Isaiah 6:1-5 and John 12:41 - God the Father, the Son of God, or the Trinity (20th and 21st centuries commentators)

As promised in my previous post, I will now provide selections from modern-day commentators concerning the person Isaiah saw in his Isaiah 6:1ff. vision. The following list includes representatives from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed denominations:

Andreas Kostenberger (2004) -

In the wake of the two Isaianic quotes in 12:38 and 12:40, the evangelist concludes that “Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory” (cf. 8:56). In light of the preceding quotation of Isa. 6:10, some say that the background for the present statement is the call narrative in Isaiah 6.8. Yet though αὐτοῦ (autou, his) probably refers to Jesus, John does not actually say that Isaiah saw Jesus, but that he saw Jesus’ glory. Hence, it is not necessary to conclude that the evangelist believed that Isaiah saw “the pre-existent Christ” (Schnackenburg 1990: 2.416; cf. Talbert 1992: 180; D. M. Smith p 392 1999: 244) or that he saw Jesus “in some pre-incarnate fashion” (Carson 1991: 449). Rather, Isaiah foresaw that God was pleased with a suffering Servant who would be “raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (52:13), yet who was “pierced for our transgressions” and “bore the sins of many” (53:5, 12) (see esp. Evans 1987). Hence, Isaiah knew that God’s glory would be revealed through a suffering Messiah—something deemed impossible by the crowds (John 12:34). Like Abraham, Isaiah saw Jesus’ “day” (cf. John 8:56, 58). (John - Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 391, 392)

Herman Ridderbos (1997) -

...vs. 41: "This the prophet said because he saw his glory and spoke of him." "His" refers to Christ—it is "his glory" —as the concluding words of vs. 41 confirm: "spoke of him." The Evangelist does not mean that Isaiah already foresaw Jesus' (later) glory, but that the glory of God as the prophet foresaw it in his vision was no other than that which the Son of God had with the Father before the world was and that was to be manifested before the eyes of all in the incarnation of the Word (17:4; 1:14, 18). For that reason ("because") the prophetic judgment of hardening on account of the unbelief of the people was fully applicable to the rejection of Jesus by Israel, and even came to fulfillment therein. (The Gospel of John: translated by John Vriend, p. 445)

George R. Beasley-Murray (1987) -

The glory of God that Isaiah saw in his vision (Isa 6:1-4) is identified with the glory of the Logos-Son, in accordance with 1:18 and 17:5. (Word Biblical Commentary - John, p. 217)

F. F. Bruce (1983) -

For verse 41 suggests that the one who 'has blinded theie eyes and made their heart obtuse' is Jesus. It was of him, says John, that Isaiah spoke on this occasion, 'because he saw his glory'. The reference is to Isa. 6:1, where the prophet says 'I saw the Lord'. In the Aramaic Targum to the Prophets (the 'Targum Jonathan') this is paraphrased 'I saw the glory of the Lord'; and while the Targum as we have is much later than John's time, many of the interpretations it preserves were traditional, going back for many generations, 'The glory' or 'the glory of God' is a targumic circumlocution for the name of God, but John gives the word its full force and says that the Lord whose 'glory' Isaiah saw was Jesus: Isaiah, like Abraham before him, rejoiced to see the day of Christ (John 8:56), for like John and his fellow-disciples in the fulness of time, he too was permitted to behold his glory (cf. John 1:4). (The Gospel of John, p. 272)

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1979) -

12:41 In an explanatory commentary (cf. 7:39) the evangelist says how he intends the quotation, which comes from the vision in which Isaiah received his call, to be understood. Isaiah spoke as he did at the time because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. Even if it were possible to regard the seeing of the glory as still a reference to God (as some manuscripts wrongly do), the second part makes it certain that John means Jesus; this is the evangelist's unique, Christological view. Judaism had a tendency to reduce the (earthly) vision of God to the vision of his glory, for example in the Targum on Is 6:1 and 6:5. In other places John attacks the idea of any direct vision of God (cf. on 1:18; 5:37; 6:46), but there is no note of polemic in our passage. All the emphasis is on the αὐτοῦ, as the speaking περὶ αὐτοῦ confirms. John is probably taking for granted the Jewish interpretation that Isaiah saw God's glory, but he connects the δόξα emphatically with the glory of Jesus, which he possessed with the Father, according to 17:5, before the foundation of the world. In this case the implication is that the evangelist thinks the prophet saw the pre-existent Christ. This idea is a natural development of his Logos Christology. (The Gospel According St. John -Volume 2: translated by Cecily Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith and Richard Foley, p. 416)

