Introduction

Over the years that I have been teaching theology on various levels, one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Catholic faith is the Magisterium and the teaching authority that it possesses. In recent years, I have been teaching Fundamental Theology, of which, considering Divine Revelation and the Magisterium are an important part. In addition, the modern landscape of the church is such that we have almost immediate access to the Pope and the Bishops, so that all of their actions and statements are put under a microscope, as has never been done before in the history of the Church. This has led many of the lay faithful to opine on matters that may or may not fall under the official teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Truly, these opinions often turn into criticism and, in some cases, dissent.

To that end, I wanted to write this article as an introduction to these subjects and the adjacent aspects of infallibility, the levels of Magisterial Teaching, assent, and an introduction to the Theological Grades of Certainty. Hopefully, this article clears up some misunderstandings that the reader may have, and most importantly, inspires the necessary obedience to our Holy Father and the Bishops in union with him who have been given the care of our souls.

At the outset, the most important thing to remember is that if our motivation for learning these things is to figure out what we don’t have to be obedient to, then we are beginning from a fundamentally flawed place. It is not as simple as “this teaching or council isn’t infallible, therefore I don’t have to obey it.” This line of thinking is stained with disobedience. We must constantly affirm our obedience to the Church, who is our Mother.

Magisterium

I want to begin with the Magisterium itself. The Magisterium of the Church is its official teaching office. It is composed of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. Thus, the function of the Magisterium is to safeguard, interpret, and hand on the Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition) to the Church through the ages. This means that the Magisterium is a witness to Divine Revelation and serves what is revealed through Scripture and Tradition. Dei Verbum from the Second Vatican Council teaches to this end:

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.1

Vatican II clearly teaches that the Magisterium is the exclusive authority on Divine Revelation. This means that no one else can authoritatively interpret what has been handed on through Scripture and Tradition. Even the theologian does not have this authority. He only exercises his ability to teach through participation, that is, through teaching in union with the Magisterium and never outside or contradictory to it.2

Dei Verbum continues:

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.3

The council teaches that the Magisterium is in service to God and His revelation. This means that the Magisterium does not act unilaterally and make up doctrines that suit its ends. It passes on only what is contained in the written or oral Word of God. Thus, the Magisterium cannot act or teach contrary to the perennial Catholic Faith.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is defined as being authentic. This means that it was instituted by a legitimate authority and given the power to bind:

Authentic Magisterium is the office of handing on doctrine instituted by a legitimate authority. Therefore, it implies in the teacher the power and office of handing on doctrine; but in the disciples the obligation and right to receive instruction.4

Thus, the Magisterium is founded by Jesus Christ on the Rock of St. Peter5 and the Apostolic Office, and they are given the charge to both teach and to bind.

It is likewise defined as both living and traditional. The “Magisterium is said to be living, which is exercised by the vital and conscious acts of men, whether the teacher makes use of writings or not.”6 This means that the Magisterium is made up of teachers who instruct the hearers through their teaching, and these teachings can either be transmitted through writing or through oral teaching. Additionally, the “traditional magisterium is that which objectively must only guard, declare, explain, and defend a closed deposit of truths.”7 This means that the Magisterium is limited to that which is in the Deposit of Faith; it cannot venture outside of the limits that the Lord has given her. This is normally contrasted with what is called an inventive magisterium, that is, a teaching office that is free to add to that which is taught with no foundation in what has come before.

Infallibility

The Magisterium is also defined as being infallible. Infallibility is the charism of the Church that is attached in certain circumstances to specific teachings that guarantee that assent to that teaching will not fail to get the one assenting to heaven. It is a supernatural immunity from error. This resides only in the areas of Faith and Morals.8 This immunity from error is distinguished from both revelation and inspiration. Instead:

The assistance of infallibility, or preservation from error, is the vigilance of God per se directing a man from without, so that a man, as the principal cause, can propose the word of God without error, whether it is revealed or inspired.9

This is a charism given by God that preserves the speaker from error for the good of the disciple regarding what is either of revelation or inspiration.10

It is fitting and needed to have a body of infallibility in order to have unity amongst the Church. This allows for confidence in what is being taught and believed. Further, if God desires to reveal Himself to man, then there needs to be an infallible medium that interprets and hands on that revelation. Without it, we are at the mercy of private interpretation. Christ gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and gave him the authority to bind and loose.11 He also commanded the Apostles to teach what had been given to them,12 promising them the Holy Spirit to teach them all things.13 Thus, “the Apostles in matters of faith and morals were personally and individually infallible.”14 Apostolic Succession guarantees a participation in this charism, though not to the degree of the Apostles themselves. This guarantee allows for the supernatural virtue of faith. Infallibility allows the faithful to fully assent to the teachings of the Church and have confidence in their salvific character.

Bodies of Infallibility

This charism is possessed by the Church according to two modalities. This is expressed in canon 749 of the Code of Canon Law:

Canon 749

§1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

The charism of infallibility belongs to the valid Pope, first and foremost. Through unity with him, the bishops may participate in that charism. This means that there are two modalities of infallibility:

a. The Pope alone

b. The Pope in union with the Bishops15

The relationship of the Bishops to the Pope is vital to understand. They exercise their authority in union with him:

The bishops teach under the Roman Pontiff, who, moved by the due affection of subordination towards him, proposes some doctrine for their faithful, so that at least implicitly they know that they are adhering to the same doctrine, which the Roman Pontiff also teaches. Therefore, in addition to their subordination, consensus is required, which can be explicit, but it is sufficient if it is tacit.16

The Bishops exercise this charism when they teach in union with the Pope, at least in an implicit way. Thus, in matters of faith and morals, there cannot be any dissension between the various bishops of the world and the Holy Father. They exercise their infallible charism only through the Office of Peter. This means that while a bishop has magisterial authority by his office, he can only exercise the infallible charism through union with the Holy Father.

To this end, the church identifies three parts of the Munus Docendi (the Office of Teaching) that are generally divided into infallible and non-infallible. The church refers to these as:

1. Extraordinary Magisterium

2. Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

3. Ordinary Magisterium

Extraordinary Magisterium

This is exercised in two ways:

1. The Pope, Ex Cathedra

The Pope alone possesses the charism of infallibility as a part of his office. He exercises this charism in two ways: by the Ex Cathedra statement or by the Decree of Papal Infallibility from Vatican I, which says:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.17

Three conditions must be fulfilled for the pope to have spoken Ex Cathedra:

• He must speak not as a private doctor but as the universal Pastor of all Christians and successor of the Apostles

• He must be teaching on faith or morals

• He must define or make clear that something is to be held or believed definitively or firmly by the universal church

Thus far, there have only been two instances of the Ex Cathedra statement. The first was by Pope Pius IX in 1854 to define the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the second was by Pope Pius XII in 1950 to define the Dogma of the Assumption. It is important to note that while these are the only Ex Cathedra statements, they are not the only way the pope can exercise his charism of infallibility. More on that below.

2. Ecumenical Council--- When the world’s bishops gather under the direction and blessing of the Pope to decide matters of faith and morals, the pronouncements from these councils are considered infallible.

The second vehicle of the Extraordinary Magisterium is the Ecumenical Council. Thus far, there have been 21 such instances where the Pope has gathered in council with the world’s bishops. As of now, only the sitting pope can call an ecumenical council, although that has not always been the case. Even in the instances where an emperor has called the council, papal approval and ratification of the acts of the council were necessary to make it an Ecumenical Council. Of the 21, it is generally accepted that the first 20 intended to define something infallibly, which the most recent, Vatican II, only affirmed what came before it. That does not mean that we can wholesale reject Vatican II, as it is still a valid Ecumenical Council.

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

The pope and bishops can exercise infallibility in two ways:

1. Pope Alone

Again, since the pope alone possesses infallibility as a part of his office, he can teach infallibly outside of the Ex Cathedra statement when he reaffirms something that the church has always taught and held perennially.

2. Bishops in union with the Pope

Here we have the bishops spread throughout the world and over time, but united in teaching the truth of faith and morals definitively. Again, it must be emphasized that this is done in union with the Pope. Apart from the Holy Father, the bishops cannot teach infallibly. This second way is the ordinary and infallible magisterium. Pope St. John Paul II calls this the “usual expression of the Church’s Magisterium.”18

Ordinary Magisterium

These are times when the magisterium does not give an intentional solemn definition to something, but nonetheless, it is taught authentically. The faithful are still to give their religious submission of mind and will to it, thus the faithful are not free to reject what is taught. This happens many times with encyclicals, though an encyclical can be used as a vehicle of infallibility. A pope may choose to teach on a specific subject or to rule on an open question. However, should a pope decide to rule on an open question, it is no longer open for discussion.19

Subscribe now

Grades of Assent

There are three distinct forms of assent that have been identified by the Church. The first two are in reference to infallible teachings of the church, and the third is in reference to non-infallible, ordinary teachings. These can be found in the profession of faith that is taken by those who hold office in the church. I will quote the relevant part of the Profession of Faith as we move through the levels.

Three Types of Magisterial Teaching

I. Dogmas of Divine and Catholic Faith

Firm Belief or De Fide20--- With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be divinely revealed.21

These teachings are the dogmas of faith, whether they are revealed by God or defined by the Magisterium. Rejection of these teachings is what the church calls heresy. These are transmitted to us through Scripture and/or Tradition and interpreted and handed on by the Magisterium. To withhold our assent through either heresy or deliberate doubt is a grave sin contrary to the virtue of faith and, thus, the faithful are not free to dissent from these teachings.

Ex: Articles of the Creed, Christological dogmas, Papal Primacy, Sacramental dogmas such as the necessity of Baptism and the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, immortality of the soul, etc.

II. Definitive teachings on faith and morals (intrinsically connected to faith and morals)

Firm Acceptance or Ecclesiastical Faith22--- I also accept and hold each and every thing definitively proposed by the church regarding teaching on faith and morals.23

These are the infallible teachings of the church, which are not directly a part of revelation but are intrinsically connected to the teachings in the first category. They are not cited by the magisterium as being directly contained in Revelation. This means that they are not explicitly stated in Revelation but can be found implicitly or as a theological conclusion from another explicit teaching. The teachings here do not carry a penalty of heresy, though they are defined as proximate to heresy since rejection of them would be a rejection of faith in the magisterium and charism of infallibility. The second grade only differs from the first according to the motive of assent, not the assent itself. Both grades are irrevocable.

Ex. Natural Law, Theological Deductions, Canonization of Saints, etc.

a. Doctrine of Papal Infallibility before Vatican I

b. Ordination reserved to men

c. Illicitness of Euthanasia

d. Illicitness of Abortion

III. Non-definitive teachings of the magisterium

Religious Submission of Intellect and Will24--- Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings that either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

This level is given to non-definitive teachings of the ordinary magisterium. The church exercises this when she teaches authoritatively, though not with the intention of infallibility. This means that these teachings are not supernaturally protected from error, but they nonetheless require the faithful to submit to what is taught. We can have confidence that these things are given to us to lead “to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.”25

Ex: encyclicals, Wednesday audiences, apostolic exhortations, etc.

a. The teaching of Florence that the matter of Holy Orders is the handing on of instruments

b. The teaching of the Roman Catechism on delayed animation

d. Care for creation as referenced in Laudato Si

Obedience--- This lies below the levels referenced above and is given to disciplinary promulgations by the church or prudential matters.26

*A note on Heresy: It has become increasingly common for many to throw around the charge of heresy in a multitude of scenarios that do not take into account these levels of Magisterial Teaching. It has to be understood that heresy, as a canonical censure, only applies to the teachings in the first category. For the second, we use the phrase proximate to heresy but it is not heresy per se. In most instances, it is unhelpful, and frankly wrong, to accuse someone of heresy.27 Additionally, it is an even graver instance to accuse the Holy Father or the Magisterium as a whole of heresy. It must be remembered that the First See is judged by no man.28 To accuse the First See of heresy, I would argue, can lead one to schism since it would ultimately end in a refusal of submission. Thus, we must not allow ourselves to attempt to assert judgment over the Holy Father in matters of Faith or Morals.

Theological Grades of Certainty29

These are a scholastic means to classify teachings and how binding they are on the individual. We should not view these as merely a legalistic list; rather, they are a means of expression of our obedience and faith.

