, and parish.

Who are the 120 people in your virtual tribe?

How does your tribe relate to marriage and children and ethics?

[reminder]

The post Who Belongs to your Catholic Tribe? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Here’s a recent study from Pew Research. Check the graphic results regarding birth rate, cohabitation, and homosexuality:

So why do Evangelicals (as a group) have a stronger Catholic worldview than Catholics (as a group) on moral teachings?

Having once been a Protestant Evangelical, the answer is obvious. Evangelicals read and study the Bible and they are weekly told that they should be studying the Bible.

The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is God’s Word. It’s is powerful

The Bible teaches the reader about sex, war, capital punishment, marriage, male/female polarity, the mandate to evangelize your neighbor, the custom of giving tithes and offerings at church and to the poor, the disgrace and shame of sexual promiscuity, the importance of children, the dangers of debt and bad business deals, and the reality that the judgment of God falls on a people who do not obey God.

If you read this message daily, you will be a better formed human person. If you do not, you will not be as well formed.

I love the Holy Eucharist. I attend daily Mass. I love the sacraments. I love Our Lady. Those of you that read me and listen, know all this to be true:

But if you aren’t reading the Bible and your children aren’t reading the Bible, you’re screwed. 

I know “screwed” is strong language, but I wanted to use the strongest word I could to communicate how important this is. The history of using such language to warn the people of God goes back to Ezekiel.

Get on a plan and read the whole Bible. When you’re finished with Revelation, start over and do it again.

Facebook, Drudge, and Real Clear will not properly form you. You need divine instruction. Get out that Bible and read it daily. Start by reading all four Gospels and the Book of Proverbs. Leave me a comment below, when you’ve finished reading each of the Four Holy Gospels and the Book of Proverbs.

[reminder]

The post Why are Catholics Weaker than Evangelicals? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. Invite 40 people to church. Invite Catholics and non-Catholics to: Mass, Confession, Penance services, parish missions, a retreat, a recollection, a Catholic conference or pilgrimage later in the year. 40 different people. Make a list and do it. 7 people each week.
2. Pray Divine Mercy chaplet daily.
3. Increase your weekly giving by $40 to your parish, ministry, or the poor.
4. Give up alcohol, including Sundays.
5. Eat Paleo (no grains, no sugar, no dairy, no alcohol) for Lent.
6. Pick up the check for friends during the rest of Lent.
7. Attend a recollection or mission once during Lent.
8. Attend the Stations of the Cross once during Lent.
9. Pray the Rosary daily.
10. Attend daily Mass.
11. Invite someone to your home for a meal every week in Lent.
12. Write a kind letter to a priest you and know and thank him for his ministry.
13. Write a kind text or email to a mother that you know who needs encouragement.
14. Write a kind text or email to a parent or grandparent.
15. Pray the Angelus daily at 11:55am.
16. Say 3 Hail Mary’s every day for graces against sexual sins and temptations.
17. Set up a domestic altar in your home with a crucifix, candle, and holy cards (and incense if you want to go all out).
18. Stop at a church on the way home from work for 5 minutes every day. Make a visit to Jesus in the tabernacle.
19. Read all 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) during Lent.
20. Wake up at a set time in the morning during Lent (even on Saturdays and Sundays).
21. Attend an earlier Sunday Mass as a Penance.
22. Give up adding salt and pepper at all meals in Lent.
23. Give up using butter on bread during Lent.
24. Give up milk and sugar in coffee for Lent.
25. Give up coffee for Lent.
26. Give up smoking for Lent.
27. Give up cussing for Lent.
28. Give up one meal per day for Lent.
29. Write a Thank You note every day (email and texts work great for this).
30. Create a list of all the things going great in your life (and read it every day during Lent).
31. Sign up for a pilgrimage.
32. Purchase a beautiful image of Our Lady, have it blessed, and place it in a prominent place in your home.
33. Thank God for priests by making a seminary donation. Here’s my seminary donation recommendation and why: click here.
34. Plan an blow out Easter Party and send out invitations to family and friends for Easter Sunday after Mass.
35. Say the Saint Michael prayer daily.
36. Pray an Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be for the Pope daily.
37. Read one Papal Encyclical on a topic that interests you.
38. Attend all or some of the Triduum liturgies (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday).
39. Make a nightly examination of conscience and pray an act of contrition before bed each night.
40. Go to confession weekly.

[reminder]What are you doing for Lent? Any more ideas?[/reminder]

The post Your 40 Ideas for Lent: appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Free Video: Catholic Theological Core of Saint Paul as “en Christo”

Free audio mp3s: Catholic Perspective on Paul (11 presentations)

If you are looking for a concise book proving that Saint Paul and the New Testament is Catholic, my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul has become a go-to resource for seminaries and apologists. Today it is on sale today for 50% off on Kindle and on sale in paperback:

GK Chesterton once observed that the Catholic Church has been “attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west.” The same may be said of Saint Paul. The history of heresy is essentially a series of contradictory positions, each claiming the authority of the Apostle Paul.

