Canterbury Tales by Dr. Taylor Marshall

How to Argue with a Madman (from GK Chesterton)

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:16:40 PST

After blogging for a few years, I have learned to ignore the trolls who drop spiteful comments or who surf the Catholic web looking for a fight. About once or twice per year, however, I will encounter someone who is brilliant but crazy. The first sign is that such a person is usually well spoken and well planned. They are usually well read. However, the rapidity of the argument goes so quickly and is so scattered that you cannot keep up with him. Sometimes these madmen are Protestant. Sometimes they are Catholic. Often times they are sedevacantists.

I was recently reminded of this excellent advice from GK Chesterton regarding "how to argue with a madman." This passage is quintessentially Cherstertonian - witty, concise, and precise:

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense, satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness.

If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s...

...his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large...The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way...

...If we could express our deepest feelings of protest and appeal against this obsession, I suppose we should say something like this: “Oh, I admit that you have your case and have it by heart, and that many things do fit into other things as you say. I admit that your explanation explains a great deal; but what a great deal it leaves out! Are there no other stories in the world except yours; and are all men busy with your business? Suppose we grant the details; perhaps when the man in the street did not seem to see you it was only his cunning; perhaps when the policeman asked you your name it was only because he knew it already. But how much happier you would be if you only knew that these people cared nothing about you! How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it; if you could really look at other men with common curiosity and pleasure; if you could see them walking as they are in their sunny selfishness and their virile indifference! You would begin to be interested in them, because they were not interested in you. You would break out of this tiny and tawdry theatre in which your own little plot is always being played and you would find yourself under a freer sky, in a street full of splendid strangers.”

Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil.

- GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy, pp. 25-27.

In sum, with the madman, you can not convince him to entere into the real world. You must enter is tilted universe and expose it as a fraud. It's pretty dangerous, but so are exorcisms. Pray, fast, and proceed with caution with the internet crazies. I simply try to avoid them.

Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email. Please also explore Taylor's books about Catholicism at amazon.com.

Tebowing: Catholics Did It Before It Was Mainstream...

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:03:30 PST

I got a kick out of this.

Was Paul knocked off his high horse on the way to Damascus?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:52:02 PST

Caravaggio’s “Conversion on the Way to Damascus”

Many people believe that Paul was knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus. Caravaggio’s famous painting titled “Conversion on the Way to Damascus” (depicted above) has seared into our imaginations the image that Paul fell in amazement from his horse when Christ appeared to him in the midst of a blinding light. However, if you go back and read the biblical account of the miracle, nowhere does it describe Saul falling off his horse. In fact, we can be certain that Rabbi Saul was not on his horse at midday when Christ appeared to him (Acts 26:13).

We know this because Pharisees prayed regularly throughout the day in obedience to Psalm 55:16-17, “But I call upon God, and the LORD will save me. Evening and morning and at noon.” Jewish men recited these prayers standing on their feet and facing toward Jerusalem. Saul no doubt observed noonday prayer on that day as he traveled along the road to Damascus. He was likely standing erect and facing south to Jerusalem when Jesus Christ spoke to him and blinded him with light. Paul described the experience like this:

I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’

And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’

And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles to whom I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’ (Acts 26:14-18).

Blinded by this brilliant apparition of Christ, Saul went to Damascus where the very Christians whom he had sought to imprison received him. A Christian leader in Damascus by the name of Ananias laid his hands on Saul, and at once the one-time persecutor of the Christians received back his sight. Saul then received the sacrament of baptism.

Incidentally, Saul was baptized in a home and not in a river (Acts 9:17-18). As might be expected, the Christians of Damascus were not eager to receive Saul into their fellowship. “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests” (Act 9:21). However, Saul’s conversion proved genuine as he immediately began to proclaim that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel.

The post above was excerpted from first chapter of The Catholic Perspective on Paul by Taylor Marshall, Ph.D. For more, please click her to view the book at amazon.com.

Photo: The Most Charming Altar Boys Ever

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:36:31 PST

It is time for a break from our usual philosophical and theological seriousness. Take a look at these little gentlemen. The kid with the thurible looks a little like my five year old.

Although I like to see black pants, black socks, and black shoes on altar boys, this photo reveals that white socks and informal shoes have been a perennial challenge for altar boys...but at least they aren't wearing flip-flops!

HT: Photo from the blog Traditional Catholicism.

What does the word Nun mean and what is the origin of nuns?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:44:39 PST

The office of consecrated virgins and women goes back to the Israelites of the Old Testament. I documented this claim last month in:

Did Jewish Temple Virgins Exist and was Mary a Temple Virgin?

We find that consecrated women date to the first ages of the New Testament. Saint Paul praises of special virgins for their continence and their devotion to the things of the Lord (1 Cor 7).

Saint Paul also speaks of enrolled widows, who were called to certain kinds of church work (1 Timothy 5:9).

A sign, then, of the true, biblical Church is the presence of these consecrated women. By the way, these are not female priests or married women. They are definitely either virgins or widows. The word "nun" by the way, comes from the Latin nonna - a term of endearment for a grandmother. It is directly related to the English Nana. The consecrated widows, then, bore the title of grandmotherly endearment.

In the second century, Saint Justin Martyr attests to consecrated virgins in Rome. (St. Justin, Apology 1, c. 15). Saint Ambrose attests to their presence in Milan during the third century (De Virginibus, 1, 4).

By the early third century, these women are being called the "spouses" of the Lord Jesus Christ in North Africa and Egypt. St. Cyprian describes a consecrated virgin who had broken her vows as an adulteress ("Epistle 62"). Saint Athanastius in Egypt also describes consecrated virgins as "spouses" of the Lord Jesus Christ (see his Apol. ad Constant., 33). Apocryphal literature of the Pre-Constantinian era is full of references to consecrated virgins and their important role in the Catholic Church.

Virgins vowed themselves to the service of God primarily through prayer. These ancient nuns first lived with their families, but by the third century, they assembled at community convents then called partheuones. After Constantine, these consecrated virgins and women were at liberty to have organized communities and protection from aggression and harm.

Before closing, the veil was the sign of the consecrated. This goes back as far as Tertullian (and probably all the way back to Saint Paul). The veil is the sign that these women belong irrevocably to Christ.

Let us pray a short prayer today asking Christ to give the Church more flowers, that is, more holy women, to bring beauty and sanctity to our Church.

Feast of the Espousals of Mary and Joseph

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:48:28 PST

January 23 the date for the lesser known feast of the Espousals of Mary and Joseph. That's right, January 23 is their liturgical anniversary.