Share

Disagreements

For those teachings that are in the first two grades (and first two types of magisterial teaching), it is absolutely forbidden for a catholic in good standing to dissent and deny these teachings. Denial of these would be heresy (of the first) or proximate to heresy (of the second). In the lower grades, while it is not heresy to deny these teachings, it is often rash and can be erroneous.

For teachings that are not irreformable, there are select times and with great care where one could potentially disagree. But this must only occur after sufficient study and when one is convinced that there may be a deficiency. Even in that perceived deficiency, it is imprudent to publicly accuse the Magisterium of these errors, as it can lead to scandal. Above all, all else being equal, the Thomistic principle that we are to give the benefit of the doubt to others out of charity should be followed until there is grave danger to the deposit of faith.30

“Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent… When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.”31

This means that we cannot regard the Magisterium as able to be habitually wrong. There are times when certain teachings, which are not infallible, can be mistaken. In this instance, a further clarification by the Magisterium is needed.

Humility

Finally, in order to receive what the Church has given to us, the Catholic must embrace the virtue of humility. From the submission of intellect and will up through the assent of faith, it is only through intellectual humility that we can hope to rest in the obedience that the Church is due. We ought to always remember the words of the Lord to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”32 When we are obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, we are being obedient to Christ Himself. Humility allows us to bow before what is of God in others, and even more so, acknowledge and adore the majesty of God Himself. It tells us that we do not know everything and that we are in need of teaching. Humility protects us from the errors of private interpretation. According to His great Providence, God has given us the Magisterium of the Catholic Church so that we can have a certitude that what we believe according to Faith and what we practice according to Morals will infallibly bring about divine life in our souls.

Leave a comment

For more from Dr. McGovern, visit his Substack at A Thomist, Dedicated to the Theological tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas. Exploring Thomas’ Spiritual Theology and topics in Christology and Mariology.

Naturally, Pitre’s premise begs the question: Are all so-called claims of divinity made by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels as veiled as this example? Or does Jesus, in the Gospel of Mark, which the consensus of biblical scholars believes to be the earliest written gospel, make a divine claim on His identity that has a more explicit understanding, as claimed by the author of the gospel and understood by his intended audience?

If the inquirer is seeking how Mark and his audience understood Jesus' identity, then the trial narrative in Mark’s gospel before the High Priest is a good place to begin. The narrative raises the question of the claims about Jesus’ identity in light of how Mark and his audience understand Jesus’ references to Daniel 7:13 and Ps. 110.

E.P. Sanders explains:

When Jesus was tried before the high priest, he was charged: ‘Tell us if you are the Messiah [christos]. The Son of the Blessed’ (Mark 14:61 & parr.) According to Mark he answered ‘yes’, according to Luke he evaded the question, while according to Matthew he said, in effect, ‘no’ (Mark 14:62; Luke 22:67f; Matt. 26:64). Again he immediately referred to the Son of Man.2

Sanders continues by adding that we cannot know Jesus’ understanding of His identity with any certainty because of “little direct evidence; only Mark has ‘yes’ in response to a direct question.”3 It’s important to reiterate within the discipline of biblical exegesis, in light of the point Sanders is making a mistake in his understanding of Jesus’ own thoughts of His identity, the inquirer is specifically looking for who Mark is claiming Jesus to be in His identity. Biblical scholar Michael J. Gorman puts it this way, “One issue for beginning exegetes, especially when reading biblical narratives, is the failure to distinguish between the historical context of the text’s author and audience, on the one hand, and the narrative context of the characters in the story, on the other. It is the former, not the latter, that we mean when we discuss the historical context of a text.”4

It must be said at this point that there is an irony that exists with the last paragraph’s explanation of the proper way to interpret the Bible and Mark’s claims. It’s important to note that when making this argument, skeptics will shift the goal posts from “the gospels do not claim” to “the historical Jesus didn’t claim.”

Psalm 110 & Marcan Priority

The key to understanding how Mark and his audience understand Jesus' identity hinges on Psalm 110. The quotation from Daniel 7:13 refers more to an eschatological understanding of the Messiah's identity, but it’s only one part of that identity according to Mark. The importance of understanding the context of what is being claimed by Mark culminates in the trial before the High Priest in Mark 14:53-65, which shows how both Mark and his audience interpret Jesus’ reference to Ps. 110.

The analysis of Ps. 110 becomes clearer with Marcan priority, particularly regarding how the Gospel of Matthew incorporates the trial narrative for its audience. If Marcan priority holds and serves as the foundation for the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew becomes crucial for understanding Ps. 110 in its Jewish context during the trial narrative.

Biblical scholars generally conclude that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written for several key reasons, though strong arguments remain for the traditional view that Matthew’s Gospel was the first. The argument for Matthean priority rests largely on the tradition argument, drawing on sources such as Augustine’s Harmony of the Gospels. Matthean priority argues against proponents of Marcan priority, claiming that Mark’s gospel is a shorter version of Matthew’s prose called an epitome. However, some of the reasons given by scholars to support Marcan priority, and by no means exhaustive here, are that the gospel of Mark is a shorter, less detailed gospel containing unique parts and meant to be used as source material. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin explains a “striking way in which Mark does not look like an epitome of Matthew is the fact that the individual pericopes in Mark don’t tend to be shorter than the parallels in Matthew. Instead, they’re longer. Sometimes much longer.”5

The consensus for Mark’s audience is Gentiles in Rome. Scott Hahan explains that there are several things that tip us off to the fact:

1. Mark regularly explains Jewish customs

2. Translate Aramaic phrases and words

3. Latinizes terminology instead of using Greek

4. The text culminates with a Roman soldier pronouncing Jesus, “the Son of God.” (15:39)6

The dating of the text is often cited by scholars as around 70 A.D., prior to the Roman destruction of the temple. Some scholars place the date earlier, in the 60s A.D. The likely date, operating under the presumption of Marcan priority and pointing to the Acts texts, which never describe the deaths of Peter and Paul, is the early 60s A.D. for the composition of Mark’s gospel.

Subscribe now

Who is the identity of David’s Lord in Mark 12:35-37?

The quotation of Ps. 110 by Jesus during the trial narrative does not exist in a vacuum. It’s important for beginner exegetes to note that all chapter numbers and versions are much later additions to the biblical texts. A correct application of contextual analysis considers the book's full context and what is being claimed in the surrounding passages of the selected passage for biblical interpretation. Two chapters before the trial narrative in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Mark has Jesus interpret Ps. 110 by posing a question about David vv. 12:35-37:

³⁵ And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? ³⁶ David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,

“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’

³⁷ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.7

Jesus’ explanation before a great crowd in Mark’s Gospel has puzzled many throughout the years of biblical interpretation. Jesus’ question is left open-ended, which some scholars speculate is evidence of Jesus’ authentic historic interpretation of Ps. 110. David M. Hay explains, “But one essential feature of the pericope makes its historicity highly probable. In the Marcan form, the words attributed to Jesus here raise but do not distinctly answer the question about the applicability of the title “son of David” to the Messiah. It is difficult to imagine any of the evangelists (or any other early Christian) creating such a logion; hence it is most reasonably credited to Jesus himself.”8

The covenant promises to King David in the Old Testament, and reiterated in the prophetic literature, is key to understanding who Jesus is, as he simultaneously claims to be the Messiah and Divine, citing both Daniel and the Psalms. Biblical scholars of the more skeptical persuasion have argued in the past that Jesus rejects the Davidic identity through his question about David’s Lord. The question, though, is a Jewish rhetorical device meant to invite the listener to figure out the answer.9

Brant Pitre explains Jesus’ synagogue teaching narrative on the identity of David’s Lord is, “The third episode in which Jesus uses riddle-like questions and allusions to Jewish Scripture to both reveal and conceal his divinity also happens to be the only passage in the Four Gospels in which Jesus explicitly describes the figure of ‘the messiah” (ho christos).10

An outline of the narrative sequence for Mk. 12: 35-40:

I.               The importance of setting in the Temple in Jerusalem; the proposed question by Jesus. (v. 35)

II.              Jesus’ exegetical interpretation (v. 36)

III.            The unresolved question from Jesus and the crowd reaction (v. 37)

IV.            The condemnation of the scribes (v. 38-40)

There is another point to consider when studying a proposed divine claim made by Jesus in the Synoptics, specifically in reference to Ps. 110 and how the author of Mark intends to use the Psalm. The Hebrew and Greek translations of Ps. 110 differ in language, and the Greek used by Mark is crucial to understanding the context of what Mark is claiming. For example, John Donahue and Daniel J Harrington explain the importance of the Greek for understanding the rhetorical device by Mark, “In the Greek Bible tradition the divine name “Yhwh” is customarily rendered as “Lord” (kyrios), as is the title accorded to the king (kyrios = Hebrew ʾadonaî). So, in the Greek version “the Lord” (God) speaks to “my lord” (the king). But if David wrote the psalm, who then is “my lord” to David?”11

Pitre also notes the importance of the differences between the OG and MT translations of Ps. 110. The difference between the two texts is extremely important. There is good evidence, as explained above, that this is authentic exegesis from Jesus Himself, but it’s important to reiterate what Gorman is claiming here: what is Mark claiming, and how does his audience understand it? Pitre cites Frank Hossfeld and Eric Zenger's work Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era:

“I have borne/begotten you” [Ps 110:3] (as in Ps 2:7); that form is even given in numerous manuscripts. This reading thus proclaims the enthronement as divine begetting or birth from the dawn. This formulation was evidently too mythical for the hand responsible for the [Masoretic] text we now have, and it was altered.”12

The rhetorical question posed by Jesus in Mark’s gospel infers the answer that the audience knows is being claimed by the question itself: “How is the Lord the son of David?” Donahue and Harrington explain further, “In the Markan context, the idea is that neither 'Son of David' nor 'Messiah’ adequately expresses the real identity of Jesus. He is more than David’s son and more than the messiah of Jewish expectations. In fact, Jesus deserves to share the title kyrios with God.”13 Hay suggests it is essential to discuss the nuance between sharing the title kyrios, claiming to be divine, and Jesus' claim that He is YHWH.

Why suggest a nuance is needed? Biblical scholarship stemming from the 19th through the 20th century consensus largely ignored the pericope of Jesus’ question who is David’s Lord (Mk. 12:35-37) because the claim is one greater than man. In the biblical scholarship consensus—maybe we should call it groupthink—such a claim must be a creation of the early church and not from the historical Jesus, Himself. The irony is that Hay points out the question is never answered, and, as Pitre notes, this is because it is reminiscent of the Jewish riddle found in the Israelite Wisdom Literature. The question contextually indicates authenticity from Jesus.

Again, the purpose of this thesis is to establish what Mark is claiming and what his audience is receiving about who Jesus of Nazareth is. Gerd Lüdemann, as Pitre notes, argues that Mark’s development of the question is “…formed by a community…”14 The consensus argument is largely a creation of Lutheran theologian and exegete Rudolph Bultmann. Bultmann and the boys, as I like to call them, especially in light of what Hay and Pitre write, are engaging in an implied admission by silence—they ignore it because Mark claims Jesus is divine.

The debate between long-standing Biblical skeptics comes to a head during a Q&A featuring Bart Ehrman, who stumbles over the question of Jesus’ divinity raised by none other than Catholic Theologian Brant Pitre, challenging Ehrman’s skepticism, pivoting to the trial narrative in Mark 14:53-65. The search for an answer to Mark’s claim on Jesus’ identity rests on the question: why was Jesus crucified?

Brant Pitre delivers a magnificent development of what I presume is an early formulation of his thesis in his book Jesus and Divine Christology. One apparent issue with Pitre’s question in the video, as Hay notes, is that it is not representative of biblical or Christian literature of the period. Ps. 110 is generally only quoted by its first and fourth verses. Pitre’s question is a later-developed understanding of Ps. 110, originating with St. Justin Martyr, who interprets Ps. 110:3 as applying to Jesus’ preexistence. Hay notes, “Christian literature before Justin Martyr presents seven partial or complete quotations of Ps. 110:1…and three quotations of Ps. 110:4.”15

The most problematic point of Brant Pitre’s questioning of Bart Ehrman is noted by Hay, who explains, “One of the most remarkable features of Christian use of Ps. 110 in the NT period is that its third verse is never explicitly cited. From Justin onward, however, it is often appealed to as testimony to Christ’s divinity.”16 Pitre does mention Ps. 110:3 a handful of times in his book; however, he develops his thesis fully away from hinging on that claim alone.