In today’s video I explain how understanding Paul’s “core theology” can help you explain and defend EVERY Catholic teaching and doctrine:

[youtube id=”CCuyPQG_g-M”]

According to some heretics, Paul was the first corrupter of the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ. To others Paul alone preserved the true message of Christ that had been corrupted by the Twelve. Some consider Paul to have been the champion of grace, while others accuse him of yielding to the so-called Jewish legalism of Peter and James. Paul has since been accused of being too Greek, too Jewish, too gnostic, and too orthodox.

In his own day, he was held by some to be an apostle and by others to be a heretic. Martin Luther claimed Paul’s authority, as did the Catholic Council of Trent. He has been called both a misogynist and a liberator of women. Some hail him as a proponent of freedom and others revile him for imposing rules against sexual freedom and social progress. Always and everywhere, Paul is pulled and tugged in opposite directions. Paul has been stretched out so thinly that his features have become faint, almost forgotten. Prophetically, Saint Peter aptly described the controversial nature of Paul’s epistles:

Also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:15-16).

All the detractors of Paul stand united in their conviction that the historical Paul is certainly not the same Paul revered by the Catholic Church. There is today a deep prejudice against the so-called “Saint Paul” of the Catholic Church. They will grant that Paul was a rabbi, missionary, mystic, polemicist, author, and apostle. However, they will not grant that the man enshrined in the mosaics, statues, and stained glass of a thousand Catholic cathedrals is the Paul of history. The critics are convinced that the Catholic religion as we know it today has little to do with the historic Paul of Tarsus.

Paul is none other than a saint of the Holy Roman and Catholic Church. He spent his life wishing to bring his feet within the walls of Rome and he surrendered his head to the sword outside those very walls. Within his writings, we find the primitive and pristine doctrines of the Catholic Faith. We discover a Paul who is Catholic, a theologian who is sacramental, a churchman who is hierarchical, a mystic who is orthodox.

Please watch this video to learn more about Saint Paul:

[youtube id=”CCuyPQG_g-M”]

[reminder]

The post Did You Know Saint Paul was a Catholic Priest? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

(You can watch the replay here.)

The single best thing that you can do is to commit to a schedule of daily mental prayer. Here are tips in no particular order:

1. Find a place in your home where you pray. Designate a space.
2. Find a time in the day when you pray. The prophets and the saints usually got up early to pray. Set your alarm clock earlier (go to bed earlier) and wake up to be with Christ in the morning.
3. Create a morning ritual that includes prayer. I recommend that it include Scriptural reading, also. The Bible is how God usually talks to you. “God never talks to me,” people often say. My response is, “Are you reading the Bible?” God talks to you in Scripture.
4. Use a timer on your phone. Start at 5 minutes and work up to 30 minutes daily.
5. Mental prayer is using your mind (“mental”) to speak to God. Tell him everything. Speak with your heart. Ask Him questions about your life. Ask Him theology questions? Ask Him to do more than you expect. Don’t be afraid to ask for insanely crazy requests. He likes to answer those best because they prove that we didn’t accomplish it.
6. Keep a New Testament or spiritual reading book nearby. If you’re mind loses track and wanders. Use this book to read a few sentences to focus again on Christ or spiritual thoughts.
7. Use your daily time to fill yourself with positivity. The people that I know that pray 30-60 minutes every day are very positive thinkers. Why? Because they spend time with God and learn that all things are possible through Christ. Faith and prayer build confidence and a “get it done” attitude. The most pessimistic (and lazy) people are the people who do not pray or do not spend time alone in silence. “Be still and know that I am God.”
8. Make daily prayer your identity. Repeatedly tell yourself: “I am a person who talks to the Trinity every day. That is who I am and I always do it.” Become what you are.

[reminder]We can evangelize every soul on earth if we pray and fill ourselves every day with Christ’s resurrected power. How do you best plan your goal of daily mental prayer?[/reminder]

(You can watch Catholic New Years Goals Webinar replay here.)

The post 8 Tips on How to Pray Every Day appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Despite what you may have heard elsewhere, we Christians really do want our Jewish family and friends to experience the healing of baptism and the joys and consolation of the Holy Eucharist!

Christ is the King of the Jews, and (as St Paul and St Thomas Aquinas teach) their personal reception of Christ brings glory to God and is an eschatological sign!

I’m really excited to share with you this HD Catholic Class from the New Saint Thomas Institute with detailed practical advice on sharing the Catholic Faith with Jewish family, friends, and co-workers. Hanukah ends this week so it’s a great opportunity to brush up on your Catholic theology and Old Testament skills.

[If you already are a Member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, you received this video lesson last week, plus so much more. Your premium version access of this video is available here.]

If you’re not a Member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, here is a free sample of our high quality Catholic theological videos:

HD Video: How to Share Catholic Faith with a Jewish Friend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ5fyysfCBM

If you don’t see this theological video in your email, click here to begin watching it.

If you are not yet a Member of the New Saint Thomas Institute and want to study Catholic theology with us online and earn your Certificate, our Advent Enrollment is currently open!