Raymond E. Brown (1966) -

Verse 41: Isaiah's vision of lesus' glory

If vs. 40 was a citation of Isa vi 10, this next verse recalls Isaiah's initial vision of the Lord upon a throne in vi 1-5. There are two things to note in John's reference. First, John seems to presuppose a text where Isaiah sees God's glory, but in both the MT and LXX of Isaiah it is said that Isaiah saw the Lord Himself. This has led many commentators to suggest that John is following the tradition of the Targum (or Aramaic translation) of Isaiah where in vi 1 Isaiah sees ''the glory of the Lord" and in vi 5 "the glory of the shekinah of the Lord." The possibility of John's use of Targums has already been discussed in relation to i 51 (p. 90) and vii 38 (p. 322), and the Johannine citation of a Targum for the Isaiah text may have been determined by the frequent stress in this Gospel that no one has ever seen God.

Second, John supposes that it was the glory of Jesus that Isaiah saw. This is not unlike the supposition in viii 56 that Abraham saw Jesus' day (see NOTE there). There are several possible ways to interpret this. If we accept the suggestion of a citation of a Targum, then the statement that Isaiah saw the shekinah of God may be interpreted in light of the theology of i 14 where Jesus is the skekinah of God (p. 33). The belief that Jesus was active in the events of the OT is attested in I Cor x 4, where Jesus is pictured as the rock which gave water to the Israelites in the desert (also Justin Apol. I 63 [PG 6:424], where Jesus appears to Moses in the burning bush). In later patristic interpretation Isaiah was thought to have hailed the three divine persons with his "Holy, holy, holy" (Isa vi 3), and Jesus was identified as one of the seraphs who appeared with Yahweh. Another possible interpretation of John xii 41 is that Isaiah looked into the future and saw the life and glory of Jesus. This is certainly the thought found in the vision section of the Ascension of Isaiah (this part of the apocryphon is of 2nd-century Christian derivation). Sir xlviii 24-25 says that through his powerful spirit Isaiah foresaw the future and foretold what should be until the end of time. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John,  I-XII: The Anchor Bible - Volume 29, 1966/1983, pp. 486, 487) [Note: this selection added 08-13-25]

William Hendricksen (1954) -

But because (ὅτι is the best reading here) Isaiah, in the glorious vision recorded in the same chapter from which the quotation was taken (chapter 6, verses 1-5 the vision; verses 9 and 10 the quoted words), saw the glordy, the transcendent majesty (not restricted to but certainly including the moral quality of holiness) of the Lord Jesus Christ (in whom the glory of Jehovah reflects itself) and was conscious of the fact that he was speaking of him, he did not criticize or protest, but recorded faithfully what he had seen and heard. Yes, Isaiah had seen not only the suffering of the Servant of Jehovah (Is. 53:1-10a) but also his glory (Is. 6:1-5; 9:6, 7; 52:13-15; 53:10b-12). (The Gospel According to John - Volume II, p. 213) 

R. C. H. Lenski (1943) -

41) These things said Isaiah because he saw his glory and spoke concerning him. Some texts have: "when" he saw, etc. "These things" are the ones contained in the two quotations from Isaiah,. The prophet uttered them, not as applying only to the nation at his time, but as applying equally to the Jews of the time of Jesus. Isaiah "saw his glory," "I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and hi train filled the temple . . . Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts," Isa 6.1-5, preceding by a little the last quotation. This is the glory of the exalted Son after his return to the Father, the glory referred in v. 28. Isaiah beheld it before the Incarnation, John after, Isaiah beheld it in a heavenly vision, John beheld it in the words and deeds of Jesus, in the person and the character of the God-man on earth: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," 1:14. And Isaiah knew that this glorious Son would in the fulness of the appear on earth, to be rejected by the Jews, even as they rejected the Lord in Isaiah's own time (compare Isa. 53). It is thus that the prophet "spoke concerning him,' namely Jesus. (The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 889, 890)

Grace and peace,

David

Isaiah 6:1-5 and John 12:41 - God the Father, the Son of God, or the Trinity (Part 1, the Church Fathers)

A good friend of mine has been dialoguing with some Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning Isaiah’s vision in Is. 6:1-5. The JWs insist it is Jehovah/God the Father that Isaiah saw in his vision, but my friend maintains that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, relying on what the apostle John said in John 12:41.