Private vs. Public Revelation of Identity

There is an important distinction Hay overlooks in his thesis on Ps. 110 in Early Christianity. The biblical literature within the Synoptic tradition is representative of the identification of Jesus with the LORD—meaning YHWH. There is a distinction within the Synoptic Gospels between the private revelation of Jesus’ identity to the disciples and its public revelation with Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem, marking the start of what Christians now call Holy Week. Pope Benedict XVI’s detailed analysis of Jesus’ messianic identity reveals something of a pedagogical development within the narrative of the Synoptic Gospels. The understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as claimed in the Synoptic Gospels must be read in the context of what Jesus Himself claimed is meant by the office and anointing. Pope Benedict XVI examines how Peter, in the Gospel of Mark, offers a political understanding of the Messiah that Jesus rejects. Pope Benedict explains:

“Peter’s simple confession of Jesus’ Messiahship as transmitted by Mark is doubtless an accurate record of the historical moment; for, he continues, we are still dealing here with a purely “Jewish” confession that saw Jesus as a political Messiah in accordance with the ideas of the time. Only the Markan account, he argues, is logically consistent, because only a political messianism would explain Peter’s protest against the prophecy of the Passion, a protest that Jesus sharply rejects, as once he rejected Satan’s offer of lordship over the world: “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mk 8:33). This brusque rebuff, says Grelot, makes sense only if it applies also to the confession that went before, and declares this too to be false.”17

Jesus, within the parameters of his inner circle, takes on the identity of David’s Son, the Davidic King, the one who will fulfill the covenant given to King David:

¹⁵ but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. ¹⁶ And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’18

What is interesting about the development of Jesus’ identity that continues throughout the Marcan text? Peter’s confession and Jesus telling him to keep quiet is what biblical scholars refer to as the Messianic Secret. The Jewish Study Bible explains, in the context of Saul's anointing, that “must be kept secret because of the Philistines.”19 Furthermore, the anointing of David is done in secret, out of King Saul's knowledge. Bar-Efrat explains that the context of the passage “in the presence of his brothers, without strangers, to keep the anointing secret.”20 An analysis of First Samuel clearly indicates that, in the contextual understanding of scripture, the secret anointing in ancient Israel represents Jewish patrimony. The development that occurs within the confines of the Messianic Secret is the repudiation of a strictly political messianism within Jesus’ own followers.

Andrew McGovern explains a very important distinction that occurs within the Synoptics: “Many of the divine claims in the Synoptics that happen before Holy Week are meant only for the Apostles, but once we cross the threshold of the Entrance into Jerusalem, these instances get both more pronounced and more public.”21

Returning to the question posed by Jesus in Mk. 12:35, “How can the Scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?” It is important to reiterate that, in Mark’s narrative, Jesus has, at this point, identified Himself as the Messiah within the context of the Jewish patrimony, in what scholars refer to as the Messianic Secret. Jesus, as explained by Pope Benedict, within the confines of private revelation among his disciples, has repudiated a strictly political concept of messiahship. It’s also important to remember that Mark’s gospel uses Jewish riddle literature to guide the listener's internalization of conclusions.

McGovern focuses on a detail missed by both Hay and Pitre—the private-versus-public distinction in the revelation of Jesus’ identity. By highlighting this distinction, the revelation of Jesus’ identity must be pushed back to the Entry into Jerusalem. McGovern’s article focuses on Matthew’s treatment of the Jerusalem entry notes “Son of David” references. Mark’s gospel also ties into the Davidic references, “Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is to come.”22

The entire setting of the Entry into Jerusalem in the Synoptic tradition is framed by Psalm 118:

22 The stone which the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone.

23 This is the LORD’S doing;

it is marvelous in our eyes.

24 This is the day which the LORD has made;

let us rejoice and be glad in it.

25  Save us, we beg you, O LORD!

O LORD, we beg you, give us success!

26 Blessed be he who enters in the name of the LORD!

We bless you from the house of the LORD.

27 The LORD is God,

and he has given us light.

Bind the festal procession with branches,

up to the horns of the altar! 23

There are a few striking features of comparison between the Psalm and Mark’s entry narrative about God, YHWH.

1. The crowd shouting “Hosanna” is a reference to Ps. 118:25: “Save us.”

2. The crowd was also shouting “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, " a reference to v. 26

3. The Procession of Jesus and the reference to the festal procession with branches v. 27.

The procession of the Catholic priest at the beginning of Mass, who stands in Persona Christi, is a public work among the faithful, revealing the LORD in the Liturgy of the Word and Eucharist to support the faithful’s mission on earth. After the entry into Jerusalem, Mark’s gospel presents Jesus teaching in the temple, where He continues to publicly reveal Himself to the crowds, with reference to Ps. 118.

Have you not read this Scripture:

‘The very stone which the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone;

11 this was the Lord’s doing,

and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

12 And they tried to arrest him, but feared the multitude, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them; so they left him and went away. 24

In my estimation, Pitre’s minimizing of the cleansing of the temple, among other testimonies about the temple, being an important factor which precipitated the blasphemy charge against Jesus, shouldn’t be understated in the Passion narrative. Pope Benedict XVI makes a fantastic connection between the use of Psalm 118, what it meant to Israel’s history, and its religious traditions:

This process of appropriation and reinterpretation, which begins with Jesus’ praying of the Psalms, is a typical illustration of the unity of the two Testaments, as taught to us by Jesus. When he prays, he is completely in union with Israel, and yet he is Israel in a new way: the old Passover now appears as a great foreshadowing. The new Passover, though, is Jesus himself, and the true “liberation” is taking place now, through his love that embraces all mankind.25

This action, as we have seen, is in profound continuity with God’s primordial will, and at the same time it marks the decisive turning point in the history of religions, a turning point that becomes a reality on the Cross. It was this action—the cleansing of the Temple—that contributed significantly to Jesus’ condemnation to death on the Cross, thereby fulfilling his prophecy and heralding the new worship.26

The Trial Before the Sanhedrin & Blasphemy.

No doubt Pitre understands that, when examining the gospels, reliance on Ps. 110:3 will not be convincing to those who employ the historical-critical method. There is a pivot in his thesis toward a focus on the blasphemy charge brought by what Mark simply describes as the high priest. What is important is that through the Synoptic tradition, and in particular Mark’s gospel, the blasphemy charge is not unique to the trial before the Sanhedrin.

The search for Mark’s claim about the identity of who Jesus is may rest on the very question—Why was Jesus crucified? The most popular theory among biblical scholars is that of crimes against the temple. It must be emphasized and put to rest that this theory has no evidence within any of the gospel texts. There is not one verse that charges Jesus with crimes against the temple, but rather all evidence of the primary source material suggests blasphemy was the charge. Pitre explains, “It is difficult to overemphasize the fact that there is no positive evidence Jesus was charged with any crime in relation to the temple incident.”27

In fact, the charge of blasphemy goes back to the very beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. In chapter two of Mark’s gospel, vv. In 1-12, we find Jesus in the town of Capernaum, reported to be at home with a large crowd gathered around Him in public while He preached. The narrative pericope is preceded by an exorcism and several healings, so in this particular narrative, a paralytic is found to be too far away from Jesus. The friends of the paralytic remove the roof of the house and lower their friend to be healed by Jesus. Jesus, moved by the act of faith, v. 5, says, "Child, your sins are forgiven.” The scribes' response is automatic in the following verse 7: “Why does this man speak like this? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Now this raises a question for the biblical exegete using literary criticism, given what we now know about Jewish riddles—is Mark using a Jewish riddle within the narrative pericope for his audience to wrestle with the answer?

The charge of blasphemy is essential to understanding Jesus’ claims in the Gospel of Mark. All of the public revelations written in Mark on the identity of who he claims Jesus to be are adjudicated through the question posed by the high priest, Jesus’ answer, and the high priest’s reaction and charge of blasphemy.

An Outline of the Narrative Sequence for Mk 14:53-64

I. The Setting and the witness, Peter. (vv. 53-54)

II. The False Testimony against Jesus with no evidence or charges. (vv. 55-59)

III. The high priest’s direct question to Jesus about the identity claim. (vv. 60-61)

IV. Jesus’ answer “I am;” with quoting Daniel 7:13 and Ps. 110:1 (v. 62)

V. The high priest's reaction and blasphemy charge (vv. 63-64)

The importance of the charge of blasphemy with whom Mark claims Jesus to be cannot be understated; it is essential for understanding Jesus’ answer—it is the adjudicatory moment of Mark’s gospel. Mark’s claim lends historical credence to any and all blasphemy charges leveled against Jesus in the Gospel of John; furthermore, it bridges the gap between the Synoptic and Johannine traditions. It is a sentiment that is expressed by historical-critical exegete Raymond Brown in his work Gospel According to John:

We also mention the possibility that John is historically correct in showing that the Jewish authorities took umbrage at Jesus’ claims long before that Sanhedrin trial when, on the night before Jesus’ death, another egō eimi (Mark xiv 62) provoked the high priest to cry blasphemy and call for death.28

The contextual understanding is important for grasping what the blasphemy charge implied in 1st-century Judaism. In fact, taking a look at James Hastings et al’s definition of its understanding prior to Bultmann and the boys’ reexamination of the New Testament, the biblical and contextual understanding of the blasphemy charge on Jesus is understood exactly the way Brant Pitre understands it:

One of the most frequent of the charges brought by the Jews against Jesus was that of blasphemy, and when we inquire into the meaning of the accusation, we find that it was the application to Himself of Divine attributes and prerogatives (Mk 2:7 = Mt 9:3, Mk 14:64 = Mt 26:65, Jn 10:33, 36).29

The blasphemy charge is firmly rooted in the notion of claiming what belongs to God—thus making one equal to God. Mark’s gospel, from the early pages with the healing of the paralytic narrative, in which Jesus takes on the authority to forgive sins, clearly shows a Jesus claiming what belongs to God alone.

It’s important to reiterate that Mark’s gospel firmly establishes Jesus as a divine Messiah figure—but also one who takes up the space unique to YHWH. A thematic analysis of the text, no doubt, points to a Marcan crucified Jesus not because He claimed to be the Messiah, not because He claimed to be a divine being greater than David, but precisely because He claimed to take what belongs to God alone—claiming that space in front of the Jewish religious leadership—a leadership that applied the Leviticus condemnation of death for a blasphemy charge instructed in Lev. 24:16.

One of the most painful aspects of porn addiction is shame. It’s why we hide our addiction, try to excuse or justify it and even attempt to scandalize others by tempting them to share in it with us, as though doing it with others will somehow take away our shame. In this way, shame feels a lot like guilt: we know deep down that there is something wrong with porn, no matter what pleasurable feelings it may give us in the moment, but when shame accuses and convicts us of our wrongdoing, we would rather do away with shame than with its true cause.

It’s easier to push down or ignore a negative feeling than it is to deal with the sin that causes it – to admit that what we feel is good for us is actually bad and harms our relationship with God, with our loved ones and with ourselves. But, like guilt, shame is a gift from God, a reminder of our dignity as human persons made in His image and created for the perfect happiness of unity with Him, not for slavery to the confused desires of the body which only serve to distract us from what we are really made for. The remedy for a gunshot wound is not to put a plaster over it and take painkillers: we have to remove the bullet causing the pain so that the wound can truly heal.

This is the message of Pope St. John Paul II in his famous work on the theology of the body. Shame, he says, was the response of Adam and Eve, our primordial parents, to original sin, which, by distorting their humanity through pride and selfishness, turned them against God and one another. Concupiscence, the disordering of our natural desires, is the most persistent and intensely personal consequence of original sin, leading us to forget that God made us in His image – not only individually, where through our spiritual soul we are far above the animals in our capacity to know and love God, but also collectively, where through interpersonal communion we image the eternal and infinite love of the three divine Persons of the Trinity.