You can receive our Advent Apologetics package and over 100 videos on Catholic Theology and Apologetics by signing up today:

Sign up as a Student Member at the New Saint Thomas Institute by clicking here.

Share this video on Facebook by clicking here.

The post VIDEO: How to Share Catholic Faith with Jewish Friends appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

90% of the time, the other person will ask, “What’s Advent?” and that’s your cue to “be salty” (Mt 5:13) and papistically practice the New Evangelization!

Join us for a Live Catholic Event on “Advent”:

So to help you answer the question: “What is Advent?” I’m inviting you to a live, online 30 minute Webinar this coming Thursday on: “The History and Theology of Advent (Plus Tips for Catholic Families)”:

1. Did you know that Catholics used to celebrate 5 (not just 4) Sundays of Advent?
2. Did you know that there is an ancient theological and “40 day” connection between Advent and Lent?
3. Did you know that the Advent Wreath may have started with Lutherans?
4. Did you know that Taylor will be sharing personal recommendations based on how his family and children celebrate Advent?
5. Did you know that everyone who attends this webinar will get a free ebook copy of my book God’s Birthday: The Evidence for Christ’s Birth on December 25:

What are you waiting for? Let’s learn about Catholic Advent.

Sign up for the Live Advent Webinar Event this Thursday. Register by clicking here:

If you don’t see the sign up button in your email or feed, click here to register.

The post Merry Christmas OR Happy Advent – How should Catholics Respond? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Although many people have forgotten, the heads of Peter and Paul are situated in the baldacchino which you can see in this video (click here to watch):

[reminder]

The post Where are the Skulls of Saints Peter and Paul? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

In this sample New Saint Thomas video I explain what these Popes taught, why they taught it, and how we as Catholics can better understand the relationship between secular nations and the Catholic Church. If you love your nation and Church, then you need to know this:

[HD Video] Church and State: Religion and Secularism in the Public Square

From NSTI Module 4: Atheism and Secularism of the Catholic Certificate in Apologetics. Taylor explains the papal teaching on secular states and the Catholic Church:

Having trouble seeing the video in your RSS feed or email? Click here to watch the video.

[reminder]Were you aware that the Catholic Church had social teaching on the separation of Church and State? Do you think that the solution in the video is helpful?[/reminder]

Message for those of you that are not yet Members of the New Saint Thomas Institute:

[callout]Fall Enrollment for new members to the New Saint Thomas Institute (NSTI) ends at 11:59pm on Tuesday September 15. There are less than 59 spots left at the reduced tuition rate with the bonuses. If you have friends or family who would like join, please share this post with them. Here’s the link for Fall Enrollment with the bonuses and tuition discount: special link for joining the New Saint Thomas Institute.][/callout]

How the Home-screen looks of our NSTI Certificate in Catholic Apologetics:

The post [Catholic Video] Do Catholics Reject Separation of Church and State? Yes appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

If you’re interested in learning more, please begin the free audio commentary of the Book of Revelation by clicking here.

The post 4 Constellations in the Book of Revelation appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1. Revelation Ch. 1 Apparition of Fiery Christ (Catholic Apocalypse Part 1 – TM076) 
2. Revelation Chs. 2-3 Seven Churches and Seven Ages of Salvation (Catholic Apocalypse Part 2 – TM077) 
3. Revelation Chs. 4-5 The Lamb and Liturgy of God (Catholic Apocalypse Part 3 – TM079) 
4. Revelation Chs. 6-7 Four Horseman and Seven Seals (Catholic Apocalypse Part 4 – TM081) 
5. Revelation Chs. 8-9 Seven Trumpets against Jerusalem (Catholic Apocalypse Part 5 – TM082)
6. Revelation Chs. 10-11 The Giant Angel and Two Witnesses (Catholic Apocalypse Part 6 – TM083) 
7. Revelation Ch. 12 Our Lady of the Apocalypse (Catholic Apocalypse Part 7 – TM084)
8. Revelation Ch. 13 The Sea Beast and the Land Beast and the Mark of the Beast (Catholic Apocalypse Part 8 – TM085)

The post Catholic Apocalypse: Book of Revelation Audio Commentary by Taylor Marshall PhD appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

In the video lesson I explained how the “rainbow” was the covenantal marker or seal of the Noahic Covenant or Covenant with Noah. In the Hebrew, it’s not “rainbow” but simply “bow” as in “bow and arrow.”

[callout]For my review and theological reflections on the Noah movie, click here.[/callout]

This covenantal sign is a seal of peace between God and humanity, but oddly enough it is a weapon designed for death. It’s really a strange sign when you consider it.

It makes sense when you realize that this “bow” is pointed not at man but toward God. God has established a symbolic weapon in the sky prophesying that He will be killed for the sake of humanity’s sinfulness.

Which way is the bow pointing:

The weapon is pointing to God. The human generation of Noah sinned and rebelled against God. God in turn made a covenant never to destroy mankind again. He saved a remnant with Noah and then established a sign that God Himself would take the arrow – not man. God would die. Man would be saved. This is the Covenant of Noah.

Militant Homosexuality and the Rainbow Logo

You can probably now guess why militant homosexual groups (and now everyone on Facebook!) uses the rainbow as their logo.