Over the last few days, I have been delving into what the Church Fathers had to say about Is. 6:1-5 and John 12:41, along with a number of modern scholars.

In this post, I will be focusing on the CFs. Note the following:

Eusebius of Caesarea - Commentary on Isaiah

The same prophet [Isaiah] saw with his own eyes the Lord of hosts over his temple, in which the prophet often preached. And he relates in detail what transpired quite literally right before his eyes when he states next: “O wretched man that I am! I am stunned; for being a man and having unclean lips, I live among a people having unclean lips, and I have seen the King, the Lord of hosts, with my eyes!” [Is. 6:5] There is no doubt that it was the man who is described above who made this statement. He said that he saw the Lord of hosts, and the text records that he saw him with his own eyes. And he records the time of the vision when he says: And it happened in the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, lofty and raised up. [Is. 6:1] I believe it is clearly stated who was revealed through the entire prophecy as the Lord of hosts (although the phrase is also translated Lord of armies or Lord of powers). He thus introduces God as he was seen. However, concerning the unbegotten divinity, it has been said: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” [Jn. 1:18] And the Savior himself taught: “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.” [Jn. 5:46] Surely then the Lord of hosts who appeared to the prophet was another than the unbegotten and invisible and incomprehensible divinity. And who could this be but “the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,” [Jn. 1:18] who stepped down from his own exalted position, and, lowering himself from that position, made himself visible and comprehensible to humanity? (Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Texts, translated by Jonathan J. Armstrong, p.27)

Eusebius of Caesarea - Proof of the Gospel

As the great Evangelist St. John, teaching of our Lord and Saviour as the very Word of God full of supernatural power, begins his holy Gospel, by setting side by side His Divinity and His Humanity in His presence among men, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and All things were made by him," and adding after this, "and the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us"; so in the same strain the inspired prophet, about to proclaim God born of a Virgin, tells first the vision of His Divine glory, when he thus describes the Being of God:

"1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and exalted. And the house was full of las glory. 2. And Seraphim stood round about him : each one had six wings : with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly. 3. And they cried one to another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, the li, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory."

And he adds also:

" 8. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying. Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said. Behold, Here am I. Send me. 9. And he said, Go and say to this people. Ye shall hear indeed, but shall not understand ; and ye shall see indeed, but not perceive. 10. For this people's heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their  heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. And I said, How long, O Lord ? And He said, Until the cities be deserted, by reason of their being uninhabited, and the houses by reason of there being no man."

What Lord may we say the prophet saw but Him Abraham we have proved to have been seen and known by the fathers with Abraham in previous days? He, we have already learned, was both God and Lord, and Angel and Captain of the Lord's power as well. So then in approaching the account of  His Coming to men the prophecy before us tells first of His divine kingdom, in which it says that the prophet saw Him ps. xliv. sitting on a throne high and exalted. This is that throne which is mentioned in the Psalm of the Beloved, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," on which the Most High Creator of the Universe, His God and Father, bade his Only-begotten

sit, saying, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." John the Evangelist supports my interpretation of this passage, when he quotes the words of Isaiah, where it is said, "For this people's heart is become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed," referring them to Christ, Saying, "This said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and bare witness of him." [John 12:41] The prophet then seeing our Saviour sitting on His Father's throne in the divine and glorious kingdom, and moved by the Holy Spirit, and being about to describe next His coming among men and His Birth of a Virgin, foretells that His knowledge and praise would be over all the earth, by introducing the song of the Seraphim round His throne : Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory. (Eusebius of Caesarea, The Proof of the Gospel, Vol. 2 (Edited and Translated by W. J. Ferrar, pp. 48-50)

Hilary of Poitiers

From everlasting we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen God, except Thee, and Thy works which Thou wilt do for them that await Thy mercy. [Is. 64:4] Isaiah says that he has seen no God but Him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of Whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, in your heresy, do not know that it was God the Only-begotten Whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist:—These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him. [John 12:41] The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God; even though it is written, No one hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father; He hath declared Him, [John 1:18] it was God Whom the prophet saw. He gazed upon the Divine glory, and men were filled with envy at such honour vouchsafed to his prophetic greatness. For this was the reason why the Jews passed sentence of death upon him. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book V.33: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 9.95)