This communal image of God in man, the Holy Father said, is the “spousal meaning of the body”^[1] – the body is a sacrament of the person, expressing our subjectivity and our need for loving relationship with God and others as a sacramental sign, just as the sacramental signs of bread and wine in the Eucharist express the abiding presence and divine love of Christ for each of us. From the beginning, Adam and Eve knew this meaning of the body and lived it in their marital fidelity, giving themselves to one another freely as gifts in marriage, the “primordial sacrament”^[2] representing God’s love and desire for union with man.

Since concupiscence was introduced into human nature, however, the spousal meaning of the body, its deeply personal and interpersonal character, has been corrupted through selfishness. Now, instead of giving ourselves in the freedom of the gift to one another within the properly marital expression of total commitment given to us by God, we use one another, depersonalizing and objectifying others and ourselves. In doing so, we conceal the image of God in us, both individually by enslaving our spiritual freedom and dignity to bodily passions, and collectively by seeing other persons as mere objects to satiate our desires and to be cast aside when we’re through with them. Accordingly, through concupiscence, the body is no longer a sacrament of the person, nor is sexuality a sacrament of the marital union between Christ and His Church which human marriage is meant to signify. Instead, it is just an instrument for my gratification, and I am only a slave to its lusts. As the Holy Father explains:

‘Concupiscence’ removes the intentional dimension of the reciprocal existence of man and woman from the personal perspectives ‘of communion,’ which are proper to their perennial and reciprocal attraction, reducing this attraction and, so to speak, driving it toward utilitarian dimensions, in whose sphere of influence one human being ‘makes use’ of another human being, ‘using her’ only to satisfy his own ‘urges.’^[3]

Within this understanding of the theology of the body from Pope St. John Paul II, pornography is one of the most grievous, as well as prolific, expressions of concupiscence in the modern world. It teaches everyone, both men and women, young and old alike, whether in its explicit forms online or its more subtle influence in the over sexualized movies, TV series, commercials, novels and music that are accepted as normal today, that the human person is just an animal, without a spiritual intellect and free will destined for loving union with God and the saints in Heaven.

From a young age, men in particular today are taught that we are not designed to be loving husbands and fathers, sacrificing ourselves for the good of the family and thereby imitating the self-giving love of the Trinity; instead, we’re taught that to be a man is to be an animal, pulled by whatever urge is strongest, and that to deny these urges, to exert any kind of virtuous self-discipline is “dishonest,” “fake” and even “elitist” or “fanatical.” Likewise, women are taught that to be “feminist” means to imitate the supposed promiscuousness of men, objectifying themselves for the sake of sexual “conquests” and allowing or even encouraging other women to treat themselves as merchandise to be sold in the pornography marketplace (or, increasingly today, in prostitution, which is ultimately no different than pornography).

What answers does Pope St. John Paul II offer to this dehumanization and depersonalization caused by concupiscence and pornography? He gives several pieces of practical advice which can help anyone struggling with porn addiction or any other form of lust to escape from their secret slavery and rediscover their dignity as persons made in the image of God:

· Shame: The Holy Father teaches that, like guilt, we shouldn’t run away from shame. Although Adam and Eve felt shame first as an expression of guilt, of hiding from God in their sins, it also functions as a “boundary experience”,^[4] as a natural way of protecting our God-given human dignity from the abuse of concupiscence, to reassert our subjectivity against objectification. Therefore, when we feel ashamed of our porn addiction, we should try and see it as a reminder that we are made for more, that we are made in the image of the Trinity and that the body is a sacrament of the person whose true freedom comes only through the self-giving love of interpersonal communion, whether in the sacrament of marriage or its higher elevation in “continence ‘for the kingdom of heaven’”.^[5] This is why Adam and Eve felt no shame in their nakedness prior to original sin, and why married couples can be intimate without shame: “Only the nakedness that turns the woman into an ‘object’ for the man, or vice versa, is a source of shame.”^[6]

· Modesty: Fashions, including clothing, change over time and vary by culture, but the principle of modesty is universal and perennial. The Holy Father says that modesty, like shame, promotes and preserves human dignity by shielding the body from what Scripture calls “the concupiscence of the eyes” (1 Jn 2:16 DRA), the “look” of lust mentioned by Christ (Mt 5:28) which turns the other person into a mere object of desire. This virtue is little promoted today, when both men and women dress in a way that is sexually provocative or at least undignified, concealing their nature as human persons made in the image of God for the sake of interpersonal communion. Contrary to modern attitudes, both men and women are to blame for this trend, and both are harmed by it. Averting your gaze from a woman who is half-naked or wearing clothes that accentuate, rather than veil in their sacredness, the sexual parts of the body, and dressing in a more dignified, masculine way yourself, can help to recover the virtue of modesty and hold up a countercultural mirror to the sexual exploitation which is now so rampant and leads countless men and women into sin. The Holy Father thus teaches,

When culture shows an explicit tendency to cover the nakedness of the human body, it certainly does not do so only for climatic reasons, but also in relation to the process of the growth of man’s personal sensibility. The anonymous nakedness of the man-object contrasts with the progress of an authentically human culture of morality. It is probably possible to confirm this point also in the life of so-called primitive peoples. The process of sharpening personal human sensibility is certainly a factor and fruit of culture.^[7]

· Purity of Heart: In order to overcome “the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 Jn 2:16), it is necessary to cultivate what the Holy Father calls “purity of heart”.^[8] By practicing the virtues of chastity and temperance, the human person can recover its place as the charioteer of the body, reining in its passions and appetites through the spiritual faculties of reason and free will, instead of being dragged behind them by the lusts of concupiscence. In the light of Christ, this virtue can then be combined with a piety which treats the body as “the temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor 6:19).^[9] By freely choosing to discipline the passions, the goal is not to destroy eroticism – quite the opposite. Liberated from concupiscence and properly ordered to the good of the person, the erotic is elevated to appreciate what the Holy Father, borrowing a term from Humanae vitae, calls “affective manifestations”^[10] in the other person, signs of their individuality and personality, thereby strengthening relationships and causing sexual intimacy to become one of total self-giving love, with each seeking the good of the other instead of using them for mere gratification. This purified eroticism can then lead the heart to appreciate even higher beauties, up to God who is Beauty-itself, the true fulfillment of eros.^[11]

To the modern world, all these explanations and answers from Pope St. John Paul II seem like outdated nonsense, the holdover of an age before Freud when religion denied our natural, animal drives and made everyone sexually repressed and miserable. But the truth is, you are more than just an animal. You are a human person made in the image of God, whose intellectual nature and capacity to love others in interpersonal communion through the body raises you above all material beings and destines you for participation in the Trinitarian beatitude of God – and so are the daughters, sisters and mothers which porn objectifies. You are made for more than slavery to bodily desires, or else to a puritanical denial of the body: through the heroic adventure of virtue, you can live as you were meant to, an incarnate spiritual soul and an ensouled human body all at once, fulfilled in every sense and in right order. Porn is ultimately a lie, a shallow, empty distraction from the divine mission for which you were made – never let the world tell you otherwise. If you dedicate yourself to the truth, by the power of God’s grace, you can overcome it.

Citations:

^[1] Pope John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, trans. Michael Waldstein (Boston, MA: Pauline, 2006), 5. Kindle.

^[2] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 19:3-4. All emphases original.

^[3] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 39:2.

^[4] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 11:4.

^[5] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 73.

^[6] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 19:1.

^[7] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 61:2.

^[8] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 16:5.

^[9] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 57.

^[10] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 59:6-7.

^[11] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them, 48:1.

Three possible inscriptions referring to King David have now been discovered since the discovery of the Tel-Dan Stele in 1993. Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has made the most compelling proposal found in Egypt. Naturally, Kitchen is not without controversy in the archeological community because Kitchen is a professed Christian. The now deceased long-standing editor of the Biblical Archaeological Review, Hershel Shanks, explains, “In the 15th century B.C.E., Pharaoh Thutmose III initiated the practice of carving on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Karnak the names of territories he conquered or over which he claimed dominion. The last of the Egyptian rulers to follow this custom was the tenth-century B.C.E. pharaoh Sheshonq I, called Shishak in the Bible (1 Kings 14:25 and elsewhere). Shishak campaigned in Palestine in 925 B.C.E. In the following year, he had a vast triumph-scene, including over a hundred place-names, carved on the temple wall.”1

Egyptologists have discovered an inscription on those walls that Kitchen has interpreted as King David. What would be most significant about this proposed inscription is that it would date only 50 years after the traditional date of King David’s death.2

Many in secular academia challenged the historicity of King David. Secular archaeologists and biblical scholars present themselves as unbiased in their work, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is a motive for research, and typically, people don’t work so hard to return the scholarly consensus that King David is a mythical figure found in the Bible.

For example, Welsh archaeologist Philip R. Davies reignited the minimalist thesis that King David is a myth in his 2010 book, The Beginnings of the Kingdom of Judah. Davies argues regarding the Tel-Dan Stele, “I am not aware that the fragments have been subject to forensic examination, something that perhaps should now be routine in view of recent proven forgeries … Until reasonable doubts [of authenticity] are removed, any conclusions are provisional.”3

To the credit of The Biblical Archaeological Review, of which I am a member, the cited article presents a counterargument to Davies’ minimalist thesis regarding the existence of King David. Archaeologist Aren Maeir rejects Davies’ skepticism on the Stele, “ while at the beginning of the chapter, he concedes that the inscription is authentic, he once again raises the claim that, due to the circumstances of its discovery, it requires forensic examination of authenticity. This is quite preposterous, since the circumstances of its discovery are not at all questionable, as [the stela fragments] were discovered in a controlled, scientific excavation and swiftly and admirably reported.”4

Why should Catholics, or any Christians, care so much about this debate of whether King David is a historical figure? It’s because of who David represents.

In some respects, the Davidic covenant, like the Abrahamic covenant, is more important than the Mosaic covenant to the story of Israel & Christianity. As Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, explains, the former covenants fall under covenant grants—promises made by God without conditions. However, the Mosaic covenant is best understood as a treaty: if the conditions are not met, as explained in Numbers 25, the covenant is broken. Jeremiah 11 states that the Israelites violated the covenant with Ezra 7, indicating that after the temple was rebuilt, the Shekhinah did not return to the temple.

This is why the Stele is important: it provides historical evidence for David. We are told in Sacred Scripture that it is the Davidic covenant in which God will “establish his royal throne forever.” 2 Sam 7:16 The immediate recipient is King Solomon—but, of course, an everlasting throne, as shown by the fall of many royal houses in history, requires an Everlasting Man. The prophet Amos prophesies that God will “raise up, the fallen hut of David.” (Amos 9:11)

What is interesting is how this plays out in Jesus’ teaching in the temple regarding David’s son. Jesus explains, in Mark 12:37, “David himself calls him ‘lord’; so how is he his son?” [The] great crowd heard this with delight.” Notably, secular scholars regard this as an authentic quotation & interpretation of Jesus found in the gospels, given that the question is left open-ended. Furthermore, it would be evidence of Marcan priority.

The open-ended question is a rhetorical device posed to readers & listeners of the gospel passage to prompt reflection on why David calls his son “LORD”; Mark is making a divine claim. We know that Mark is making a divine claim because before the high priest, Jesus quotes Ps. 110, which causes the high priest to exclaim “blasphemy.”

It’s not blasphemy to be David’s son. It’s not blasphemy for Jesus to claim to be the messiah—it is ‘blasphemy’ in the mind of the high priest for Jesus to identify as David’s LORD, in which “Yours is princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor before the daystar, like dew I begot you.” Ps. 110

The promises of the Old Testament must be read through the lens of the promises given to a very real King David and his ruling house, to the historical reality of the incarnation—the condescension of God becoming man. Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, explained in his 1988 Erasmus lectures, “The debate about modern exegesis is not at its core a debate among historians, but among philosophers.”5

I have long debated Benedict’s view on Scripture—at face value, the future pope is correct. The statement appears correct on the surface; however, the difficulty with this assertion is that it presents a false dichotomy in interpreting what is true and what actually happened as described in the written record. In attempting to determine what is true, the historian–both secular and religious–deals with the axiological value judgment of the truth just as much as any philosopher would when it comes to scriptural exegesis and the matter of what is the truth.