The rainbow denotes God’s promise to not drown again the earth’s inhabitants on account of their sexual perversions (as in the days before the flood). The rainbow is God’s promise of protection and God’s humble willingness to take on death for humanity’s sin.

The homosexual community’s “rainbow” logo is merely flaunting the benevolence, mercy, and sacrifice of God. The rainbow, Satan knows, is there armor against the wrath of God.

It’s worth noting that the rainbow is an important feature in God’s appearance in the Book of Revelation (I explain the rainbow in Revelation ch. 4 here and the rainbow in Revelation ch. 10 here) and the rainbow also appeared at the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima.

Application:

Teach people about the Covenants of God. Teach them about the meaning of the rain-bow. Thank God that He took our penalty so that we might know Him and enjoy Him forever!

The New Saint Thomas Institute will make will open enrollment to a few new students on Monday morning (9am) August 17. If you want to get deep in Catholic theology, philosophy, and Scripture and study with me by taking online classes and earning your Certificate in Catholic Theology, tomorrow at 9am is the time! Click here to learn more: newsaintthomas.com.

Mark you calendar and set a reminder on your phone for Monday Aug 17 at 9am. These spots will go quickly as they always do.

[reminder]

The post The Covenant Theology of the Rainbow and Why the Homosexual Community Uses It appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Here are some interesting resources for you as we celebrate Our Lady’s Dormition and Assumption:

1. What is the historical date of Mary’s Assumption?
2. Did the Virgin Mary Die? The Answer May Surprise You (The majority tradition in Catholic history is that Our Lady did experience the separation of body and soul.)
3. Audio: Mary as Assumed in Revelation 12 Podcast: Our Lady of the Apocalypse
4. Did Christ receive an assumption or ascension or both?
5. The year of the assumption according to Maria Agreda
6. The Assumption of Saint Joseph – A forgotten tradition
7. If you deny the Assumption – You have fallen away!
8. Saint Gregory of Tours on the Assumption
9. The Assumption of Mary in the Book of Psalms
10. Does the Rosary Pre-Date Dominic?
11. Mary’s Special Role over Purgatory
12. Mary’s Empty Tomb Information
13. Did Pope Pius XII Teach that Mary died? Yes he did

Enjoy!

to Jesus through Mary,
Taylor Marshall

[reminder]Please let me know if there are any topics that you’d like me to write on as it relates to Our Lady![/reminder]

The post 13 Assumption of Mary Catholic Resources appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

1) Paul’s Vision on the Road to Damascus (described in Acts 9, 22, and 26). Paul is walking on the road to Damascus in order to arrest Christians in Damascus.

[callout]To read my theory that Saul/Paul had Herodian connections to accomplish this political task, click here.[/callout]

A bright light surrounds Saul and he hears a voice claiming: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” Saul loses his sight but gains it again through the laying on of hands by Ananias who then baptizes Saul/Paul.

2) Paul’s Trance in the Temple (Acts 22:17-21). After his conversion, Paul returns to Jerusalem and while he is praying in the Temple, he enters into a trance. In Greek, the word for trance is ἐκστάσει {ecstasei} or “ecstasy.”

17 “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance {ἐκστάσει} 18 and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’ 19 And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in thee. 20 And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by and approving, and keeping the garments of those who killed him.’ 21 And he said to me, ‘Depart; for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

We learn something more about Saul here. Although he did not capture Christians in Damascus, he did previously and personally “imprison and and beat” Christians in Jerusalem – “in every synagogue.” Saul was the chief of Anti-Christian police in Jerusalem. Saul would have had to have authority from the High Priest and Herod Antipas to accomplish this.

3) Paul’s Vision in Prison (Acts 23:11). This is the big “Roman Catholic” passage that I stress in my book on Saint Paul as Roman and in my book on Rome as the Capital of Christianity. Here Jesus Christ connects the Apostolic ministry from Jerusalem…to Rome. Romanism is a mandate delivered to Paul from the resurrected mouth of Jesus Christ:

“The following night the Lord stood by him and said: Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.” (Acts 23:11)

Christ connects the Great Commission as a line drawn from Jerusalem to Rome. We see this in the thematic structure of the four Gospels (the Jerusalem/Pilate struggle) and also in the narrative structure of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts starts in Jerusalem and ends in Rome). The Book of Revelation, rightly interpreted is a vision about the unholy adultery between Whore of Babylon (Jerusalem) and the Beast (Rome).

[reminder]

The post Paul’s Three Encounters with Christ Jesus in Acts appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Paul was originally a Herodian. By “Herodian” I mean that he seems to have connections with the family and court of the Herods. Theologically, Saul/Paul favored the theology of the Pharisees before his conversion but his family connections relate him to the inner circle of Herod Agrippa.