The following are some facts that I clipped from here and there.

John Gerson, at the Council of Constance in 1416, proposed that a votive Feast of the Betrothal of Mary Most Holy and St. Joseph be observed by priests on the Thursday of Advent ember week when the Gospel of the espousal would fit nicely. In 1474 Franciscan Bernardine of Bustis wrote an Office for the feast. By 1517 the Annunciation Sisters founded by St. Jane of Valois already celebrated the feast. In 1537 the Franciscans adopted it to be celebrated on March 7, and soon after the Servites for March 8, and the Dominicans for January 22. A 1550 work invites people in Holland to celebrate the recently instituted feast on January 15.

Pope Innocent XI allowed its celebration in 1684 in the empire of Leopold I, and later also in Spain. In both France and Canada it was observed on January 22, while Polish confraternities celebrated January 23. In 1725 Benedict XIII extended it to the Papal States, setting the date for January 23.

In 1840, for example, it was granted to the United States of America. The extent of usage merited its inclusion in editions of the pre-Vatican II Roman Missal for January 23 in the section for particular places, pro aliquibus locis.

Under Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII the feast was extended throughout Europe and in the New World.

During the twentieth century the Feast of the Espousals on January 23 continued to be found in more particular calendars: St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome, 1913; Marello's Oblates of St. Joseph, 1921; the Oratory of St. Joseph in Montreal, Canada, 1940; and Murialdo's Congregation of St. Joseph, 1946. The Diocese of Zacatecas, Mexico, was granted the November 26 feast in 1958. In Vienna, Austria, the Piarist Church of the Espousals, which includes a Corradini sculpture of Mary and Joseph being blessed by the high priest, was named a minor basilica in 1949.

In 1961 the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued an instruction that removed from particular calendars numerous particular feasts, including the Feast of the Espousals of Mary and St. Joseph, except in places where the feasts have a special connection with the place itself. In 1989, for example, the Oblates of St. Joseph obtained permission to celebrate on January 23 "The Holy Spouses Mary and Joseph" with the liturgical rank of "Feast," and full proper texts, including a preface:

You give the Church the joy of celebrating the feast of the Holy Spouses, Mary and Joseph: in her, full of grace and worthy Mother of your Son, you signify the beginning of the Church, resplendently beautiful bride of Christ; you chose him, the wise and faithful servant, as Husband of the Virgin Mother of God, and made him head of your family, to guard as a father your only Son, conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Please Meet the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate!

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:39:25 PST

The Franciscans of the Immaculate

What happens when you blend the charisms of Saint Francis, Saint Clare, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, and Saint Pio along with a devotion and love for the traditional Latin Mass? You get the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Conception.

Given the 800 year history of Franciscan tradition, the Franciscans of the Immaculate are relative new, but they embrace the ancient charism of Saint Francis with a willingness to use modern media to reach souls for the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate were founded by the two Franciscan friars, Fr. Stefano Maria Manelli and Fr. Gabriel Maria Pellettieri. The Institute was erected as a pontifical institute of religious life by His Holiness John Paul II in January 1, 1998, Solemnity of the Mother of God.

Their charism is explicitly Marian and they take a fourth vow of total and unlimited Marian consecration in spirit of the Saint Francis' total consecration to the Immaculate Virgin Mary. Next to Saint Francis, the FIs look to Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe as the model for their apostolic witness in the world. The FIs, like Saint Maximilian, have a world wide printing apostolate and something that Saint Maximilian would not have known - an apostolate through the Internet, podcasts, and YouTube.

Please visit their site AirMaria to get a feel for their apostolic endeavors.

You should also sign up for their newsletter Missio Immaculate.

Here's a video the FIs produced entitled "Sandals and Fiddlebacks":

Why Did Christ Descend into Hell? The Salvation of the Old Testament Faithful

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:22:47 PST

Christ was without sin and he fully paid the price of our redemption on the cross. So if Christ's suffering was finished on the cross, why did His human soul descend into hell?

First we must confer with Saint Thomas Aquinas and other saints and doctors who divide hell (infernus) into four abodes:

Purgatory (abode of those being purified)
Limbo of the Fathers (abode of the Old Testament faithful - now it's empty)
Limbo of the Children (abode for unbaptized children under the age of reason)
Gehenna (abode of the damned)

Usually when we speak of "hell" we mean "the fires of hell" or Gehenna. At STh III, q. 52, a. 2, Saint Thomas Aquinas is clear that Christ did not descend into Gehenna. (For those interested in such things, Hans Urs Von Balthasar stands if full contradiction to Catholic tradition on this point.)

Christ's soul descended to the Limbo of the Fathers, also known as Abraham's Bosom:

“And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.” (Luke 16:22, D-R)

In the Old Testament, the gates of Heaven were not open to human souls. So the faithful in the Old Testament remained in the Limbo of the Fathers until the passion and death of Christ - those from Adam till even the thief on the cross.

Now Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that since the Old Testament faithful did not have the sacraments, that Christ's descent into the inferno was for them as the sacraments are to us:

Hence, as the power of the Passion is applied to the living through the sacraments which make us like unto Christ's Passion, so likewise it is applied to the dead through His descent into hell. On which account it is written (Zechariah 9:11) that "He sent forth prisoners out of the pit, in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of His Passion.

So Abraham was not baptized, but he did receive the efficacy of baptism by the descent of Christ into the Limbo of the Fathers. Thus, the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hell solves many theological difficulties: the lack of sacramental efficacy in the Old Law, the salvation of people before Christ, and the distinction of abodes in hell.

A Checklist of Popular Devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:47:21 PST

Below are five traditional and popular devotions to our Blessed and Immaculate Mother Mary. These devotions are endorsed by Saints, Doctors, and Popes of the Church. In most cases, these devotions are endorsed by Mary and Christ through approved private revelations.