Philip R. Davies’ academic bias forever clouds his judgment in interpreting historical discoveries such as the Tel-Dan Stele. I wrote in a previous article here regarding this very question on Pope Benedict:

History is important. The reported empty tomb is significant to the evidence for whether the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth occurred. The inquirer, though, will never accept any facts regarding the gospel witness of the resurrection as a possibility unless there is an acknowledgment of a metaphysical reality. To put it more clearly: Is there something beyond material reality? Does God exist? If answered in the negative, then Ratzinger, commenting on Rudolph Bultmann, explains the methodological limits regarding bias, “He is certain that it cannot be the way it is depicted in the Bible, and he looks for methods to prove the way it really had to be. To that extent there lies in modern exegesis a reduction of history into philosophy, a revision of history by means of philosophy.”6

Davies concludes, on a metaphysical level, that God does not exist. Therefore, the bias undermines the historical record supporting Bishop Robert Barron's claim that King David is the hinge figure of God’s promises, a claim that must be read in Sacred Scripture. In +Barron’s view, King David points back to King Adam, encompassed by their failures and fall into sin, but also points toward Jesus Christ, the King. 7

But—the history does matter. It may be a philosophical question on a personal level: Does God exist? Davies knows that the reality of King David, a historical figure, points to the eternal promises of the empty tomb on Easter Sunday and the good news of Christianity.

1. Who Has Authority Over Demons?

• Christ is the absolute authority.
  Demons obey only the command of God. Jesus Christ, by His Cross and Resurrection, has defeated Satan and given His Church power over the enemy (cf. Luke 10:19).

• The Church holds authority.
  Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, have the fullness of authority. Priests share in that authority through their ordination and faculties granted by the bishop. This is why the solemn Rite of Exorcism can only be performed by a priest with explicit permission from his bishop.

• Laity have limited, delegated authority.
  According to Fr. Chad Ripperger and others, lay people cannot command demons in the same way a priest can. But they do have natural authority:

  • Over themselves (body, mind, soul).

  • Over their children (until they are independent). Parents can bless, renounce, and pray deliverance over their children.

  • Over their household and possessions.

Laity may not attempt solemn exorcism or issue commands to demons outside their authority. Instead, they use prayers of deliverance, renunciations, and the sacraments to close doors.

2. St. Thomas Aquinas on The Spiritual Battle

In the Summa Theologiae (I, q.114; II-II, q.90-96), Aquinas makes several key points:

• Demons can only act insofar as God permits.

• Sacramentals (holy water, blessings, the Sign of the Cross) have power against demons because they are linked to the Church’s prayer and Christ’s authority.

• A person in a state of grace has greater strength and protection, since demons cannot touch the soul indwelt by God unless consent is given through sin.

3. How Humans Can Protect Themselves

• State of Grace – The single most important protection. Frequent Confession and Holy Communion.

• Sacramentals – Holy water, blessed salt, the crucifix, blessed medals (St. Benedict, Miraculous Medal).

• Blessings & Renunciations – Parents blessing children; individuals renouncing spirits of sin (e.g., “In the Name of Jesus, I renounce the spirit of anger and unforgiveness”).

• Guarding the Senses – Watching what enters through the eyes, ears, and imagination.

• Prayer Life – Morning offering, daily Rosary, St. Michael prayer.

4. What About Demonic Neighbors or Environments?

We cannot control others, but we can seal ourselves in Christ:

• Pray the Precious Blood prayer: “By the Precious Blood of Jesus, I seal myself, my family, and my home from every attack of the enemy.”

• Sprinkle holy water or blessed salt around your property.

• Dedicate your home to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts.

• Avoid curiosity about occult neighbors—do not engage spiritually, but pray for their conversion.

5. Prayers That Can Be Used

Here are prayers recommended by exorcists (appropriate for the laity):

• St. Michael the Archangel Prayer (short or long form).

• Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be (especially powerful when prayed slowly and intentionally).

• Auxilium Christianorum Prayers (Fr. Ripperger’s deliverance prayers for the laity).

• Renunciation prayers (e.g., “In the Name of Jesus, I renounce the spirit of lust and pornography. I claim freedom in Christ.”).

• Psalm 91 – a traditional protection psalm.

• The Rosary – as Our Lady at Fatima said: “Pray the Rosary daily for peace and the salvation of souls.”

  This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  Help Missio Dei Today With a One Time Donation

What did the text mean then, and how does it speak to us now?

2. Two Main Approaches Exist
The Church offers the Analogical Twofold Approach Method, with Diachronic (historic critical method) and Synchronic subcategories. The twofold approach provides a unique way to connect with God’s Word and help you on your earthly pilgrimage and journey to live a life of holiness toward the Kingdom of God.

Read more

Donate Today!

The world in which Paul grew up and lived was shaped mainly by the military conquest of Alexander the Great, the generals who broke apart his empire, and the Roman empire that rose from the pieces. The society Paul lived in was a microcosm of different cultures and religions from around the world. Charles B. Puskas and Mark Reasoner explain Paul’s world,
 “The Greek world in which Paul moved was an amalgam of cultures. There was no Greek nation or state. It is often labeled ‘Greco-Roman’ because Greek culture had impacted the Mediterranean world resulting in Hellenism.”[2]   

Due to the spread of Greek culture surrounding the Mediterranean, Greek rhetorical schools, where the skill of letter writing could be learned, were common in various parts of the Greco-Roman world. The difficulty for scholars is that there is not a lot known of St. Paul’s early education. So, any attempt to figure out where St. Paul would have developed his penchant for writing letters becomes guesswork.[3] Paul may have learned the craft of writing letters in a Greco-Roman rhetorical school; however, Pauline expert Fr. Raymond F. Collins suspects that Paul, being a pious Jew, would not have attended such a school.[4] Paul would have learned the craft of letter writing from the general culture.

When reading the Letters of St. Paul, it is essential to bear in mind that these are actual letters from a sender to a recipient. The letters can be challenging to interpret due to their elusive quality. For example, Fr. Collins explains, when writing a thank-you note to your grandma for giving you a bike for your birthday, you may write, “Thanks for the gift.”[5] Naturally, if any outside party finds the note, the fact that the gift is a bike would be unknown. Furthermore, both modern and Greco-Roman letter styles are tied to the occasion of the letter. The previous example from Fr. Collins indicates a cause, or occasion, that produces the thank-you note. The recognition of the occasion helps people today to better understand St. Paul’s letters, other ancient writers, and modern letters. 

In the Greco-Roman world, the cheap ink that was typically used to write a letter could be easily washed off papyrus, so letters were sent in a waxed leather case to protect them from the contents being lost.[6] Paul would likely have written his letters on a single papyrus sheet or a roll. Professor of Biblical Studies E. Randolph Richards explains, “Most ancient letters were very brief and were written on a single sheet of papyrus. A customer purchased a sheet from a papyrus vendor in the market, who then cut it from a roll. One could also purchase an entire roll and cut sheets as needed. A longer letter was written on the roll, not on a series of individual sheets.”[7] In fact, as Fr. Collins explains in his lecture on ancient letter writing, the tools used for writing presented a challenge for letter writers. One challenge for the letter writer was dictating the message to a scribe who could only write five words per minute.[8] The tools for letter writers also presented a challenge for ancient writers, like dipping the pen into ink, and the rough paper of either papyrus or parchment slowed the writing process. In the modern world, people typically receive a letter in the mail in a stamped envelope with the sender’s name on it. Since the ancient letter was rolled up in a waxed leather case, when the recipient received the letter, they would unroll the letter and read the name of the sender, “I, Paul…”[9]. So, the papyrus played a key role in the development of the ancient letter.

Share

Paul and his contemporaries would have engaged in a variety of letter writing, which is exhibited in the New Testament. In the New Testament, for example, one might find a letter like Paul’s letter to the Romans, which is a protreptic discourse that urges the Romans to adopt the Christian life of faith.[10] Scholars know about the types of letters and techniques of letter writing from manuals written three or four centuries after Paul, credited to Pseudo-Demetrius and Pseudo-Labanius.[11] The Greco-Roman letters’ form started with an opening letting the recipient know who is sending the letter, a thanksgiving, the body (topic), and a closing with greetings to various people. There are generally six types of letters in the Greco-Roman world: Person-to-person (personal), Business, Official, Public Letters, Fictitious Letters, and Discursive.[12]

Greco-Roman personal and business letters are similar to our letters. The contents of personal letters could be letters between neighbors, friends, romantic interests, introductions to society, and recommendation letters.  Business letters are fairly typical of what anyone might expect, with contents that deal with taxes, wills, commerce, and land.[13]

The official letter would be from a political or military leader. In contemporary society, with the invention of the television and the internet, the official letter has been replaced. It would most likely resemble the President of the United States’ State of the Union Address given to Congress and the citizens of the United States. A public and discursive letter, the former concerned with public pleas, its literary value and philosophy might resemble something in the pages of a commentary or essay in an academic journal. The latter, which would share some of the same motives, might be found in our contemporary society in the commentary of a newspaper or in the pages of a magazine like the New Yorker, written by a political commentator, politician, businessperson, etc., to inform, dip into like interests to sway people to their position.[14] St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, in which he often speaks to the Jewish people concerning the faith of Abraham is a good example of this type of letter.[15]

Finally, the fictitious letter is explained here because this letter, unless perhaps in literature circles, has been lost in our modern society. An example of this letter would be if someone who grew up in Illinois listened to Ven. Fulton Sheen on the radio, studied his academic and television work, then decided to write a letter with a summary of the teachings of Sheen, and opening the letter, “I, Fulton Sheen…” Some scholars, like Fr. Raymond Collins, suspect that some letters in the New Testament canon attributed to St. Paul fall into this category of genre, like Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy.[16] Typically, scholars perusing the letters of St. Paul make judgments based on the personal emotion expressed by St. Paul in the 2nd letter to the Corinthians versus the general context of the letter to the Ephesians, which St. Paul spent three years living, and the personal letter to a personal comrade and fellow worker, Timothy.[17]

Subscribe now

The importance of the development of the Greco-Roman letter cannot be overstated in the study of the letters of St. Paul. The battle over St. Paul began with at least the Marcion heresy, then split Western Christianity with the Reformation, and the battle still wages to this day. It is essential to understand how a person wrote a letter, typically with a scribe, how long it took to write a letter, and that it’s a real letter to a real audience with elusive contents. The careful reading of the letters of St. Paul with this understanding has led some Protestant scholars to reread Romans and St. Paul in a “New Perspective.” Martin Luther read it as a dichotomy between faith and works. In contrast, modern scholars recognize that Paul, a real letter writer, was writing to a Jewish audience and was juxtaposing the old Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, so the reference to works of the law must be applied to Jewish understanding of covenant, not generally to works of mercy versus faith. The covenant of Abraham is understood in two of the undisputed letters of St. Paul, Galatians and Romans, as “the primary pattern for how God relates with those who follow him.”[18] For St. Paul, it is the covenant grant to Abraham, without conditions, that is central to early Jews and Christians. The covenant treaty of the Mosaic covenant or the law has been replaced by the law of Christ for St. Paul.

The letters of St. Paul continue to be fruitful for Christian theology and spirituality. It is important, though, to reassess some of the debates surrounding St. Paul during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Modern historical research has revealed a better ability for biblical exegetes to understand how Paul would have written these letters and the context of the culture surrounding him.  The developments help improve exegetical methods for interpreting St. Paul in unity with all Christians. In many ways, this has been led by the efforts of Protestants like E.P. Sanders. Christian and non-Christian scholars will no doubt continue to develop a real relationship with this 1st-century Palestinian man.

[1] N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 703.

[2] Charles B. Puskas and Mark Reasoner, The Letters of Paul: An Introduction (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013), 14.

[3] Ibid, 16

[4] Fr. Raymond F. Collins, “St. Paul’s Letters 101: How to Read & Understand the Apostle Paul’s Epistles”, Now You Know Media Inc, July 28th, 2017 accessed February 2nd, 2021, https://www.learn25.com/product/st-pauls-letters-101-how-to-read-and-understand-the-apostle-pauls-epistles/

[5] Ibid.