Here are the reasons demonstrating that Saul/Paul had Herodian connections

1. Saul/Paul was highly educated both in Hebrew Scripture/Tradition but also in Greek philosophy. He seems familiar, for example with Plato’s Timaeus. He is Hebrew, but he also dabbles in Gentile learning and culture. This is the Herodian style: Jewish identity, loyalty to Jerusalem, familiar with the priests, but appreciative of Gentile power and learning. Sounds like Paul…

2. Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen. Jews were not typically citizens. We learn that Saul/Paul gained his Roman citizenship by birth. This means that his parents were Hebrews with Roman privilege. In the first century, Hebrews with Roman privilege were linked to the Roman appointed rulers of Palestine – the Herod’s.

3. Saul/Paul officially persecuted Christians on behalf of the Temple authorities. This is odd. Think about how hard it was for the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus Christ. Back and forth between the Roman Pontius Pilate and the Roman appointed “King” Herod Antipas the Tetrarch. Killing Christ was complicated and difficult.

And yet somehow we are to believe that Saul received certificates of authority in around the year AD 36 to go about capturing and killing Christians without trial…even as far away as Damascus? Ahem, this is the Roman Empire with laws and rules. A man can’t get permission from the priests of one city and then go and capture people in another city.

How did Saul/Paul get that power? The High Priest and the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem could not have authorized Saul to arrest Christians in Damascus. The High Priest and the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem had no power in Damascus, a city in the Roman Province of Syria. Jerusalem belonged to the Roman Province of Judea. Saul seems to have gained an authority entrusted to him by a civil power connected to the Temple. This means that Saul needed religious authority (Temple) and he needed Roman authority in Damascus (King Aretus IV of Damascus).

[callout]King Aretus IV of Damascus. King Aretus IV who ruled over Damascus during the period of Saul/Paul’s conversion was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas the Tetrarch (d. AD 39). You might remember how Saint John the Baptist was preaching against Herod Antipas for divorcing his wife in order to marry his brother’s wife Herodias. Well Saint John the Baptist was defending the honor of Herod Antipas’ first wife Phasaelis – the daughter of King Aretus IV. Small Herodian world![/callout]

Which one politician of this period had deep connections with the High Priesthood at the Temple in Jerusalem and political influence in Damascus?  Who was the only man on earth who could arrange for Saul to act on behalf of the High Priest in the foreign city of Damascus? Oh that’s right, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch!

Why was Saul/Paul able to fulfill his desire to persecute Christians on behalf on the High Priest throughout the Roman Empire? Because his family was close to the family of Herod.

4. Saul/Paul is grouped with those raised with Herod Antipas the Tetrarch. “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers as Barnabas and Simeon that was called Niger and Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch and Saul. (Acts 13.1) The Greek is unclear but there is certainly a group of young Jewish men in Antioch who are associated with Herod Antipas the Tetrarch.

According to Josephus, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch, his full brother Archelaus and his half-brother Philip were raised and educated in Rome (Josephus, Antiquities 17.20–21). Hence, those raised with Herod Antipas the Tetrarch were educated in Rome. I would not be surprised if Saul/Paul had also studied in Rome as a young man, even though he is younger than Herod Antipas the Tetrarch.

5. Saulus/Paulus was not merely a plebian rabbi. He had political clout. When Saul/Paul is arrested, the commander assigns, get this, 470 men to guard Paul’s life!

“Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. 24 Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.” (Acts 23:23)

• 200 soliders
• 70 horsemen
• 200 spearmen

Yes, Paul was a Roman citizen, but Roman citizen’s didn’t normally receive 470 body guards. Saul/Paul was being protected because he was connected to the family of Herod Agrippa.

6. Josephus refers to a “Saulus” who persecuted people in Jerusalem. From the Antiquities (20.9.4) of Josephus:

“Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favour among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves.”

Is this the same “Saul”? It’s hard to tell, but a Saul who was “of the royal family” and “kindred to (Herod) Agrippa” and who “used violence with the people” sure sounds like Saul/Paul in his pre-Christian days.

7. Paul identifies his Herodian kinfolk. We don’t need Josephus to tell us about a “Saul ” was also “kindred to (Herod) Agrippa.”

In Romans 16:11 Paul writes: “Greet Herodion, my kinsman.”

Paul has connections in Rome. He even has a Jewish relative in Rome named Herodion! We don’t know who Herodion is, but his name links him to the Roman-Jewish rulers associated with the dynasty of Herod the Great.

Conclusion: Paul as Herodian Pharisee

Some might counter my arguments by stating that Saul/Paul himself clams to have been a Pharisee and not a Herodian.

But this is where things get interesting. The Pharisees and Herodians worked together!

When the Herodians are mentioned in the Gospels (Mark 3:6, 12:13; Matthew 22:16; cf. also Mark 8:15, Luke 13:31-32, Acts 4:27), they are coupled with the Pharisees. For example, in Mark 3:6, the Pharisees plot against Jesus regarding his teaching on the Sabbath day by incorporating the Herodians into their conspiracy. In Mark 8:15, Christ described the alliance of Pharisees and Herod against Him. In Mark 12, the Pharisees and Herodians together, try to trap Christ with their question about paying taxes.

The fact that Saul/Paul was a Pharisee does not disqualify him from being a Herodian. Rather, it substantiates it.