Gregory of Nyssa

...through the prophet Isaiah it is attested, as to the manifestation of the Divine appearance vouchsafed to him, when he saw Him that sat "on the throne high and lifted up:" [Is. 6:1] the older tradition, it is true, says that it was the Father Who appeared to him, but the evangelist John refers the prophecy to our Lord, saying, touching those of the Jews who did not believe the words uttered by the prophet concerning the Lord, "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory and spake of Him." [John 12:41] But the mighty Paul attributes the same passage to the Holy Spirit in his speech made to the Jews at Rome, when he says, "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet concerning you, saying, Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand," [Acts 28: 25, 26] showing, in my opinion, by Holy Scripture itself, that every specially divine vision, every theophany, every word uttered in the Person of God, is to be understood to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II.14: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 5.129)

Theodore of Mopsuestia

He [John] further adds, [John 12:41] Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him. Indeed, when he saw the Lord of the armies sitting upon the high and lofty throne along with the Seraphim who were praising him and proclaiming him "Holy," the Lord then said to him, "Go and say to this people, 'Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.'" [Is. 6:1-9] Here the blessed John says that the glory of Christ was seen by Isaiah. In Acts the blessed Paul said that he saw the Spirit, as he said to the Jews, "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, 'You will indeed listen, but never understand.'" and so forth. [Acts 28:25-26] What did he see? In the spiritual vision, in the revelation of the divine nature, which is incomprehensible, Isaiah saw the glory that is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since Scripture cannot establish precisely whether it is the glory of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Therefore neither the Evangelist nor the apostle is in contradiction in saying that it is the glory of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Ancient Christian Texts, translated with introduction and notes by Marco Conti, p. 114)

Before providing interpretations from two more CFs—Origen and Jerome—I thought it important to point out that certain remarks from Jerome’s comments indicate he had a negative view of Origen’s interpretation, even though he does not mention by name. Now the quotes:

Origen - Homilies on Isaiah

“And the Seraphim were standing around him, six wings belonging to the one and six wings belonging to the other.” [Is. 6:2] I see two Seraphim, each one of them in himself having six wings...

But yet these Seraphim, who surround God, who say by pure knowledge, “Holy, holy, holy!” [Is. 6:3] observe in this way the mystery of the Trinity, because they themselves also are holy. Indeed, in all these things that exist, nothing is more holy. And they speak not softly to one another: “Holy, holy, holy!” but, by crying out, they announce the salvific confession to everyone. Who are these two Seraphim? My Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You should not suppose the nature of the Trinity to be divided, if duty-bound observances of the names are to be kept. (Origen, Homilies on Isaiah: The Fathers of the Church, Volume 142, translated by Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro, pp. 42, 43)

Origen - De Principiis

My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,” ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. (Origen. De Principiis, Book I.3.4: Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4.253)

For my Hebrew teacher also used thus to teach, that as the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one, save only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a vision Isaiah spake of two seraphim alone, who with two wings cover the countenance of God, and with two His feet, and with two do fly, calling to each other alternately, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of Thy glory.” (Origen. De Principiis, Book IV, 1.26: Ante-Nicene Fathers,  4.375, 376)

Jerome - Commentary on Isaiah

Sacred history relates that Uzziah was struck with leprosy, because he laid claim to an unlawful priesthood for himself [cf. 2 Chr 26:16–21]. When he died the Lord is seen in the temple that he had polluted. From this we observe that while a leprous king is reigning within us, we are not able to see the Lord reigning in his majesty, nor are we able to recognize the mysteries of the Holy Trinity. This is why even in Exodus, the people cried out to the Lord after Pharaoh died, who was oppressing Israel with mud, straw, and bricks [cf. Exod 1:14; 5:7]. For they were not able to cry out while he was alive [cf. Exod 2:23]. Moreover, it was after the terrible ruler Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died that Ezekiel falls on his face and cries out to the Lord with a loud voice [cf. Ezek 11:1–4, 13]. And it is nicely expressed by the Hebrew word that it was not the Lord himself who filled the temple, whose throne is heaven and whose footstool for his feet is the earth [cf. Isa 66:1]; and we read about him in another passage, “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord, his throne is in heaven” [Ps 11:4]; but the things that were under his feet filled the temple.