[6] E. Randolph Richards, 47.

[7] E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004), 52.

[8] Fr. Raymond F. Collins, “St. Paul’s Letters 101: How to Read & Understand the Apostle Paul’s Epistles”

[9] Ibid.

[10] Wright and Bird. 703.  

[11] Fr. Raymond F. Collins, “St. Paul’s Letters 101: How to Read & Understand the Apostle Paul’s Epistles”

[12] Puskas and Reasoner, 30.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Fr. Raymond F. Collins, “St. Paul’s Letters 101: How to Read & Understand the Apostle Paul’s Epistles”

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Puskas and Reasoner, 6.

Introduction
In this essay I will discuss the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. I will show that there has been a continuity and development of the the Church's teaching regarding Biblical Inspiration. I will begin by examining Magisterial texts that define and expound upon the doctrine, all of which culminate in the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum. From there, I will turn to contemporary writings and theologians, that are faithful to the Magisterium, who discuss in more detail the particular parts of the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration, especially dual authorship and the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.

Newman and the Magisterium

In an essay published in 1884, St. John Henry Newman wrote extensively on the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. His main purpose was to answer the claims of the French scholar Ernest Renan. At the conclusion of his statements regarding Biblical Inspiration, Newman writes

I conclude by reminding the reader that in these remarks I have been concerned only with the question—what have Catholics to hold and profess de fide about Scripture? that is, what it is the Church 'insists' on their holding; and next, by unreservedly submitting what I have written to the judgment of the Holy See, being more desirous that the question should be satisfactorily answered, than that my own answer should prove to be in every respect the right one.¹

Two things are important to note here. Newman submits his own writings to the authority of the Holy See for judgment, meaning that the issues surrounding the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration were not clearly defined at the time and second, that his own answer may not be the correct one.

A response from the Holy See came in the form of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Providentissimus Deus published in 1893. This was the first major encyclical to be written about the study of Sacred Scripture. It was to be followed by Pope Benedict XV's Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), and Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943). Each one helped to develop many of Leo's teachings on Sacred Scripture, the greatest of which is Biblical Inspiration.

Citing the First Vatican Council on Revelation, Leo XIII writes that “This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, 'being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church.'”² Continuing, he notes that the basis for this doctrine is the testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself citing 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (NAB) The foundations for this doctrine, then, come not only from Scripture itself, but also from previous Ecumenical Councils.

A further point Leo XIII makes is that of dual authorship, meaning that both the Holy Spirit and Man are to be considered true authors of Sacred Scripture. While Leo does not go into detail on the dual authorship of Scripture, Pope Benedict XV does, using St. Jerome as his guide. Instead of seeing Inspiration of the human authors as a mere dictation, he notes that “the individual authors of these Books worked in full freedom under the Divine afflatus, each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character.”³ He further states “In each case Jerome shows us how, in composition, in language, in style and mode of expression, each of them uses his own gifts and powers...”⁴ What Benedict XV highlights is that the human authors played a significant role in the authorship of Scripture. They used different styles and personal talents and gifts, all freely under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This explains why the grammar is sometimes more sophisticated in some books rather than in others. Thus, the human authors are true authors of Scripture, along with the Holy Spirit and not merely His stenographers.

A final issue that Leo resolves is that of the Inerrancy of Scripture. The Inerrancy of Scripture is intimately linked to its Inspiration. In Leo's time, it was commonly thought that Sacred Scripture could contain errors or that the errors came not from the Holy Spirit but from the human authors that He Inspired. Thus, only matters of faith and morals and not historical matters would be considered inerrant. This position is typically called partial, or limited inerrancy. Leo, however, saw things differently. He wrote

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.⁵

Leo makes it clear that error is incompatible with Sacred Scripture and that this has been the teaching of numerous councils. Nor can error lie in the human authors of Scripture, for that would mean that God could lie in His Inspiration:

Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.⁶

If the Scriptures contain error, as some Biblical scholars claim, then God's credibility would be called into question. The First Vatican Council, however, noted that “we believe that the things revealed by Him [God] are true, not because of their intrinsic truth discerned by the natural light of reason, but by the authority of God Himself the revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”⁷ As was seen above, the Inspiration of Scripture is divinely revealed by Scripture itself and subsequent teachings of Ecumenical Councils.

Lest one should think that the teaching of Plenary Inerrancy is simply a fundamentalist position, Pope Pius XII adds an important instruction for the biblical scholar in his determination of a given text. It is worth quoting at length:

Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.⁸

Here, Pius XII is telling the Catholic exegete that he must look to the literary mode in which a text has been written. For instance, Wisdom Literature has a lesser claim to laying down historical fact compared to the Pentateuch and Historical Books because the authors of Wisdom Literature are not trying to necessarily write down historical events.

All of the teachings of the three popes listed above culminate in the teaching on Revelation from the Second Vatican Council. Dei Verbum recognizes the plenary, or full Inspiration of Scripture, “For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles, holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”⁹

It holds that Scripture is without error and has both God and man as its author: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”¹⁰ This topic will be discussed in more detail below.

Finally, it agrees with Pius XII regarding the importance of understanding literary genres: “To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to 'literary forms.' For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.”¹¹

Modern Scholarship

In more recent times, modern scholars have continued to uphold the teachings of the popes and the Second Vatican Council in regards to the Inspiration of Scripture. A few of these scholars will be viewed below in more detail.

A prime example is Dr. Mark Zia. After examining the best scholarship of Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic scholars on Biblical Inspiration, Zia offers a modern definition of the doctrine that remains faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium while at the same time taking into account their important contributions: “In its most technical sense, the charism of biblical inspiration pertains to a free gift of the Holy Spirit given to selected, individual human persons in the past for the purpose of consigning the Word of God to a written form, that it could be known, preserved, and passed down to all generations.”¹² Continuing, he further notes the dual authorship of Scripture as well as the mode used by the Holy Spirit: “This gift of God is wholly unmerited by the recipients, it is ordered toward the good of the Church at large, and it directly acts upon the human faculties by elevating them and rendering them capable of receiving and understanding supernatural revelation.”¹³ He emphasizes that the Inspiration was a gift and not something that was merited by the holiness or intelligence of the human author. Moreover, the purpose of this gift was to pass on the Word of God to all the generations of the Church so that they might always have access to this central part of Revelation.

After the Second Vatican Council, controversies arose regarding the interpretation of the text of Dei Verbum. Many biblical scholars thought that it had drastically changed the Church's teaching about the truth of Scripture, especially in regards to its Inerrancy. In an essay written on Inerrancy, Zia noted the disagreements among the council fathers regarding the terms employed at the Council. He especially cites Cardinal Franz König, who thought that the language used by the Council should be changed. Zia summarizes his view: “König's intention was not to limit the scope of inspiration, but to limit the scope of inerrancy from 'everything' asserted by the inspired author to 'the truth' or 'the truth of Sacred Scripture,' which he designated as teachings regarding faith and morals.”¹⁴ Many of the council fathers, however, disagreed with König. Zia writes

It became evident that the Council fathers did not agree with the manner in which König proposed to strike a balance between the limitations of the Bible and its inerrant portions. They clearly wanted to maintain the full inerrancy of the Bible, but in a non-Fundamentalist way that would take into consideration the literal sense of the passage as communicating the intention of the inspired author.¹⁵

Zia also notes that Dei Verbum specifically cites St. Augustine, Providentissimus Deus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu in a footnote with regard to the truth of Sacred Scripture. He also explains that both Pope St. Paul VI and the Theological Commission that reviewed the modi, had to intervene in order to preserve the Church's teaching on Biblical Inerrancy. He continues to note that even after all that has been presented, showing the continuity and development of the Church's teaching, there are those, such as the great scholar Raymond Brown who do not hold to the Plenary Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Zia concludes by writing “In reading this final and approved formulation of the Council's teaching on the relationship between biblical inspiration and inerrancy, it becomes clear that the phrase 'for the sake of our salvation' is descriptive of the activity of God, and not a restrictive clause meant to limit the scope of inerrancy of the Bible.”¹⁶

Another representative is the Scripture scholar Fr. William G. Most, who greatly strove against the error in Raymond Brown's thought regarding the Inerrancy of Scripture. He dedicates a great deal of ink to refuting Brown's writing in his work, Free From All Error. He writes,

Some writers had said that matters of natural science or history, or things said in passing, are not protected by inerrancy. Only things pertaining to faith and morals, they said, are so protected. Pius XII pointed out the obvious: that if God is the author, there can be no error whatsoever, of any kind. And he spoke of the teaching of Vatican I on this point as “a solemn definition.” Raymond Brown, however, insists there can be errors, even in religious matters!¹⁷

Fr. Most continues to note that the position of Plenary Inerrancy will take work and effort if it is to be upheld. He distinguishes between the “fact” and the “how” of Biblical interpretation. He presents the ideal method for dealing with difficulties in the Bible:

The fact that there is no error in Scripture, we know from the teachings of the Church. But how to explain certain difficulties requires additional work. However, and this is the vital point, even if we were not able at present to find the how that will solve particular problems, that should not blind us to the fact that there is an answer.¹⁸

We should come to Scripture with Faith, then, and not with an inherent suspicion that errors exists in it. St. John Henry Newman could also be cited here: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt...”¹⁹ Just because a Biblical text may present many difficulties to the reader, does not, and cannot mean that the human author(s) or the Holy Spirit erred in writing it down. It is something that must be wrestled with and not ignored by simply saying there are errors in the Bible.

Yet another brief example is Dr. Scott Hahn. In his Catholic Bible Dictionary, he defends plenary or what he calls, “unlimited” Inerrancy. He goes into specific details on the issue at the Second Vatican Council and shows how it's teaching is in line with previous magisterial texts. He concludes by writing:

In all probability, then, given the history of the doctrine and the points considered above, the official Catholic teaching remains one of unlimited inerrancy. Vatican II has issued no repeal of this teaching, neither has it given us signs of a real departure from the solemn decrees of the modern popes. One can legitimately speak of a new emphasis introduced by the Council, but not a new understanding of the doctrine.²⁰

A final illustration is Dr. Brant Pitre, who offers one of the most articulate and detailed defenses of Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy in an article for the journal Letter and Spirit. He offers a number of important points to keep in mind regarding the doctrine of Inspiration. The first is what he calls the “Incarnational Analogy.” The Incarnational Analogy refers to the dual authorship of Scripture. Just as Jesus Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature, so too does Scripture in a certain sense. It has two authors, God and man, the divine and the human. Pitre writes

By means of this analogy it affirms in the strongest possible terms both the divine authorship of Scripture as well as the free, full, and reasonable human authorship of the sacred texts. Like the mystery of the incarnation itself, the mystery of dual authorship is a testament to both the truth and the humility of the Word incarnate and the Word inspired.²¹

In a similar vein as Fr. Most, Pitre writes on the “Hermeneutic of Trust” in regards to Biblical Inerrancy. He juxtaposes trust and skepticism, noting that the Modern period is rife with skepticism which has led many to distrust the Scripture and leads to views of partial inerrancy. Trust, is ultimately what is needed according to Pitre: “From an interpretative posture of trust, the truth of the biblical text is presumed and the Scripture is always given the benefit of the doubt. Such a hermeneutic is not uncritical naivete, but rather an eminently reasonable response to the divine authorship of Scripture.”²² He goes on to note that it is far easier to accuse Sacred Scripture of error than it is to engage in difficult passages. Proper exegesis of Sacred Scripture “calls for the exercise of the virtues of patience and humility on the part of the biblical scholar.”²³

Conclusion

In this essay we have seen that there has been continuity in the Church's teaching regarding the doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture. From the single verse in St. Paul's letter, there has stemmed teachings regarding the dual authorship, inerrancy, and proper interpretation of the Sacred Scripture. The Second Vatican Council summed up the magisterial teaching on these topics with the Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum. We have also seen that numerous Scripture scholars who are faithful to the Magisterium have defended and elucidated the doctrine, especially in defending the Inerrancy of Scripture, which is so closely tied to it's Inspiration, from fundamentalist tendencies. The true scholar of the Word of God, if he wishes to be faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium, would do well to approach Scripture with humility, patience, trust, and faith.