[reminder]Do you have any arguments pro or con regarding my Paul the Herodian thesis?[/reminder]

PS: I plan to revise and update my The Catholic Perspective on Paul to incorporate this new research.

The post Was Saint Paul Related to Herod? 7 Reasons Paul was Herodian appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The Gospel according to Saint Luke (the longest of the four Gospels) and Acts of the Apostles rank Saint Luke in first place as largest contributor to the New Testament. As I argued in my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul, Saint Luke is also the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Paul is the “author” and Luke is the “writer” or “drafter” Hebrews. (The Paul/Luke production of Hebrews is also the position of Saint Thomas Aquinas.)

Saint Luke as Loukas (3 mentions in NT)

This Luke (Λουκᾶς) is mentioned in Paul’s epistles three times:

Our dear friend Luke (Λουκᾶς) the physician, and Demas send greetings. (Col 4:14)

Saint Paul mentions Luke as his fellow worker along with Mark in Philemon:

And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers. Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers. (Philem 1:22-24)

And then again in 2 Timothy in connection with Mark yet again:

“Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me.” (2 Tim 4:11)

Note here that Luke is Paul’s “dear friend,” Paul’s “fellow worker,” and Paul’s sole companion at the end of his life.

Saint Luke as Lucius (2 mentions in NT)

Lucius or Loukios (Greek: Λούκιος) appears two times in the New Testament, once in Acts (written by Luke) and once in Romans.

Lucius is the Romanized version of the name Luke. In a Roman context, Greek men would adapt their names to Latin by creating a -us ending so that their names would rightly decline in Latin. Hence, the way to give Λουκᾶς or “Loukas” a Roman ending is to modify the ending and render it as Lucius.

And wouldn’t you know it, we find this form of Luke’s name in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans!

Timothy, my co-worker, sends his greetings to you, as do Lucius (Λούκιος), Jason and Sosipater, my fellow Jews. (Rom 16:21)

Origen in his Commentary on Romans states that the “Lucius” in Romans is Saint Luke.

Lucius is also mentioned in connection with Barnabas and Paul in Acts:

In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene (Λούκιος ὁ Κυρηναῖος), Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. (Acts 13:1)

Note here the connection between Paul/Saul, Lucius, and Barnabas with…drumroll…Herod the Tetrarch. This proves that Paul/Saul was a Herodian. I’ll write more about this in a future post.

Luke as the “Famous Brother in the Gospel”

There is a unnamed man in 2 Corinthians that Paul refers to as a brother made famous in the Gospel:

But thanks be to God who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest he is going to you of his own accord. With him we are sending the brother who is famous in the Gospel among all the churches (τὸν ἀδελφὸν οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν); and not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work which we are carrying on, for the glory of the Lord and to show our good will. (2 Cor 8:16-18)

Paul is sending Titus and another man who is famous “in all the churches.” Apparently, he is so famous that he doesn’t even need to be mentioned by name. The Corinthians know him already. Notably, he is famous “in the Gospel throughout all the churches” (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν). Paul frequently speaks of the Gospel, but never in this way. Some English translations wrongly read “famous for preaching the Gospel,” but the Greek says “famous in/for the Gospel.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas suggests that this “famous brother” is Saint Luke and that he famous because Saint Luke has by this time published his written Gospel and that it has made him “famous throughout all the churches.” The date of 2 Corinthians is around AD 57 and so this would date Saint Luke’s Gospel before AD 57.

Modern scholars will laugh at this, but I think it makes great sense since Saint Paul cites the Gospel of Luke as Sacred “Scripture” in 1 Timothy 5:17-18.

[reminder]

The post Saint Luke as the Roman Lucius and Famous Brother in the Gospel (2 Cor 8:18) appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Yet for the Catholic, the biblical demonstration below strongly defends the traditional authors (Paul and Luke) and traditional dates – especially an early date for the Gospel of Luke. If we Catholics are going to defend the historicity of Christ, His teachings, and His actions, we need to be able to substantiate how the four Catholic Gospels depict Him without error. Part of our work depends on us demonstrating that the four Catholic Gospels are early and written by the historical Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Saint Paul cites the Gospel of Luke as Sacred Scripture

So let’s get started.

Saint Paul cites “Scripture” twice in 1 Timothy 5:17-18:

Let the presbyters who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; for the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:17–18):

Paul’s quote “You shall not muzzle an ox” (the motto of the New Saint Thomas Institute) comes from Deuteronomy 25:4.

But what about his second citation of “Scripture” that he quotes as: “The laborer deserves his wages” (Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ)?

Does this phrase (Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ) appear in the Old Testament or in any variant in the Septuagint? It does not appear in the Old Testament Scriptures, but it does appear in the New Testament Scriptures.

In Luke 10:7 we find the exact phrase with the Greek word order preserved just as Saint Paul cites it:

And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house (Luke 10:7).

ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε, ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν, ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν (Luke 10:7 in Greek).

In 1 Timothy 5:17–18 we observe Saint Paul quoting the Gospel of Luke as Scripture on equal level with Deuteronomy!