Now in John the Evangelist and in the Acts of the Apostles we learn more fully who is this Lord who is seen. John says of this, “Isaiah said this when he saw his glory and spoke about him” [John 12:41], doubtless signifying Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles, on the other hand, in Rome Paul speaks to the Jews, and says,

The Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: You will hear with hearing and you will not understand, and seeing you will see and you will not perceive. For the heart of the people is fat and with difficulty they have heard with their ears, and they have closed their eyes, lest perhaps they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and convert themselves and I would heal them.” [Acts 28:25–27; Isa 6:9–10]

But the Son is seen in the character of one reigning, and the Holy Spirit has spoken on account of the association of their majesty and the unity of their substance.

Someone may ask how the prophet can say now that he has seen the Lord, not the Lord without qualification, but the Lord Sabaoth [cf. Isa 6:5], as he himself testifies in what follows, although John the Evangelist has said, “No one has ever seen God” [John 1:18; 1 John 4:12], and God says to Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no man will see my face and live” [Exod 33:20]. We will respond to this that fleshly eyes are not able to see not merely the divinity of the Father, but not even that of the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the nature in the Trinity is one. But the eyes of the mind [can see him], of which the Savior himself says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” [Matt 5:8]. We read that the Lord of Abraham was seen under the figure of a man [cf. Gen 18:1–3], and a man, as it were, who was God, wrestled with Jacob. This is why the place itself was called Penuel, that is, face of God [cf. Gen 32:24–30]. He says: “For I have seen God face to face and my soul was saved” [Gen 32:30]. Ezekiel too saw the Lord in the form of a man sitting over the cherubim; from his loins and below he was like fire and the upper parts had the appearance of amber [cf. Ezek 1:26–27]. Therefore, the nature of God is not discerned, but he is seen by men as he wills. (Jerome, St. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Writers #68, Translated and with an Introduction by Thomas P. Scheck, pp, 150, 151-print edition, pp. 138, 139-PDF edition)

Jerome - Letters of St. Jerome

Next: I SAW THE LORD SITTING UPON A THRONE HIGH AND ELEVATED: AND THE HOUSE WAS FILLED BY HIS GLORY, AND SERAPHIM STOOD ABOUT HIM. Certain ones who have interpreted this passage before me, Greeks as well as Romans, have declared that the Lord sitting upon a throne is God the Father, and the two seraphim which are said to be standing one at each side are our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

2 I do not agree with their opinion, though they are very learned men. Indeed, it is far better to set forth the truth in uncouth fashion than to declare falsehood in learned style. I dissent especially because John the Evangelist wrote that it was not God the Father but Christ who had been seen in this vision. For when he was speaking of the unbelief of the Jews, straightway he set forth the reasons for their unbelief: Therefore they could not believe in Him, because Isaias said: “Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand, and perceiving ye shall behold and shall not see” [Isaiah 6:9]. And he said these things when he saw the glory of the Only-begotten and bore witness concerning Him [John 12:39–41].

3 In the present roll of Isaias he is bidden by Him who sits on the throne to say: Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand. Now He who gives this command, as the Evangelist understands it, is Christ. Whence we comprehend that the seraphim cannot be interpreted as Christ, since Christ is He who is seated.

4 And although in the Acts of the Apostles Paul says to the Jews that agreed not among themselves: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet, saying: Go to this people and say: With the ear you shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut, lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them [Acts 28:25–7; Isaiah 6:9–10]—for me, however, the diversity of the person does not raise a question, since I know that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, and that the words of the Spirit are not other than those of the Son, and that the Son has not given a command other than the Spirit. (Jerome, The Letters of St. Jerome, Vol. 1, Letter 18A: Ancient Christian Writers #33, translated by Charles Christopher Mierow, pp. 82, 83)

Shall end here for now, saving the various interpretations of modern-day scholars for my next post.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Victor of Vita, the council of Carthage (484), the Book of the Catholic Faith, and the Johannine Comma

In 484 A.D. an unusual council of bishops was convened by the Vandal king Huneric (also spelled Huniric and Hunirix) in Carthage North Africa. The Germanic Vandals had conquered most of North Africa west of Alexandria, taking control of the region from the Roman empire, and establishing Carthage as its capital in 439 A.D. The Vandals had converted to Christianity before leaving Hispania (i.e. the Iberian Peninsula) in 429 A.D for North Africa, though the form of Christianity they had embraced was Homoianism, not Catholic Homoousianism.