Holy Rosary. I place this first because it is the Marian devotion of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII wrote eleven encyclicals exhorting the faithful to pray the Rosary daily. Our Lady of Fatima asked the faithful to pray the Rosary daily. The Popes have also granted a plenary indulgence to reciting the Rosary as a family or in a Church. So do you think Christ, Mary, and the Church want you pray the Rosary? You bet.
Brown Scapular. The Brown Scapular goes back to the Old Testament in essence with Elias the Carmelite Prophet. It is worn under the clothes and is the sign that you are consecrated to Mary under her title Our Lady of Mount Carmel. I need to write a post on this one of these days. In the meantime, here is a great sermon on the Brown Scapular. Please click here to listen to it.
First Saturdays. At Fatima, Our Lady asked that the faithful attend Holy Mass, pray the Rosary and meditate for 15 minutes on a mystery of Rosary for five consecutive first Saturdays of the month. God chose five first Saturdays of the month for the five chief blasphemies committed against Mary:

Denial of her as Mother of God
Denial of her Immaculate Conception
Denial of her Perpetual Virginity
Desecration of images of Mary
Those who teach children not to love Mary

Wearing the Miraculous Medal. I cannot go into the long and glorious history of the Miraculous Medal in this brief post. Suffice it to say that it is miraculous. If you want to be completely blown away by a verifiable miracle and miraculous conversion through the Miraculous Medal, listen to this short sermon. You won't regret it and it won't take much time.
Three Hail Mary's. Mary has promised the gift of sexual chastity and purity to those who pray three Hail Mary's morning and evening. It's a great custom. I've written a whole post on it and where it comes from here: Three Hail Mary's a Day Keeps Mortal Sin Away. It's an easy and simple devotion to add to your daily schedule. Tack it on to the end of your Rosary.

There are many, many wholesome devotions to our Immaculate Lady. Remember, countless saints have taught that a person cannot be saved without devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you love and worship and Incarnate Christ, how could you not have reverence for the Mother who made it possible? Please leave questions or suggestions in the comments box on the site below. I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Godspeed,

Taylor

Was Saint Peter in Rome or Antioch? The Chronology of Peter's Papacy

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:05:47 PST

Christ giving the Keys to Saint Peter

Catholic Tradition holds that Saint Peter arrived in Rome for the first time in about AD 44. This coincides with the martyrdom of St James the Greater and St Peter's arrest in Jerusalem and subsequent departure:

“But he, beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison. And he said: Tell these things to James and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.” (Acts 12:17, D-R)

Here, Peter departure to "another place," is his departure from Jerusalem to Rome. After the imprisonment and attempted murder of Peter, the Apostle's location throughout the New Testament is kept secret and hidden.

Saint Peter established the Church in Rome from AD 43 till AD 49 when he and all Jews were expelled from Rome by the decree of Claudius in AD 49. Why were they expelled?

According to Roman historians the Jews were expelled from the city of Rome in AD 49 because the Roman Jews were fighting over a Jew named "Chrestus."

Hmmm...Jews in Rome fighting over "Chrestus"...there must have been a mighty preacher (Pope) of "Chrestus" or "Christ" in Rome in the AD 40s to lead to all that infighting within the synagogues! This has Peter's fingerprints all over it.

Also remember that Saint Peter pops back into Jerusalem from "another place" in AD 49, which is the occasion for the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 regarding circumcision and baptism.

From AD 49 till AD 54 (during the Jewish expulsion from Rome), we find Saint Peter reigning temporarily in Antioch. This is why Peter is known also as the first bishop of Antioch. It was the first "Babylonian captivity" of the Pope.

Tradition holds that in AD 54, when Nero revoked the Jewish expulsion from Rome, Saint Peter moved back to Rome and continued to reign as the first Pope of the Apostolic See.

In my upcoming book The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholicism I will present a theory that Saint Paul cryptically refers to St Peter in Rome in the book of Romans:

“And I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man a foundation.” (Romans 15:20, D-R)

The Greek is μὴ ἐπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ.

Here "another man" is Saint Peter as the Catholics of Rome would know. What other man (singular) had built a foundation for the Church in Rome? Paul had not yet preached there because "another man" was laying the "foundation" of the Church in Rome, Saint Peter.

The chronology is so tight and conforms to what we know from secular history, and yet modern "experts" deny it all - even that Peter came to Rome.

I've spoken before on how some Catholics have unwittingly adopted the hermeneutic of suspicion, which immediately holds all things traditional as suspect until proven. They love to boast about how George, Christopher, and Philomena aren't really saints, that the Evangelists didn't really write the Four Gospels, and that pious people in the old days simply fingered Rosaries and didn't understand the Mass. These are signs of the hermeneutic of suspicion. Contrary to this, the Holy Father Pope Benedict has asked to employ a hermeneutic of continuity. We are not allowed to stand in judgment over the previous tradition. We receive it.

The hermeneutic of suspicion is a fault against the Fourth Commandment that teaches "Honor thy Father and Mother." At the end of the day, are you going to trust the Doctors and Saints or enlightened Hegelians or a German text critics on these matters?

ad Jesum per Mariam,

Taylor

Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email. Please also browse Taylor's books about Catholicism at amazon.com by clicking here.

So I've Written a Novel about Saint George and the Dragon...

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:02:45 PST

I've written a novel. Imagine that Harry Potter* had a vocation to celibacy and instead of wizards and magic, he relied on monks, relics, and advice from the Pope? Sound interesting?

My new novel on Saint George is a historical fiction novel that presents the historical Saint George at the end of the third century as the Roman persecution of Diocletian is ramping it up. Along the way the young George meets up and receives counsel from other saints of that era, such as Saint Christopher, a young Saint Nicholas, Saint Blaise, Saint Erasmus, and Pope Marcellinus. Yes, the novel even has bilocating saints in it!

The book begins with the orphaned George making a pilgrimage to Rome and ends with a new twist on George slaying the dragon - but I don't want to give it all away.

...I don't have an agent or a publisher. If you know of anybody, please pass this post along. I'd love to get this book into the right hands.

Godspeed,

Taylor Marshall

* I'm not a fan of Harry Potter. The "Harry Potter" comparison is just a "hook," since few today know who Saint George really is. This novel and its narrative have absolutely nothing to do with Harry Potter. However, both books are about young men learning about the supernatural. In Potter it's the occult. In my novel it's Catholic piety. In sum, it's the anti-Potter.

Is the Historical Chair of St Peter at the Vatican?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:05:01 PST

In the Catholic calendar up until at least 1955, January 18 was the Feast of the Saint Peter's Chair at Rome. The "chair" is an Old Testament sign of magisterial authority, as Christ Himself gave witness:

“Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:2–3, D-R)

The commemoration of Peter's chair in rome honors the preeminent magisterial authority of Saint Peter to whom was given the Keys of the Kingdom. Peter's office as the Vicar of Christ recalls the promise of God to the "royal steward" or "vicar" in the royal household of the Davidic king. This prophecy promises that the king's steward will "become a throne of honor":

“And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.” (Isaiah 22:22–23, D-R)

Yet did Saint Peter as the first Vicar of Christ have his own physical cathedra (Greek: "chair")? There is a third century anti-Marcionite poem that seems to testify to this historicity of Peter's cathedra:

Hac cathedra, Petrus qua sederat ipse, locatum
Maxima Roma Linum primum considere iussit.