I take 1 Timothy as authentically Pauline (I’m Catholic). This demonstrates that:

1. The Gospel of Luke was written and published before the death of Paul (AD 66/67)
2. Paul had read the Gospel of Luke
3. Paul regarded the Gospel of Luke as Scripture
4. Paul considered Luke to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16)
5. Paul assumed that Timothy also regarded the Gospel of Luke as Scripture

Since Paul knew the Gospel of Luke and cited it as Scripture, there is no problem in identifying Paul’s “famous brother in the Gospel” (2 Cor 8:18) as Saint Luke made famous for publishing the Gospel of Saint Luke.

Suddenly there is an internal strength to the canonical New Testament. The NT wasn’t spliced together one hundred years after Christ. The Gospel of Luke comes less than thirty years after the resurrection…and it’s being cited by the Apsotles as “Scripture” on par with the Torah!

[reminder]

You can share this on Facebook by clicking here.

The post Saint Paul Cites the Gospel of Luke as Scripture appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Words carry ideas. Ideas change people. So if a regime changes the meaning of words, the regime changes the ideas of people.

What is Marriage? Finding a Definition

Take “marriage,” for example. Marriage is an institution that ratifies a monogamous sexual exclusive relationship for procreation.

Notice the words I’m using here: monogamous, sexual, exclusive, procreation.

It’s not essentially a legal arrangement for “best friends.” It’s not a legal arrangement for insuring hospital visitation rights. It’s not essentially a structure for tax benefits. Holy Matrimony is an institution that ratifies a monogamous sexual exclusive relationship for procreation.

It is a legal contract and covenant that grants exclusive sexual access to one another’s body till the death of one spouse. It always hopes for the fruition of children whether God grants children or not. That’s what marriage is. By fully consenting to this reality, a marriage bond was publicly created.

The historic reason why marriage includes the additional lumping together of financial assets is: children, their rearing, and their inheritance!

But modern society has changed the definition of marriage and by doing so they have changed everyone’s idea of marriage.

Falling in/out of Love

With the advent of the birth control pill, the idea that the marriage contract meant exclusive sexual access to a spouse for the rearing of children decayed.

Decades later, they began to depict marriage as “falling in love.” If you fall in love, then you should be married. The problem is the phenomenon of “falling out of love.” And so in the 1970s we got “no fault divorce.” The children suffered. Matrimony had been a public institution to create and protect the next generation. The children were royally screwed over in the 1970s.

“Love Wins” With Same Sex

So for decades heterosexual spouses performed (and deformed) marriage by “falling in love” and “falling out of love’ while cranking up the divorce rate. Birthrates plummeted. There was no longer any sound reason in this new definition of marriage to prevent same sex marriage. If two men “fall in love” why not have a legal ceremony that means, um, very little to heterosexual people.

Heterosexuals since the 1960s already demonstrated to society that marriage does not mean:

1. male/female role polarity
2. life-long monogamy
3. covenantal indissolubility
4. natural conception and birth of babies
5. staying together to raise children
6. growing old together

Think about it. It was heterosexuals who destroyed those 6 points above – not the gay community! The homosexual lobby merely had to wait for the “normal society” to redefine things in their favor.

Matrimony works because it assures paternity assurance. If a woman has intercourse with 10 men and then becomes pregnant along the way, none of those 10 men are going to provide for that woman and care for the new baby. There is no paternity assurance. Men only invest where there is paternity security. Having children requires effort, time and money. A cuckolded man isn’t going devote that much energy in a promiscuous culture where progeny cannot be secured. That’s why we have the quickly growing MGTOW culture for men. Society breaks down.

How You Can become a Healer for a Broken Culture

I wrote about 10 Radical Ways We Can Reclaim Matrimony. There I explained our strategy to “take back” traditional vocabulary. One way we can accomplish this is to the avoid the word “individual.” Originally, the term individualis was applied to the the “undivided” essence of the Holy Trinity.

Around 1750, the word “individual” began to be used in place of a human “person.“ Why? Because society was already being restructured as “individualistic.” You can keep dividing nations, states, cities, even families, but according to them you can’t divide the “individual.” This was the era leading up to the French Revolution. The important aspect for an anti-Christian society was to elevate the solo-person – the undivided individual. Every man an island.

Previously, Christians spoke of “persons” not “individuals.” The family was the basic “undivided” unity (everyone comes from a family – not from an individual) for Christendom. But now it is the “individual” that it is the basic unit. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be an Individual (revolutionary). I want to be a Person (Trinitarian).

Reclaiming as an Example of Light

Remember how we learned that we must reclaim right WORDS and associate them with right ACTIONS. Ultimately, the best thing you can do is mentor others with your good example. This is how you best reprogram the definitions of words. If you are single, then you can live a life of noble chastity and avoid the hook up culture. Live with personal dignity and demonstrate the joy of Jesus Christ in your life.

If you are married, the best thing you can do is show your children how much you love and respect your spouse. This will overflow to those around you.