Notes

1John Henry Newman, “On the Inspiration of Scripture,” (The Newman Reader. The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 15, No. 84, Feb. 1884), 28. https://newmanreader.org/works/miscellaneous/scripture.html.

2Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (The Holy See, November 18, 1893), 1. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l- xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html.

3Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus (The Holy See, September 15, 1920), 8. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus.html.

4Benedict, Spiritus Paraclitus, 8.

5Leo, Providentissimus Deus, 20.

6Leo, Providentissimus Deus, 20.

7Pius IX, Dei Filius (The Holy See, April 24, 1870), Ch. 3. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei-filius-24-aprilis-1870.html.

8Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (The Holy See, September 30, 1943), 38. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html.

9Paul VI, Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (The Holy See, November 18, 1965), 11. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.

10Paul, Dei Verbum, 11.

11Paul, Dei Verbum, 12.

12Mark J. Zia, What Are They Saying About Biblical Inspiration (Paulist Press, 2011), 83.

13Zia, What Are They Saying, 83.

14Mark J. Zia, “The Inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Vatican Council,” Catholic Culture, 2006. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441.

15Zia, “The Inerrancy of Scripture.”

16Zia, “The Inerrancy of Scripture.”

17William G. Most, Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars (The Franciscan Marytown Press, 1985), 34.

18Most, Free From All Error, 34.

19John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (Newman Reader, 1865, revised in 2001), Chapter 5. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/chapter5.html.

20Scott Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, 2009), 389.

21Scott Hahn and David Scott, eds. Letter & Spirit Vol. 6: For the Sake of Our Salvation: The Truth and Humility of God’s Word (Emmaus Academic, 2010) 51.

22Hahn and Scott, Letter & Spirit, 60.

23 Hahn and Scott, Letter & Spirit, 60.

In a recent address, Pope Leo XIV warned that, despite the many practical benefits of

artificial intelligence technology (AI), it “raises troubling questions on its possible

repercussions on humanity’s openness to truth and beauty, on our distinctive ability to

grasp and process reality.” Such a description goes well beyond the usual list of

concerns about potential social and psychological ills arising from misuse of AI.

Unfortunately, it is not always easy for Catholics to find good information about these

deeper misgivings.

One very helpful Vatican resource is the January 2025 document Antiqua et Nova,

which summarizes many of Pope Francis’ social concerns about AI but also provides a

readable yet scholarly explanation for the differences between human and machine

intelligence. When the Church describes the human person as a rational being, for

example, this human “reason” is much more than the calculations, predictive analytics,

and step-by-step decision-making that govern. Human intelligence, unlike machine

calculations, “includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and

religious sensibilities” (§11) as well as many kinds of expressions. “At the heart of the

Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of truth into the moral and

spiritual life of the person, guiding his or her actions in light of God’s goodness and

truth. According to God’s plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, also includes the

ability to savor what is true, good, and beautiful” (§28).

Human intelligence is oriented to seeking and knowing truth, for “human intelligence

is ultimately ‘God’s gift fashioned for the assimilation of truth’” (§21). This is not

merely factual truth about the material and social world. The human person

ultimately seeks truth in their relationship with God and decision to entrust

themselves to Him. “In this way, the human person becomes fully what he or she is

called to be” (§23).

Most importantly, “as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent,

some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment—longings that can

only be truly satisfied in communion with God” (§104). This substitution for God is

the sin of idolatry, although “it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but

humanity itself—which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work” (§105). I

consider this to be perhaps the most consequential lesson of Antiqua et Nova.

Catholics may need to continue developing resources like Antiqua et Nova to gain a

deeper understanding of the moral and spiritual concerns associated with AI. In our

development of this understanding, we may wish to avoid putting too much emphasis

on intelligence as the primary characteristic of human nature without also including a

full reference to humanity’s relational character (as in Pope St. John Paul II’s theology

of the body); our orientation to beatitude in a grace-filled, loving relationship with

God; and destiny through the incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

The contemporary, secular effort to define nature, including human nature, in terms

of information processing should also be countered with the very careful

understanding of human nature developed in the Church that integrates but also

distinguishes between the intellect, will, aggressively secular view of human nature,

not only the reduction of intelligence.

Christopher Reilly

Author of AI and Sin Get the book here!

A core aspect of Missio Dei is the proclamation of the Gospel to all people. This involves sharing the good news of Jesus Christ and inviting individuals to respond in faith. Please consider a donation to Missio Dei.

Subscribe now

For instance, monism, a pre-Socratic school of philosophy, “denies discrete entities or real distinctions in the universe,” claiming that all beings are merely illusory manifestations of “the One”. 3 While such an idea sounds absurd, Catholics who fail to recognize monism as a threat may eventually adopt pantheism, an eighteenth-century heresy which proposes that “all things are God and have the very substance of God”.4Therefore, if we are to rebuild Christendom, it is vital that we are aware of the Enemy and his deceptions. To quote Saint Peter: “Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8; Douay-Rheims Bible).

Moreover, not only does Flee from Heresy identify various heresies, but it also adequately explains them, as well. Using the beloved question-answer format present in the Baltimore Catechism, the book addresses the reader in a clear, concise manner, making it accessible for all ages. For instance, commenting on the American dogma of “separation of Church and State,” His Excellency emphasizes that “it promotes individualism to the harm of the common good, foments unrestricted license in speech and press, and results in attacks on the one true religion [Catholicism]”.5 Additionally, for those who are interested in learning more about Magisterial teachings on these issues, Flee from Heresy contains copious references to the documents of our forefathers, as well. To quote Pope Leo XIII on the consequences of separation of Church and State: “If the [intellect] assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption”.6

Perhaps the most impressive feature of Flee from Heresy, though—and the primary reason that Catholics across the globe have flocked under the standard of Bishop Schneider—is His Excellency’s great love, devotion, and honor for Our Lady. Titled “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Destroyer of Heresies,” Part IV of the book provides the reader with almost twenty pages of content on the august Mother of God, highlighting the necessity of her presence in the spiritual life with a clarity and a vigor matched by few. Here, we could spend the remainder of the article commenting on this section, but the following quotes will serve you far better than my humble observations:

The greatest enemy of the Christian faith is not an army with material weapons, but an army of those who are equipped with ink and pen in order to undermine and pervert the virginal purity of the Catholic Faith.7

As the first to fully embrace [a] living faith in the Incarnation of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary is herself a perpetual vessel and a testament to that Faith on earth—a Faith which will never perish, but will endure until the Last Judgment. Through the faith and fidelity of Mary, the true Faith was established on earth, and she who was first to believe is therefore most powerful to destroy all unbelief and heresy.8

What profundity! While those who have read His Excellency’s other works are familiar with his relationship to Our Lady and with his love of motherhood in general, Part IV serves as a mini magnum opus to the entire book. As a result, reading it alone is worth your time and your money.

Last but certainly not least, the “Appendixes” section serves as a solid foundation for newcomers to the pre-conciliar era of Catholicism. Here, His Excellency includes Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors; Saint Pope Pius X’s Lamentabili Sane, the Syllabus against the heresy of Modernism; the same pope’s Oath Against Modernists; and a “Declaration of Truths” published by His Excellency and Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, among others. Unlike the previous parts of the book, there is little commentary on these documents, which is regrettable. However, their importance is of the highest magnitude, for no explanation of the Catholic Church suffices without recourse to them. Therefore, after concluding this section of the book, you’ll not only be inspired to Flee from Heresy—you’ll also fly to orthodoxy!

The Catholic Corner is a new Substack publication dedicated to drawing people closer to Christ and the Catholic Church. Click here to join their family!

Evangelization Fund

ORDER the BookRe HERE

At its heart, this book seeks to illuminate the reality of the human person as an integrated whole—body and soul—where lived experience is not opposed to truth, but rather a means of encountering it. Drawing from the theological vision of Pope St. John Paul II, the authors demonstrate how the “turn to the subject” in modern philosophy does not have to lead to radical individualism but can, instead, be properly integrated with a philosophy of being.

A core theme running throughout the book is the idea that our consciousness has an intentionality—a directedness toward truth. This is not an abstract concept but a lived reality: in our daily lives, we seek to communicate the truth of what we experience. This search for truth is not only about external reality but also about the subject who perceives and engages with it. It is a journey that must be undertaken with both faith and reason, with the full weight of the Christian tradition illuminating our steps.

The book also does not shy away from some of the most pressing moral and bioethical issues of our time. It engages topics such as contraception, abortion, infertility, adoption, and the challenge of discovering a wholesome identity in a world that increasingly denies the givenness of the human person. The authors provide thoughtful engagement with both theological and scientific perspectives, showing that Catholic teaching on sexuality is not an imposition but an invitation—an invitation to rediscover the beauty of the gift of our creation as man and woman.

Through compelling personal testimonies, rigorous philosophical analysis, and deep theological insight, this book offers a path forward for those seeking to understand the meaning of their own existence. It is a call to embrace the fullness of our identity in Christ, to heal the wounds that distort our understanding of self, and to enter more deeply into the mystery of the Creator’s design.

Ultimately, Lived Experience and the Search for Truth is not just about Catholic sexual morality. It is about what it means to be fully human. It is an invitation to rediscover the heart of our personhood and to recognize, in the depths of our own lived experience, the God who calls us into truth.

Share

The author “Francis Etheredge” also explores the topic of transgenderism through the lens of Catholic teaching and bioethics. Click and follow this link to order the book. Transgenderism: A Question of Identity

Book :Book

App (iPhone):App

App (Android): App

In this interview, we sit down with (Holy Apostles Alumni) Joseph Freyman, author of Summa Apologetica, to explore his comprehensive Catholic apologetics textbook designed for adults and mature teens. This year-long course covers 162 key questions and answers on Catholicism, Christianity, and faith, drawing from the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, magisterial documents, and Scripture. We discuss the six key categories of apologetics covered in the book:

📌 Natural Apologetics – Reason and the Existence of God

📌 Christian Apologetics – Why Jesus Christ is the Messiah

📌 Catholic Apologetics – The Church’s authority and teachings

📌 Historical Apologetics – The Church's role throughout history

📌 Moral Apologetics – Ethics and Catholic moral teaching

📌 General Questions – Common misconceptions and challenges Joseph also introduces Appologetics, the mobile companion app, making Catholic apologetics accessible anywhere. Whether you’re a student, teacher, or simply eager to strengthen your faith, Summa Apologetica is an essential resource!

Or you can watch the video here :

One of the most painful aspects of porn addiction is shame. It’s why we hide our addiction, try to excuse or justify it and even attempt to scandalize others by tempting them to share in it with us, as though doing it with others will somehow take away our shame. In this way, shame feels a lot like guilt: we know deep down that there is something wrong with porn, no matter what pleasurable feelings it may give us in the moment, but when shame accuses and convicts us of our wrongdoing, we would rather do away with shame than with its true cause.

It’s easier to push down or ignore a negative feeling than it is to deal with the sin that causes it – to admit that what we feel is good for us is actually bad and harms our relationship with God, with our loved ones and with ourselves. But, like guilt, shame is a gift from God, a reminder of our dignity as human persons made in His image and created for the perfect happiness of unity with Him, not for slavery to the confused desires of the body which only serve to distract us from what we are really made for. The remedy for a gunshot wound is not to put a plaster over it and take painkillers: we have to remove the bullet causing the pain so that the wound can truly heal.

This is the message of Pope St. John Paul II in his famous work on the theology of the body. Shame, he says, was the response of Adam and Eve, our primordial parents, to original sin, which, by distorting their humanity through pride and selfishness, turned them against God and one another. Concupiscence, the disordering of our natural desires, is the most persistent and intensely personal consequence of original sin, leading us to forget that God made us in His image – not only individually, where through our spiritual soul we are far above the animals in our capacity to know and love God, but also collectively, where through interpersonal communion we image the eternal and infinite love of the three divine Persons of the Trinity.

This communal image of God in man, the Holy Father said, is the “spousal meaning of the body”^[1] – the body is a sacrament of the person, expressing our subjectivity and our need for loving relationship with God and others as a sacramental sign, just as the sacramental signs of bread and wine in the Eucharist express the abiding presence and divine love of Christ for each of us. From the beginning, Adam and Eve knew this meaning of the body and lived it in their marital fidelity, giving themselves to one another freely as gifts in marriage, the “primordial sacrament”^[2] representing God’s love and desire for union with man.