- Adversus Marcionem (Patrologia Latina II, 1099)

The Latin translates:

"On this chair whereupon Peter himself sat
The great Rome placed Linus and commanded him to sit."

Saint Linus is of course the successor of Saint Peter, that is the second pope of Rome. Is this cathedra, Petrus qua sederat ipse, a literally chair or is it merely a poetic allusion to Peter's authority? I suppose that there is no way to know for sure, but Tertullian (cf. De præscriptione hæreticorum, 36) and others seem to suggest or assume that a true physical chair kept in Rome had been that of Saint Peter.

Regardless, the chair depicted above is the traditional "Chair of Saint Peter". In Old Saint Peter's, this chair was prominently placed in the baptistry and the Pope would sit on it in order to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. This chair and custom are confirmed to as early as AD 366.

Today, it is enshrined in the apse of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome. I don't know whether carbon dating has been performed on it. If you're aware of any studies or archeological investigations, please send them my way.

Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email. You can also browse Taylor's books about Catholicism at amazon.com by clicking here.

How Saint Alphonsus Liguori Converted a Muslim

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:49:06 PST

Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church

Saint Alphonsus Liguori is one of the thirty-three doctors of the Church and is the patron of Moral Theology. In fact, Saint Alphonsus' Theologia Moralia is to moral theology what Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa theologiae is to dogmatic theology. Get a copy if you can. He crosses every t and dots every i in the realm of morals.

His biography is stunning. Here are a few examples of his sanctity. He made a solemn vow to God that he should never waste a minute of his life on pain of mortal sin! In contemporary terms, if he spaced out and played minesweeper or solitaire, he'd have to rush off to confession for breaking a solemn vow. He promised every moment for the salvation of souls. He founded the Redemptorist order with great struggle. His confessors said that he never committed a mortal sin from baptism until his holy and peaceful death. He is known popularly for his book Glories of Mary (which you should read this book ASAP if you haven't.)

Saint Alphonsus received his license to practice jurisprudence at the age of 16. Imagine paying a 16 year old to represent you in court. Yet Alphonsus was one of the most sought after lawyers in Naples at that time.

Sometime between the age of 16 and 20, a wonderful event happened in his life. His family employed a Muslim servant in their household. Having lived in close quarters with Alphonsus and having observed his daily routine, the Muslim asked to be baptized into the Catholic Faith. When asked why, the Muslim servant answered, "A religion which produces virtue like his cannot but be the true one."

This should teach us that it is sanctity that converts the unbelieving heart to Christ. I gulp when I think of applying it to my life. If a servant lived in my home and saw my every move and how I act and pray every day, would he come to the conclusion: "A religion which produces virtue like his cannot but be the true one." I fear that this would not be the case for my example.

It is also a wake up call for the West. Why are Muslims not converting to the Catholic Faith? The answer may have something to do with how they do not observe Christianity producing virtue within us.

Saint Alphonsus Liguori, pray for us.

Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email.

The Wedding at Cana - Whose Wedding Was It?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:56:21 PST

Paolo Veronese's The Wedding at Cana

We know that Christ changed water into wine, but whose wedding was it?

Saint Bede and Saint Thomas Aquinas speculate that this was the wedding of Saint John the Evangelist.

However, Cornelius a Lapide records that the marriage festival at which Christ turned water into wine at the request of the Blessed Virgin Mary was that of Saint Simon the Apostle. Here's the quote:

With more probability, Baronius, following Nicephorus (Hist. l. 8. c. 30), thinks that the bridegroom at this marriage was the Apostle Simon, who was surnamed the Cananite from Cana. And Baronius adds from the same Nicephorus that the place where the marriage was celebrated was adorned by a famous church built there by S. Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great. As soon as Simon had seen this miracle of Christ at his wedding, he bade farewell to his bride and the world, and followed Him, and was chosen to be one of His twelve Apostles. This was the reason why Christ came to this wedding; and by coming, indeed, honoured marriage; but by calling him to Himself, He showed that celibacy and the apostolate were better than marriage.

An interesting tradition, to say the least. By the way, Saint Simon the Cananite was the son of Cleophas who was the brother of Saint Joseph.

Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email.

How Did the Blessed Virgin Worship the Son of God in Sorrow?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:37:19 PST

It's Saturday. The day for a post on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

How did the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin worship the Son of God? Consider her thoughts as her pure eyes gazed upon the crucified Son of God. As her divine Son hung upon the cross, how did she worship Him? This was the first Mass and she was actively participating more than all of us put together.

Yet her soul was filled with bitterness and pain. “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35, D-R). Her soul was pierced so deeply that day that, some saints say, she lived afterward as one mortally wounded. As a deer that bears the hunter's arrow, sometimes for several weeks, and then finally dies from that wound, so also did Our Lady receive a fatal wound that eventually led to her incorrupt and peaceful death.

Her worship of the Christ the Son of God on Golgatha was immersed in sorrow and suffering. This reveals to us that the best worship is not clapping hands, dancing, speaking in tongues, and hootin' and hollerin' (as we say in here in Texas). We know that it is easy to praise God when we get a promotion, have a healthy child, receive a raise, score a touchdown, or receive honors. However, it is much more difficult to praise God in trials and sorrow.

The Immaculate Mary, no doubt, looked at the crucified Christ and realized that the source of her Immaculate Conception and sinlessness sprang from this moment. That which Blessed Pope Pius IX articulated in 1854 was known already by Mary as she worshiped Christ her perfect Savior on Good Friday in AD 33.

Blessed Pius IX declared "that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime" (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854). Surely the Immaculate Mary knew, as she looked on the sufferings of Christ, that her special privilege was given only on account of the Savior's deep agony and obedient sacrifice.

Saint Alphonsus Liguori states that sweet Mary was the most glorious creature ever created (even more than the angels), but also the most humble creature. It is not an exaggeration to claim that her humility on earth was the greatest and the most profound when she looked upon Christ crucified and consented to His sacrifice for our salvation.

This is why she is the mother of all as the wise and prophetic Siracides foretold of her: “I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits” (Ecclesiasticus 24:24–26, D-R).

In our own lives, we can practice this humility and earnest worship best at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass since it is the same sacrifice of Christ. We must look on him with the eyes of faith since our natural senses fail to discern Him. The Blessed Mother is mystically present with us as every Holy Mass (albeit not sacramentally present as Christ is present at the consecration). She can equip us to offer pious intentions, offer humble and spiritual worship to Christ, and to make fervent communions when we receive the Blessed Sacrament.