By 484 A.D. this region of North Africa had been under Homoian Vandal rule for over four decades, but the majority of Christians remained Catholic. As such, of the hundreds of bishops that attended the 484 A.D. council, the vast majority—461 according to Heffle*—were Catholic bishops.

Recently, I was able to obtain John Moorheads’s English translation of an extensive historical document that provides the proceedings of this council, and the events leading up to it—Victor of Vita’s, History of the Vandal Persecution (Google Books; Scribd pdf).

The first book of Victor's tome is a chronicle of the Vandal invasion of North Africa under the leadership of their king Geiseric. 

The second book begins with the death of Geiseric and succession to the throne by his eldest son, Huniric. Concerning Huniric's rule, Victor writes:

First of all the tyrant decreed, in a dreadful command, that no-one could hold an office in his palace or carry out public duties without becoming an Arian. (Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution, English translation John Moorhead - Liverpool University Press, 1992, Book II, chapter 23, p. 32)

In chapter 26 he relates the following:

But with what floods of tears shall I proceed? He sent bishops, priests, deacons and other members of the church, to the number of 4,966, to exile in the desert Among them were very many who had gout, and others who had lost their worldly sight through age. Among their number was the blessed Felix, bishop of Abbir (Henchir el-Khandaq), who had then been a bishop for 44 years; having been struck with the disease of paralysis he did not feel anything, nor was he capable of speech. (Ibid. p.33)

An edict from Huniric/Hunirix is provided in chapter 39:

"Hunirix, king of the Vandals and Alans, to all the homousian bishops. It is well known that not once but quite often your priests have been forbidden to celebrate any liturgies at all in the territory of the Vandals, in case they seduce Christian souls and destroy them. Many of them have despised this and, contrary to the prohibition, have been discovered to have said mass in the territories of the Vandals, claiming that they hold to the rule of the Christian faith in its fullness. And because we do not wish for scandal in the provinces granted us by God, therefore know that by the providence of God and with the consent of our holy bishops we have decreed this: that on the first of February next you are all to come to Carthage, making no excuse that you are frightened, so that you will be able to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures. From this it will be clear whether you hold the faith in its fullness. We have sent a copy of this edict to all your fellow bishops throughout Africa. Given on 20 May 483 in the seventh year of Hunirix." (Ibid. pp. 37-38)

From the above edict we learn that Hunirix [Huniric] has decreed that “all the homousian bishops” are to meet on February 1, 484 A.D. in Carthage “to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures.”

A few chapters later, Victor penned the following:

52 That day of treachery which the king had appointed, 1 February, was now drawing near. There came together not only the bishops of the whole of Africa, but also those of many of the islands, worn out with suffering and grief. Silence was observed for many days, until he separated every skilled and learned man from among them, so that they could be put to death on the basis of false charges. For he committed to the flames one of that choir of the learned, whose name was Laetus. a vigorous and most learned man, after he had long endured a squalid imprisonment. He thought that making an example of him would strike fear into the others and enable him to wear them down.

53 Finally the debate took place, needless to say at a place their enemies had selected. Our people chose to avoid the disturbances which loud voices would have caused, in case the Arians were later to say that they had been overpowered by weight of numbers, and chose ten of their number who would answer on behalf of them all. Cyrila, with his lackeys, most arrogantly placed a throne for himself in a high place, while our people were standing. And our bishops said: "It is always pleasant to be at a meeting at which the exaltation of power does not proudly hold sway, but general consent is arrived at, so that the truth is recognized from what the judges decree, in accordance with the actions of the parties. But who is to be the judge on this occasion, who will weigh the evidence so that the scales of justice may confirm what has been argued well or show unsound propositions to be false?"

54 While these and other things were being said, the king's notary answered: "The patriarch Cyrila has named some people." Our people, abominating the proud and unlawful title which he had usurped, said: "Read out to us who gave permission for Cyrila to take this title for himself!" At this our enemies made a loud clamour and began to bring false accusations. And because our people had sought that, if the throng of sensible people were not allowed to ask questions, they could at least look on, the order was given that all the children of the catholic church who were present were to be beaten with a hundred blows each. Then blessed Eugenius began to cry out: "May God see the violence we endure, let him know the affliction we suffer from the persecutors!"