Since concupiscence was introduced into human nature, however, the spousal meaning of the body, its deeply personal and interpersonal character, has been corrupted through selfishness. Now, instead of giving ourselves in the freedom of the gift to one another within the properly marital expression of total commitment given to us by God, we use one another, depersonalizing and objectifying others and ourselves. In doing so, we conceal the image of God in us, both individually by enslaving our spiritual freedom and dignity to bodily passions, and collectively by seeing other persons as mere objects to satiate our desires and to be cast aside when we’re through with them. Accordingly, through concupiscence, the body is no longer a sacrament of the person, nor is sexuality a sacrament of the marital union between Christ and His Church which human marriage is meant to signify. Instead, it is just an instrument for my gratification, and I am only a slave to its lusts. As the Holy Father explains:

‘Concupiscence’ removes the intentional dimension of the reciprocal existence of man and woman from the personal perspectives ‘of communion,’ which are proper to their perennial and reciprocal attraction, reducing this attraction and, so to speak, driving it toward utilitarian dimensions, in whose sphere of influence one human being ‘makes use’ of another human being, ‘using her’ only to satisfy his own ‘urges.’^[3]

Read more

Read more

The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world (Psalm 19, RSV).

German phenomenologist Edith Stein observes, “Whoever seeks the truth is seeking God, whether consciously or unconsciously” or in the words attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo, “All truth is God’s truth.”

Metaphysics - The Transcendent Trinity

The Hebrew monotheistic and ethical tradition was unique in the ancient world and their answer to pagan religions was equally unique: one Deity created the world ex nihilo and everything in it (Genesis 1:1). This Deity revealed himself to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David and others and gave them an ethical code on the crest of Mt. Sinai of which, according to Moses, all nations would be envious (cf. Deut. 4:6-8). Out of this roughly 2000 year-old narrative, and generations of prophetic longings, arise the dawn of John the Baptizer and the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC).

The Christian movement answered the pagan search for meaning beyond the stars and revealed the God who brought the children of Israel out of the house of Pharaoh by their baptism in the Red Sea (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-2). The Christian narrative reveals that this God has come to us personally in the man Jesus Christ (John 1:18), revealing the Mystery of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (cf. Colossians 2:9; John 14:9: Hebrews 1:1-4) and answering the problems/ tensions in pagan philosophy when he says he is “the way [metaphysics] the truth [epistemology] and the life [axiology]” (John 14:6). The definitive answer to the “what” of Aristotle’s metaphysic is a “who,” that is, a person, whose identity is canonized in the Creed of Nicaea (325 AD).

Ethics - The Way of Wisdom

In the Hebrew Bible, the Patriarch Job uttered, “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28.28, RSV). King David understood the “fear of the Lord” as something taught to children (Psalm 34.11). What is good and evil (righteous or wicked) stems from a concrete source: the Torah (“law,” “instruction”). Torah as originally understood is the covenant God gave through Moses to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. The covenant marks the parameters for maintaining their presence in the Land that God promised to Abraham (Genesis 12). David summarizes the covenant by saying, “What man is there who desires life, and covets many days, that he may enjoy good? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.” (Psalm 34.12-14, RSV).

What defines evil and good are not abstract relativities, but specifics, i.e., principles found in the Torah. Later, David connects the fear of the Lord with the “beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111.10). The editor of the Proverbs says similar things and adds that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1.7); moreover, he associates “the fear of the Lord” with wisdom, as a way of life that avoids evil. This evil is defined by breaking God’s commands (cf. 1 John 3.4). Those commands outline or protect the “Blessed Life.” Consequently, habitual breaking of God’s commands defines the unhappy and short life (cf. Psalm 1, 19; cf. 1 Timothy 1.8). Micah the Prophet summarizes the Torah when he says, “He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6.8, RSV). This standard of morality is based upon God’s Person and nature as he has revealed his divine will in the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Rabbi Hillel, the grandfather of Gamaliel I (rabbi to Paul the Apostle, cf. Acts 5.34; 22.3) taught in the Mishnah, “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor [sic]: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it” (Shabbath 31a). When asked which mitzvah (command) is the greatest, Jesus of Nazareth connects the love of God demonstrably to love of neighbor; the abstract is seen in specific acts of charity. He replies (Mark 12:29-31, RSV):

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind [Deut. 6.4f] and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself [Lev. 19.18].’ There is no other commandment greater than these (cf. Matt. 19.19; 22.39; Luke 10.27).

This same conventional wisdom is found in Paul’s letters (Gal. 5.14; Rom. 13.9) and the Letter of James (2.8).

It would be centuries of debate, growth and development of doctrine as the infant Church, resting on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 4), grew and matured into a visible institution, which spread throughout the known world of the Roman Empire. After nearly 1000 years of councils and difficult organization, perhaps no greater mind arose to successfully articulate the Christian answer to philosophy than Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD).

St. Thomas Aquinas

He was the architect of the Western Christian philosophical tradition. In agreement with Aristotle, he said the law of non-contradiction is discernible by the senses and from the perspective of naked philosophy, has its origin in being. In Questiones Disputatae de Veritate (Q1), he quotes Augustine, “‘The true is that which is.’ But that which is, is simply being. The true, therefore, means exactly the same as being.” In de Veritate, Aquinas notes, “Things in the same state are the same. But the true and being are in the same state. Therefore, they are the same. For Aristotle wrote: ‘The state of a thing in its act of existence is the same as its state in truth.’ Therefore, the true and being are entirely the same” (para. 5).

Aristotle’s weakness is his inability to ground his epistemology in ontology. He observes that non-contradiction is at work in human reasoning and connects it with being; it is the first principle and assumption that being “is.” In other words, Aristotle is correct in his observation but oblivious to its origin, for he rejects the pantheon of deities as superstition.

However, Aquinas accepted on authority from Sacred Revelation that beatitudo, that is, the uninterrupted, perpetual, felicitous vision of God is the goal of all things human; indeed, it is philosophy’s summum bonum. The foundation of all things, particularly those axioms Aristotle assumed a priori, Aquinas understood to have their origin in God. However, philosophy cannot say this. Neither Plato nor Aristotle could say this. Aquinas notes by practical reason, that while philosophy is a dumb idol on the ultimate question of Being, “. . . the only ultimate end and beatitudo (fulfillment) for human beings is living in a completely reasonable, morally excellent (virtuosus) way.”

Hence, the law of non-contradiction serves as a rational means by which human beings live what Socrates called the “best possible life.” The irrational life therefore is the immoral life. Fennis (2011) summarizes Aquinas’ view of the functional association between morality and reason, from the perspective of practical reason or what has become in common parlance, “natural law,” which is a function of natural theology:

The ultimate end of human life is felicitas or beatitudo… So the main concern of law [including the natural (moral) law] must be with directing towards beatitudo. Again, since every part stands to the whole as incomplete stands to complete, and individual human beings are each parts of a complete community, law's appropriate concern is necessarily with directing towards common felicitas . . . that is, to common good. (ST I-II q. 90 a. 2.). The ‘complete community’ mentioned here is the political community, with its laws, but the proposition implicitly refers also to the community of all rational creatures, to whose common good morality (the moral law) directs us (para. 16).

For the Greeks and emergent Christian civilization, the law of non-contradiction was self-evident as much as the truth of being. This prevalent explanation of the world (called “pre-modernity”) was in innocence or malice put into question by the dawn of the Renaissance and consequent “Enlightenment.”

Finnis, J. (2011, Fall). Aquinas' moral, political, and legal philosophy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

In all history, nothing is so surprising or so difficult to account for as the sudden rise of civilization in Greece . . . What they achieved in art and literature is familiar to everybody, but what they did in the purely intellectual realm is even more exceptional. They invented mathematics and science and philosophy; they first wrote history as opposed to mere annals; they speculated freely about the nature of the world and the ends of life . . . [men were so astonished they] . . . were content to gape and talk about the Greek genius (p. 15).

Metaphysics

Both Plato and Aristotle wrestled with how to articulate a “real” or authentic understanding of things experienced in the world. Behind the sense of the transcendent, Greek philosophers struggled with the metaphysical assumptions of polytheism.

The universe was governed and guided by a pantheon of deities. These deities they inherited by the influence of the cultures of former conquered and subjugated empires, e.g., the Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Assyrians and Egyptians (Russell, 1945). Equally, as Greece and her world were subjugated by the Romans, they too adopted the former pantheon, and like Greece, the Babylonian Ba’al, known to the Greeks as Zeus became Jupiter.

The ancient world also functioned with a sense of mystery: that the origin of the world around them was beyond the senses, transcending experience. Plato, in the Republic called this mystery, ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, “the idea of the good,” from which all things are derivative. Cicero later called this concept the Summum Bonum and Paul the Apostle in an Athenian public debate identified this “idea” as God (cf. Acts 17).

John the Apostle co-opted Philo Judæus and referred to Jesus as the λόγος, the uncreated Word (cf. John 1.1, 14, 18). Paul also imported Philo’s idea of the logos as that which holds all things together (Hebrews 1:1-4), but unlike Philo, this “principle” was God himself; the man Jesus is termed the character of God’s ineffable substance (not a created demiurge).

Axiology/ Ethics

In terms of ethical obligations in the ancient world, “the gods also became associated with morality . . . a breach of the law became an impiety” (Russell, 1945, p.5). Russell observes that the Code of Hammurabi was “asserted by the king to have been delivered to him by Marduk” (p. 5). In classical Greek culture, the answer to the ethical problem stems from a polytheistic mythology, which resulted in the ethical dilemma in Socrates’ Dialogue With Euthyphro: is [a thing] right because the gods command it or do they command it because it is right? Both Plato and Aristotle rejected the popular metaphysical explanations of the culture in favor of a naïve objective realism (Aristotle) or idealism (Plato).

For Plato, the Good is what is demonstrably harmonious and orderly in nature, the arts and human behavior. For Aristotle, the Good is objectively virtuous and leads to consequent human happiness or εὐδαιμονία.

Epistemological Assumptions

In the classical world, Aristotle observed a fundamental law of non-contradiction at work in the human reasoning process and this law was a necessary pre-condition for intelligibility. In other words, in order to communicate consistently without nonsense, one has to employ this law. Aristotle asserts in chapter four of his Metaphysics, “It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (Gottlieb, 2011, para. 4). Expressed another way in Algebra is the Law of Identity: A ≠ non-A.

Gottlieb (2011) summarizes Aristotle thus:

Aristotle says that [the principle of non-contradiction] is one of the common axioms, axioms common to all the special sciences. It has no specific subject matter, but applies to everything that is. It is a first principle and the firmest principle. Like modus ponens, as Lewis Carroll memorably showed, [the principle of non-contradiction] does not function as a premise in any argument. Unlike modus ponens, [the principle of non-contradiction] is not a rule of inference. Aristotle says that it is a principle which ‘is necessary for anyone to have who knows any of the things that are’ . . . it is no mere hypothesis (para. 12).

Aristotle grounds the existence of this principle in the nature of being; “. . . in things themselves, [sic] i.e., in re as their form from which the mind (intellect) abstracts them in getting to know things . . .” (Hunnex, 1986, p. 9). Aristotle argues in book three of the Metaphysics, that it is the business of the philosopher to investigate the first principles or axioms of math or science; things about “being” which the mathematician or the scientist assume exist in nature. It is in being, discernible by the senses of experience, that the law of non-contradiction shows itself: as is.

Gottlieb, P. (Summer 2011). Aristotle on non-contradiction, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved November 4, 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/.

Hunnex, M. D. (1986). Chronological and thematic charts of philosophies and philosophers.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Russell, B. (1945). A history of Western philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Share

In this final part, we will look at Our Lady’s Glorious Assumption into Heaven and the discussion surrounding her last days. We will also give consideration to what her assumption means for the faithful.

Leave a comment

Give a gift subscription

Read more

What does it mean to be a human?

What are the three “appetites” of the human person?

What order ought they have?

What is “emotional regulation” to St. Thomas Aquina…

Read more

Read more