• Are you kind to one another? Do you give each other the benefit of the doubt before a fight breaks out?
• Men, are you affectionate with your wife when you get home. (Wives deeply desire love, affection and approval [“I love you and I missed you today. Close your eyes while I kiss you.”] more than they desire gifts or respect.)
• Women, do you respect your husband in front of the children and your friends? (Husbands deeply desire honor/respect [“I’m so proud that you’re my husband. You work so hard!”] more than they desire love.)
• Are you quietly teaching those in your circle of influence that lifelong exclusive monogamy is beautiful, sweet, and rewarding?
• Do you fight back the fear of having babies in this crazy world?

Our best strategy is living Holy Matrimony and living it with joy and a smile on our face. It is difficult. It is a challenge. My wife Joy is pregnant with baby #8 and it’s much harder on her than baby #1. Much harder! (Ladies, can I get a witness.) But she is living a heroic life and I can’t help but admire her love for me, our new baby, and her profound dedication to our wedding vows.

If you are a student Member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, please watch our 2-part video series in which my wife Joy and I sit down in front of the video camera to talk about those issues as they relate to our own lives and how we grapple with these challenges in our marriage.

You can find this video series in the “Catholic Certificate in Theology” module on Sacramental Theology:

If you are not yet a Member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, we will be soon opening enrollment for a few new spots. NSTI is the largest Catholic online education institute in the world with 1,800 Catholic students from 30 nations. If you’d like to join our student body, and earn a Certificate in Catholic Theology with me, please sign up here. (There are currently 280 people on the waiting list for NSTI. Today’s enrollment is limited to the first 300). Please visit newsaintthomas.com to learn more about what we do and what we offer through the New Saint Thomas Institute. And don’t forget to join our waiting list if you are interested Save your spot!

Just like the early confessors and martyrs – we must live heroic lives. People are converted when they see the love of Jesus. That could be in seeing a Coptic Christian beheaded by ISIS. It could also be in the powerful witness of a young mother sweetly caring for her babies. Or by watching a handsome man care for his wife and honor her till death as the mother of his children.

You’d be surprised how much your actions touch the hearts of others. The Sacred Heart of Jesus is in your heart. Share His Heart with the hearts of others.

Cor ad cor loquitur,
Taylor Marshall

[reminder]

The post The Slow Death of Marriage…And Its Future Resurrection appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

When I was in Rome last month, I had the chance to talk bishops, priests, and layman (some work in the curial offices of the Holy See) about the “word on the street” regarding the upcoming Synod of the Family.

I left Rome concerned and not at all encouraged regarding the place of the Family.

The buzz word for this year’s Synod on the Family is: “finding solutions.” I don’t know what it means, but that’s the phrase. It’s all about “finding solutions.”

Here’s my concern:

The contemporary political landscape is unilaterally affirming:

• reproductive “health” (contraception and abortion) as a political right
• same sex “marriage” as a political right
• “divorce for the sake of happiness” (however defined) as a right

So when the Church speaks of “finding solutions,” what is the problem?

Two possible options:

1. Good Option: Could it be that the Church is going to find new and creative ways to help traditional monogamous Christians to flourish and succeed under the cloud of political oppression?
2. Bad Option: Could it be that the Church is going to find new and creative ways to hallow the new political status quo by “finding solutions” for give the “rights” of full communion to those that live and/or support the newly ratified politically lifestyles.

My concern is that the “finding solutions” phrase refers to finding a way to give the Holy Eucharist for those living in adultery and in same sex marriage without technically and theologically sanctioning adultery and same-sex marriage.

The hypothetical argument for a sleight-of-hand Church sanctioning of divorce/remarriage or same sex marriage would look like the argument below.

[Note that this is not my argument or something I am suggesting. Rather, my observation and my gut tells me that this is the sort of thing that the enemies of the Catholic Church (from within) are going to try.] Here is what they will try to push at the Synod on the Family:

We must approach the emerging forms of family and the individuals involved belong to these units with a hand of mercy. People have made decisions in the past (or had decisions made for them in the past) that places them in a situations or relationships contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Due to the passing of time and/or physical/mental/emotional damage, there is no way to “turn back the clock” so that these people of good will can enter into a regular sacramental situation with the Catholic Church. For the sake of mercy, we have found a pastoral solution that does not run counter to the theology or dogma of the Catholic Church regarding monogamy and sacramental marriage. The local conferences of bishops can authorize their bishops and pastors (those with canonical cure of souls) to determine, after prayer, counsel, and interviews, whether certain baptized faithful can be dispensed from certain irregularities due to the passing of time or through physical/mental/emotional trauma. The prayerful dispensation of the bishop or pastor should be honored and respected. The bishop or pastor’s dispensation is similar to the pastor’s power to dispense of the Sunday Mass obligation or rules for fasting for those under his care for pastoral reasons.”

I’m not a prophet, but I feel pretty sure that the argument that I drafted above will be developed and popularized in the years to come, but perhaps even as early as this next Synod of the Family in October 2015.

A couple things to notice:

1. It affirms the traditional teaching of the church, but…
2. It introduces the ability of a bishop or pastor to make dispensations or sanations due to past realities.

[reminder]What do you think? Could you see this happening?[/reminder]