55 Our people turned round and said to Cyrila: "Say what you intend to do." Cyrila said: "I do not know Latin." Our bishops said: "We know very well that you have always spoken Latin; you should not excuse yourself now, especially since you have set this fire going." And, seeing that the catholic bishops were better prepared for the debate, he flatly refused to give them a hearing, relying on various quibbles. But our people had foreseen this and written a short work concerning the faith, composed quite fittingly and with the necessary detail. They said: "If you wish to know our faith, this is the truth we hold."

THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

56 We are enjoined by a royal command to provide an account of the catholic faith which we hold. So we are setting out to indicate briefly the things which we believe and proclaim, aware of our lack of ability but supported by divine assistance. We recognize, then, that the first thing we must do is give an explanation of the unity of the substance of the Father and the Son, which the Greeks call homousion.

Therefore: we acknowledge the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the divine nature in such a way that we can say with a faithful confession that the Father subsists as a distinct person, and the Son equally exists in his own person, and that the Holy Spirit retains the distinctiveness of his own person, not asserting that the Father is the same as the Son, nor confessing that the Son is the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit, nor understanding the Holy Spirit in such a way that he is the Father or the Son; but we believe the unbegotten Father and the Son begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father to be of one substance and essence, because the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son and the Holy Spirit who proceeds have one divine nature in common; nevertheless, there are three distinct persons.

57 A heresy arose and brought forth something new against this catholic and apostolic faith. It maintained that the Son was not born of the substance of the Father but came into being from no existing things, that is, out of nothing. To refute and completely destroy this wicked profession which had come forth against the faith, a Greek word, homousion, was coined. This means 'of one substance and essence,' and signifies that the Son was not born from no existing things nor from any substance, but of the Father. Therefore, whoever thinks that the word homousion is to be laid aside wishes to assert that the Son came to exist out of nothing. But if the Son is not 'of nothing,' he is without doubt of the Father, and rightly homousion, that is, of one substance with the Father.

58 That he is of the Father, that is, of one substance with the Father, is demonstrated by these testimonies. The apostle says: 'who, while he is the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance, also upholds all things by the word of his power.' (Heb 1:3) [Ibid. pp. 43-45]

This apologia for the Catholic Faith continues for another 43 chapters (pp. 45-63). It contains dozens of supporting Scriptural quotes, including the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7,8. Note the following:

82 And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for setvitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does he not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?' No, he says that the 'three are one.' (Ibid. p. 56)

THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ends with:

101 This is our faith, confirmed by evangelical and apostolic traditions and authority, and founded on the association of all the catholic churches which are in this world; in which faith we trust and hope we shall remain, by the grace of almighty God, until the end of this life. Amen.

This is the end of the book sent on 20 April by Januarius of Zattara (Kef Benzioune) and Villaticus of Casae Medianae, bishops of Numidia, and Boniface of Foratiana and Boniface of Gratiana, bishops of Byzacena. (Ibid. p. 63)

 

And with the ending the Catholic defense, I shall end this post…

 

Grace and peace,

David 

*Charles Joseph Heffle, History of the Councils - Vol. IV, A.D. 451 to  A.D. 680, 1895, p. 36.

1,000,000 plus...

 Sometime over last evening Articuli Fidei exceeded 1,000,000 page views.

Total Pageviews

1,000,130

Back to my studies...

Proverbs 8:22 – Wisdom interpreted as Jesus Christ in Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea (his post-Nicene Creed thought)

On December 30, 2015 I published a post that delved into the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers (link). Eight of those nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers applied the passage to the pre-existent Jesus Christ. Almost two years later (December 5, 2020) I provided germane quotes from another pre-Nicene Church Father who taught that the wisdom referenced in Proverbs 8:22 was the pre-existent Jesus Christ (link).

In this post, I advance forward from the pre-Nicene Fathers to the post-Nicene Fathers. The period between the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) was one of theological instability due to the Arian crisis. Representative of this instability was the emergence of two new interpretations of Proverbs 8:22 that deviated from the ten pre-Nicene Fathers previously cited--i.e the pro-Arians who affirmed the verse taught that the pre-existent Jesus was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by God the Father; and a few pro-Nicenes who taught the passage was a reference to Jesus' human nature only. With that said, it should be kept in mind that apart from Irenaeus who believed that wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31 was the Holy Spirit, representatives of the three other interpretations all maintained that this wisdom was Jesus Christ.