A pious practice is to pray a Hail Mary just before Father places the Blessed Sacrament on your tongue. This Hail Mary is a request for a flush of grace just before you receive the Son of God. Also, it was the pious practice of Blessed Contardo Ferini (a layman, professor, and Franciscan tertiary) to pray the Blessed Mother's Magnificat after receiving the Holy Host. Many hand Missals have the Magnificat in them so you can easily flip to it and pray Our Lady's prayer.

God be with you and may you enjoy your Saturday.

ad Jesum per Mariam,

Taylor

Saint James vs. You Tube's "Why I Hate Religion"

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:23:42 PST

Saint James the Less

There is a misinformed man on YouTube (I won't even bother linking it) gaining attraction, because he is recycling the old addage that "religion can't save you, only Christ can save you." This is the Protestant strategy of playing religion off Christ. It's a subtle argument that suggests that Christ never intended to found an institutional Church.

This view was especially popular in colonial America, because circuit preachers were attempting to draw Americans away from their institutional de facto religion (Anglicanism) to their revivals and "simple faith" (usually Methodism and Baptist movements). It was almost universally successful in the southern United States, which we know today as the Bible Belt. The method is a rhetorical strategy that deceives a great number of souls since most people have experienced dissatisfaction with "institutional religion." Shoot, I'm a Catholic with a high view of the Catholic Church, but even I become frustrated and discouraged by the institution...

...but I'm not leaving it.

Matthew 16:18 reveals that Christ built one Church on Peter. That is the divine will and I hope to be united with it even if it is painful, annoying, or discouraging. It can be part of "taking of your cross daily."

The word "religion" is not our enemy. The word religion comes from the Latin religare meaning to "to bind" or "to make a bond." Our English word "to rely on" comes form this Latin word. Do you "rely" on Christ? Of course. The word is related to our English word ligament--something that binds your body together. The opposite of religare is negligare from which we get "negligent" and "neglect." It becomes manifest here that "religion" is not the enemy. Rather, religion is the cure.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit speaking in the Sacred Scriptures affirms the existence of the true religion. Saint James the Apostle makes this explicitly clear:

And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world (James 1:26–27, D-R).

Saint James speaks of "religion clean and undefiled before God." Hmmm. The guy railing against "religion" in favor of Jesus Christ has side-stepped the Holy Ghost. Not a good move. You cannot favor Jesus Christ while at the same time rejecting the words of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is not a multiple choice question. It's all or nothing. You're either Trinitarian or you're a heretic. Hard words, but true words.

So when your friends bring up the anti-religion YouTube guy, just pull out your New Testament (you do carry one with you, right?) and read them James 1:27. It settles it right away.

I recommend and endorse this Catholic pocket New Testament and Psalms. Fir men, it fits perfectly in your blazer and sports-coat side pockets. For ladies, it fits easily in a small purse. And it's all leather for beauty and wear.

The Mummies of the Three Wise Men

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 05:58:23 PST

The Three Magi: Gaspar, Balthazar, and Melchior

When I was in college, I journeyed to Cologne, Germany and visited the city's glorious cathedral. I was a Protestant at the time, but I remember being amazed that people had been building this cathedral for so many centuries. It is one of the greatest Gothic churches of all time.

St Peter and St Mary Cathedral in Cologne, Germany

A tour guide informed me that the bodies of the three Wise Men were enshrined inside. Since I was still a Protestant, I wasn't much impressed by the remains of dead people, but this was something that perked my interest - the earthly remains of "we three kings of orient are." It was perhaps my first investigation into one of those things that Protestants find icky: relics.

According to tradition, the bodies of Gaspar, Balthasar, and Melchior (the traditional names of the Wise Men) were discovered by Saint Helena during her pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The fourteenth century account by John of Hildesheim entitled History of the Three Kings explains how Queen Saint Helen brought the mummies of the Magi to Constantinople.

After she had found the bodies of Melchior, Balthazar, and Gaspar, Queen Helen put them into one chest and ornamented it with great riches, and she brought them into Constantinople.

Later, the three mummies were transferred from Constantinople to Milan. The city of Milan was once known for its festive observance of the feast of Epiphany, and the presence of the three Wise Men's relics in that city may be the context and origin for this ancient custom. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick moved the mummified Magi one last time to Cologne in AD 1164 where they rest till this day. If you get to Germany, be sure to check it out.

Photo of the golden casket of the three Wise Men

Wise Men still seek Jesus.

The Three Magi were Likely Arabs, and Why is One of the Magi Dark Skinned?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:08:20 PST

Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Epiphanius, and Tertullian (all three very early) report that the three Magi were Arabs.*

The reason for this is their reading of Isaiah 60:6 as a prophecy of the Adoration of the Magi:

“The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Madian and Epha: all they from Saba shall come, bringing gold and frankincense: and shewing forth praise to the Lord.” (Isaiah 60:6, D-R)

All three nations, Madian, Epha, and Saba, are Arab nations. Moreover, Saba was known especially for its frankincense. Couple this with the witness of the Psalms:

“The kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts.” (Psalm 71:10, D-R)

Both verses complement one another and refer to the coming of the Magi described in Saint Matthew's Gospel. Hence, there were not likely Chinese, Babylonian, Persian, Indian, or African.

These Arab people are closer to Judea and thus they would be able to travel there more quickly rather than for months (or years). Also, these Arab people may have known the prophecy of Balaam of Moab:

“I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not near. A STAR SHALL RISE out of Jacob and a sceptre shall spring up from Israel: and shall strike the chiefs of Moab, and shall waste all the children of Seth” (Numbers 24:17, D-R)

By the way, Cornelius Lapide notes that the Madians are dark skinned and this is why there is usually a black skinned Magi depicted in most Nativity Scenes.

* Cornelius a Lapide reports these Fathers and supports the reading that the three Magi were Arabs.

Does the Word Epiphany Appear in the Bible?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:47:50 PST

The word "epiphany" comes from the Greek ἐπιφανεία, pronounced epiphaneia. The verbal form means "to appear" or "to be made manifest." Epiphany is thus sometimes called "The Manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles." The Gentile Wise Men are the first fruits of Gentile worship for the the King of the Jews.

At 2 Maccabees 15:27, the term epiphaneia is used for a manifestation of the God of Israel:

So fighting with their hands, but praying to the Lord with their hearts, they slew no less than five and thirty thousand, being greatly cheered with the presence of God {τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ μεγάλως εὐφρανθέντες ἐπιφανείᾳ}.

Saint Paul uses the term to refer to the birth of Christ:

But is now made manifest by the illumination {διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας} of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has destroyed death and has brought to light life and incorruption by the gospel (2 Tim 1:10).

The New Testament also uses the term many other times, usually to describe Christ's appearances after the resurrection or His Second Coming. Have a happy and blessed Epiphany. There is a tradition to have your home blessed in the octave of Epiphany, so act now and see if you can have Father do the honors.

My Favorite Catholic Bible Scholar: Cornelius a Lapide

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:44:23 PST

My favorite Bible Scholar of all time is Cornelius a Lapide (1597-1637). His commentary on Sacred Scripture is, in my little opinion, the best that exists.

Lapide wrote commentaries on the books the Holy Bible. His knowledge of the Church Fathers is amazing and he incorporates all relevant sources when weighing in on a passage. Lapide is valuable because he often explores not only the literal, but also the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical senses of the passage.

Regrettably you have to read Latin (pretty well) to read his commentaries. However, most of his New Testament commentaries are available in English and online for free. I have kept this link in the sidebar to the right, but here it is again. Please get busy and start reading Lapide:

Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide in English

Catholic Church vs. Protestant Reformers on Original Sin, Concupiscence, and Total Depravity

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:18:07 PST

A reader recently asked about the diffrence between the Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine of original sin and the true Catholic doctrine regarding original sin. Before answering this question, let's review the basics of the effects of Adam and Eve's fall.

The fall of Adam and Eve brought the "four wounds" to human nature. These are enumerated by St Bede and others, especially St Thomas Aquinas (STh I-II q. 85, a. 3):

Original sin (lack of sanctifying grace and original justice)
Concupiscence (the eleven passions are no longer ordered perfectly to the soul's intellect)
Physical frailty and death
Darkened intellect and ignorance

The Catholic Faith holds that baptism washes away original sin, and infuses sanctifying grace and righteousness. This is the miracle of regeneration and justification.

The other wounds three remain in Christians. These three are not essentially sinful but the wounds of original sin that remain. Concupiscence means that our passions or emotions get the better of our intellect. Concupiscence is that inner struggle that you experience when you your waitress says, "Don't touch the plate, it's hot," and you do it anyway, or when you get angry for irrational reasons. It what Saint Paul teaches with regard to the flesh vs the mind in Romans 7:25. The "flesh" or the "law of sin" is concupiscence. Even though we love God, we feel inner pulses do act contrary to His revealed will.

We have concupiscence till the day we die.

Christ and Mary did not have concupiscence. Pious tradition teaches that St John the Baptist and St Joseph also were delivered from original sin and concupiscence after their conception but before their births.

Incidentally, Luther and Calvin identified concupiscence with original sin. They use them interchangeably and it is a major difference between the true Faith and the false teachings of the Protestants. This is what led to their overly harsh doctrine of original sin - what Calvinists call "total depravity."

The Catholic Faith holds that the baptized no longer have any original sin. Gone. Washed away. However, concupiscence remains after baptism. Most Protestants (even Anglicans) hold that original sin remains after baptism, since for them original sin and concupiscence are indistinguishable and experience shows that the baptized still struggle with inordinate desires and inward temptations of the flesh.

I hope this is helpful. I think that I dedicated almost a chapter to this in my book Catholic Perspective on Paul.

ad Jesum per Mariam,

Taylor

PS: If you are interested in taking this to the next level, see the post:

The Mechanics of Sin and Redemption in Catholic Theology

The Mediation of Mary at the Wedding in Cana

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:14:37 PST

I love Saturday's because Saturday is the day for this blog's posts about the Blessed Virgin Mary. Ave Maria!

As we move into Epiphany, we recall Christ's first sign at the Wedding in Cana. Christ transubstantiated (and even transaccidentiated) water into the best wine.

Let's take a look at what Saint John and the Holy Spirit records:

His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. (John 2:5–11, D-R)

The ministry of Christ our Lord begins with "His mother" when she says, "Do whatever he tells you." The Holy Vulgate has it as: "Quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite." Many lament, "Why is that Mary appears so little in the New Testament? If she is so important, why is she not on every page?"

I discuss it some in the section on "Saint Paul and the Blessed Virgin Mary" in my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul. In my opinion (and I'm not the magisterium) there are at least three reasons for this.

Holy persons and holy items are veiled. The meaning of of "apocalypse" is from the Greek apo- "from" and kalyptein "to cover, to veil." Christ's reign is currently veiled until the end of time when it will be unveiled, or re-veiled, or apocalypsed. The most holy things are the most hidden. It should be startling that we are experiencing more and more Marian apparitions. In my opinion, it's a sign of the preparation for...
Mary is mentioned several times and only at key moments. At the incarnation of Christ. At the birth of Christ. At the circumcision (first blood-shedding of the Messiah), at the presentation in the temple, at Christ's teaching in the temple, at his first miracle in Cana, then at the foot of the cross, and then at Pentecost, oh, and then again in the Apocalypse.

It is as if God uses Mary as His most precious spice. As he prepares the banquet, he uses it sparingly and only for special purposes. Mary is God's highlighter. He does not highlight ever sentence, only the best lines!
Lastly, I do not think that Christ and the Holy Ghost wanted her featured too often. If you read the dedicatory of this blog, you might begin to discern this, let the reader understand: “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:35, D-R) Mary is the secret sign. Mary is the litmus test. Sacred Scripture says that the thoughts of our hearts will be revealed because of Mary. So when you hear someone speak with tenderness about Mary, their heart is revealed. It is a sign. When they lament her sorrows at the cross. It's a sign. If they say, "Ha! Mary's not that big of deal - she's a sinner like us all," then this to is a sign. Their heart is revealed.

You cannot really argue with people who speak poorly of the Blessed Mother. There is not a ton of Scripture to convince them. It is just one of those mystical things. The elect love Mary. The reprobate are cold or hateful toward her. Period. The saints teach this over and over. I wont write out the list. St Louis de Montfort has catalogued the quotations on this subject.

Returning to the wedding of Cana, we see that our Immaculate Mother does not need to say much. She says to us, "Obey the words of my divine Son." That is the best Marian devotion, to avoid sin and strive for sanctity. Best of all, she helps us along the way. She is the surest and fastest way to the Christ. She is his mirror. She is the moon reflecting the light of the Sun.

My God, how beautiful is the fair creature who we call Mother and Queen? She is all fair. Christ has given her all graces.

“I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.” (Ecclesiasticus 24:24–25, D-R)

She rules by grace through the Holy Spirit. These are things hinted at in Scripture but not at all manifest. One must become little to see it all. This pretty much sums it up: “To give subtilty to little ones, to the young man knowledge and understanding.” (Proverbs 1:4, D-R)

Have a blessed First Saturday. Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary Most Holy. Christ have mercy.

PS: A good devotion for married people is to turn to Christ when there is stress in your marriage and say to him, "We have no wine!" Let Jesus and Mary to the rest. They will turn the water in wine. It's truly amazing how well this works. It is also wholesome to pray for your spouse during the consecration of the chalice with wine and water in it. I always offer the chalice at that moment for my bride.

Why Did God Order the Death of Gentile Infants? A Possible Solution

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:15:01 PST

Canaanite Infant Sacrifice

The comments have been busy with conversations about God's command that the Israelites should kill Canaanites, sometimes even the Canaanite children.

See: Did God Command "Genocide" in Deuteronomy?

God specifies different orders for Israel regarding different kinds of Canaanites:

For some Canaanite cities, only the men should be killed (Deut 20:12-15). Here, God specifically commands Israel not to kill the women, children, and livestock.
In the case of other cities, God commanded that the men, women, and children be killed (Deut 20:16-18). Specifically, these are the "Hethites, and the Amorrhites, and the Chanaanites, the Pherezites, and the Hevites, and the Jebusites."
In the case of the Amalakites, the worst enemies of Israel, God commanded that the men, women, children, and livestock be killed (1 Sam 15:3-23).

King Saul, the first king of Israel, slew all the Amalakites (men, women, children, infants), but did not kill all their livestock. For this disobedience, King Saul lost the crown, which was given to King David.

I've been pondering these difficult verses. God commanded killing...children? Also, why is there a gradation in God's command regarding Canaanites? I can understand the first one easily. Idolatrous men are dwelling in the Promised Land. When combatants (males) confront Israel, then Israel kills these men. That make sense.

Yet (2) and (3) are more difficult to understand since in these passages God directly commands the Israelites to kill Canaanite children.

The key here, I think, is the final inclusion of livestock in number (3) regarding the Amalakites. This got me thinking. Children and livestock are not moral agents. Children reach the age of reason somewhere between the age of 5 and 10 years - usually 7 years. Therefore, small children cannot culpable of sins. These pagan children have original sin, so did all Gentiles. Original sin alone cannot qualify these children for death under the Israelite sword. Moreover, animals are not culpable of sin. So why would God want these children and animals killed?

I was praying about this yesterday several times, asking Christ to show me a good answer. Then it struck me. Ancient pagan cities were cultic - the cities were centered on the community's religion. These specific peoples ("Hethites, and the Amorrhites, and the Chanaanites, the Pherezites, and the Hevites, and the Jebusites") and especially the Amalakites were foresworn enemies of Israel. This means they were foresworn enemies of God. This means that they served Satan more than any other people on earth.

Suddenly, an answer appears. These people were irrevocably given over to Satan and his demons. Demons can posses children and they can possess animals. Do you remember this passage:

“The devils therefore went out of the man and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake and were stifled.” (Luke 8:33, D-R)

God ordered the deaths of children and animals in the last case because the men, women, children, and animals were possessed by devils. It would not be fitting for Israel to adopt demon-possessed children and demon-possessed livestock. These pagan people consecrated their children and livestock to Baal who is a devil. Imagine if you poured goats blood on a baby and baptized the child for the devil. Would that baby have spiritual problems? You bet. These Canaanite children had been handed over to the devils that their parents worshiped.

“For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils, but the Lord made the heavens.” (Psalm 95:5, D-R)

There is archaeological evidence to support that these enemies of Israel consecrated their infants to these devils. Archeologists have found that it was common for these Canaanites tribes to sacrifice an infant and place its body in the foundation of their house as some sort of bizarre "house blessing" ritual.

Their religious sites are filled with two things: the skeletons of sacrificed children and fertility figurines with enlarged sex organs. These people lived for Satan. They dedicated their children to Satan. They even sacrificed their children to Satan. Any surviving children would have been set apart to serve the devils and these children were likely filled with devils.

It should not surprise us that Satan and his devils focused on these poor peoples, since the devils knew that God desired Israel to live in the Promised Land and eventually that Christ would be born, die, and resurrect in this land. So Satan had been busy poisoning the inhabitants against the true God and His people Israel. This is why these Canaanite nations attacked Israel. They were attacking God.

In brief, it was a mercy for these children to be killed by Israel. If they grew up, they'd be demon worshipers and would plunge into Hell. If they were slain, they would simply go the limbo of the children where they would enjoy natural happiness.

As for the animals, killing these would free them of the devils.

This is merely my (working) hypothesis. It may be faulty and thoroughly incorrect, or perhaps it may bring some clarity. Remember also that the Jews did not have the sacrament of baptism which could have delivered these infants, and they did not have a ministry of exorcism that we have today in the Catholic Church.

Please feel free to comment below.

Did God Command Genocide in Deuteronomy?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:49:41 PST

In the comments below regarding God's command to stone sinners for certain crimes in the Old Law, (see Deut 12:10), the topic of Israelite genocide came up. Especially with the advent of the New Atheists, there is an allegation that the God of Israel commanded "genocide." As we saw previously, God has commanded the death of certain individuals, but did He also command the death of an entire race or entire races?

Their argument of "Israelite genocide" comes chiefly from the 20th chapter of Deuteronomy:

[16] But of those cities that shall be given thee, thou shalt suffer none at all to live: [17] But shalt kill them with the edge of the sword, to wit, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: [18] Lest they teach you to do all the abominations which they have done to their gods: and you should sin against the Lord your God.

Here God commands that the cities of six peoples be destroyed. Remember the context. The Israelites are about to re-enter the Promised Land and conquer the land as their own. When they come across these six peoples, they are to kill them all. Why? It has nothing to do with genetic inferiority or genetic impurity. Rather, these six peoples practice "abominations" that will lead Israel to abandon God.

What kind of abominations? Child sacrifice, sorcery, idolatry, incest, rape, sodomy, and murder.

Now opponents of Christianity will cite this verse to the horror of their audience in order to prove that the God of Israel is either cruel or just as capricious as Jupiter or Allah.

How do we answer?

Check the context. The part that is often left out is the section immediately preceding the passage above from Deuteronomy 20. My commentary is in red:

[10] If at any time thou come to fight against a city, thou shalt first offer it peace. {Hence, God doesn't order absolute genocide, but first offers peace to all the cities of the pagans.} [11] If they receive it, and open the gates to thee, all the people that are therein, shall be saved, and shall serve thee paying tribute. {If they accept the peace offered by Israel they will be saved, but will have to pay taxes to Israel since Israel rightfully owns the promise land by God's command} [12] But if they will not make peace, and shall begin war against thee, thou shalt besiege it. [13] And when the Lord thy God shall deliver it into thy bands, thou shalt slay all that are therein of the male sex, with the edge of the sword, [14] Excepting women and children, cattle and other things, that are in the city. And thou shalt divide all the prey to the army, and thou shalt eat the spoils of thy enemies, which the Lord thy God shall give thee. [15] So shalt thou do to all cities that are at a great distance from thee, and are not of these cities which thou shalt receive in possession.

Certainly the six peoples listed above, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, were treated more strictly since even their women and children were to be slaughtered if they did not accept the peace of Israel (consult verse 16 which places a stricter judgment o these people). Nonetheless, we know from history that some of these people did receive Israel and were not only preserved, but began to worship to the true God of Israel.

For example, in 2 Samuel 24:18 we read, "And Gad came to David that day, and said: Go up, and build an altar to the Lord in the threshing floor of Areuna the Jebusite." Here then is a land-owning Jebusite living in Jerusalem. David doesn't kill him. He makes a deal with him. In fact, this Jebusite even offers his land for free to King David so that the Temple will be built there. He even tries to freely give his oxen for the sacrifice to God! Even so, David reward the Jebusite for paying him a fair price anyway. So much for absolute genocide against the Jebusites!

Another example is Rahab, the keeper of the lodge in Jericho is also an example of a woman, who with her household, was saved by receiving Israel and converting to the God of Israel.

Some will still be upset by the fact that God ordered the children of these people to be killed. Notably in other cities, these children were spared, but among the the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, the children were to be killed. I do not have a good answer for this, but I'll do some reading and see what I can find.

May Catholics Work on Sunday? (Thomas Aquinas)

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Taylor Marshall) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:22:13 PST

In the Old Testament, there were certain crimes that were punishable by death. God explicitly commanded that if anyone committed such crimes, he was to be put to death by his fellow citizens. Here is an example of how God commanded a man to be stoned to death for "picking up sticks on the sabbath day":

“And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and had found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day, That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude. And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him. And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him without the camp. And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded.” (Numbers 15:32–36, D-R)

Incidentally, those who teach that capital punishment is contrary to the will of God, always and everywhere, have not appreciated the fact that God commanded capital punishment.

Is this still strictly binding on Catholics? If my Catholic neighbor is picking up sticks on Sunday, should I gather the neighbors and stone him?

Not quite.

In the New Covenant, two elements of the Sabbath were transformed. First, the Sabbath was moved from Saturday (the seventh day of creation) to the Sunday (which is mystically the "eighth" day of creation since it stands outside of time). The reason for this is that Christ perfectly fulfilled the Sabbath precept by allowing his incorrupt body to remain perfectly at rest in the tomb on Holy Saturday. Moreover, His glorious resurrection on Easter Sunday reconstituted a new creation of which He was the firstfruits or first portion.

“But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep.” (1 Corinthians 15:20, D-R)

For this reason, the New Covenant observes the day of His resurrection - the first day or Sunday. We do this not because of Constantine (what a silly and tired explanation), but because the Apostles observed Sunday:

“And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow. And he continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7, D-R)

“On the first day of the week, let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him: that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.” (1 Corinthians 16:2, D-R)

So the day has changed from the Old to the New, but also the requirements. Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that the standards of rest are mitigated in the New Law

In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people. For this observance is not figurative, as was the observance of the Sabbath in the Old Law. Hence the prohibition to work on the Lord' day is not so strict as on the Sabbath: and certain works are permitted on the Lord's day which were forbidden on the Sabbath, such as the cooking of food and so forth. And again in the New Law, dispensation is more easily granted than in the Old, in the matter of certain forbidden works, on account of their necessity, because the figure pertains to the protestation of truth, which it is unlawful to omit even in small things; while works, considered in themselves, are changeable in point of place and time. Summa theologiae II-II, q. 124, a. 4, ad 4.

Thomas describes the New Law Lord's Day (Sunday) as "not so strict" as the Old Law Sabbath (Saturday). Cooking food is an example. This was forbidden in the Old but it is allowed in the New.

So what is forbidden? Thomas states that "servile work" is still forbidden on the Lord's Day (Sunday). What qualifies as servile work?

Thomas distinguishes three kinds of servile work: Servitude to sin (eg, gossip). Servitude to another man (eg, working for an employer). Servitude to God (eg, attending Mass). Thomas indicates that the first two are forbidden on the Lord's Day, but the third is allowed. In fact, we avoid servitude to sin and man so that we can have perfect servitude to God. They day belongs to God.

Of course, there are times when necessity leads one do something that one would not likely do on the Lord's Day. Thomas gives examples:

[One] is bound to provide necessaries both for himself and for his neighbor, chiefly in respect of things pertaining to the well-being of the body, according to Proverbs 24:11, "Deliver them that are led to death": secondarily as regards avoiding damage to one's property, according to Deuteronomy 22:1, "Thou shalt not pass by if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother." Hence a corporal work pertaining to the preservation of one's own bodily well-being does not profane the Sabbath: for it is not against the observance of the Sabbath to eat and do such things as preserve the health of the body. For this reason the Machabees did not profane the Sabbath when they fought in self-defense on the Sabbath day (1 Maccabees 2), nor Elias when he fled from the face of Jezabel on the Sabbath. For this same reason our Lord (Matthew 12:3) excused His disciples for plucking the ears of corn on account of the need which they suffered. On like manner a bodily work that is directed to the bodily well-being of another is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath: wherefore it is written (John 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath day?" And again, a bodily work that is done to avoid an imminent damage to some external thing does not profane the Sabbath, wherefore our Lord says (Matthew 12:11): "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep, and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?" Summa theologiae II-II, q. 124, a. 4, ad 3.

So enjoy a blessed Lord's Day. Our Blessed Lady has often complained that Catholics no longer observe the Lord's Day and she has asked for great sanctity in this way. In closing, here is a promise from Isaiah for all those that seek to keep the Sabbath:

“Blessed is the man that doth this, and the son of man that shall lay hold on this: that keepeth the sabbath from profaning it, that keepeth his hands from doing any evil. And let not the son of the stranger, that adhereth to the Lord, speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from his people. And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant: I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish. And the children of the stranger that adhere to the Lord, to worship him, and to love his name, to be his servants: every one that keepeth the sabbath from profaning it, and that holdeth fast my covenant: I will bring them into my holy mount, and will make them joyful in my house of prayer: their holocausts, and their victims shall please me upon my altar: for my house shall be called the house of prayer, for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:2–7, D-R)