The rest of this post will focus on Athanasius' and Eusebius of Caesarea's post-Nicene understanding of wisdom as found in Proverbs 8:22-31.

The most extensive analysis of Proverbs 8:22-31 that is found in the extant writings of the Church Fathers is provided by Athanasius in his apologetic work, Against the Arians (Discourse II). This analysis is contained within pages 357-393 of John Henry Newman’s English translation—as revised by Archibald Robertson—in the fourth volume of The Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Series II). [This translation will be the source for all the following quotes from Athanasius - online PDF here.]

Two important observations should be kept in mind when reading Athanasius’ treatment of Proverbs 8:22-31. First, Athanasius does not challenge LXX translation of the Hebrew word qanah/kanah as ἔκτισέν (created). Second, Wisdom as portrayed in Proverbs 8:22-31 for Athanasius is first and foremost God’s Word and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Athanasius begins his examination of Proverbs 8:22-31 with the following from verse 22:

Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works;’ although in shewing that the Word is no work, it has been also shewn that He is no creature. (Page 357)

And:

Let the Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature ; (Page 359)

He then adds:

And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not Himself of things created and made ; but rather He is the Word of the Creator God, and is known from the Father’s works which He Himself worketh, to be ‘in the Father and the Father in Him,’ and ‘He that hath seen Him hath seen the Father,’ because the Son’s Essence is proper to the Father, and He in all points like Him. How then does He create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom? and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of His Essences, and did not come to be, as others, out of nothing? (Page 360)

Athansius' main focus in his overall apologia against Arianism is that God's Word/Son "is no work", but rather an offspring from His divine essence/nature. [See the following two posts here at AF for quotes that are germane to this view: first, second. 

In chapter XVIII of Discourse II (pp. 364-372), Athanasius provides even greater support for his view that God’s Son/Wisdom/Word cannot be a creature as the Arians teach.

Chapter XIX is devoted to Athanasius’ understanding of verse 22, which is translated by Newman as: ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works’. Note the following:

For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own [i.e. the Arians] to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ as if to say, ‘My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.’ For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh, we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh?, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood) ; so, if it is said in the Proverbs ‘He created,’ we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. (Page 374 - bold emphasis mine)

It is the above interpretation of verse 22 where Athanasius departs from ten pre-Nicene Church Fathers that I cited in my previous posts. Those CFs maintained that ἔκτισέν (created) can also be understood as ‘begotten’, and rejected the notion that the Son/Word/Wisdom was created from nothing. As such, they saw no need to attribute verse 22 to the body Jesus Christ assumed via the incarnation.

Unlike Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea retained the pre-Nicene patristic interpretation of verse 22; rather than singling out verse 22 from the rest of Proverbs 8:22-31 and applying this sole verse to Jesus Christ's human body, Eusebius maintained that all of Proverbs 8:22-31 spoke to the pre-existent Jesus Christ as God's Only-begotten Son, His Word and Wisdom.

In his last major theological work—the post-Nicene On Ecclesiastical Theology—he clearly applies all of Proverbs 8:22-31 to the pre-existent, pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. After quoting Proverbs 8:12-31 in the first chapter of Book 3, he writes:

Chapter 2

(1) Wisdom says these things about herself in Proverbs. I have deliberately laid these out in their entirety out of necessity, having shown that the one who says these is one person, since there is no change of speaker in the middle [of the passage]. Therefore, Wisdom is shown to be teaching these things about herself. And here in the first place it must be noted in what an indefinite way she is called Wisdom. For [the text] says, “I live with prudence”; yet it does not say the “Wisdom of God.” But just as in the evangelist, the statement “in the beginning was the Word” was written indefinitely, and again, “The Word was with God,” and it was not said, “the Word of God,” so that no one might think that he is spoken of as something that exists in relation to something else, nor as an accident in God, but as subsisting and living (for which reason [the text] adds, “and the Word was God,” and did not say, (2) “the Word was of God”); the same also applies in the case of Wisdom. For God, the Word, and Wisdom are one and the same. For this reason, she is named in Proverbs indefinitely, not only in the previously cited words, but also, to be sure, through remarks like this: “Happy are those who find Wisdom,” and, “God by Wisdom founded the earth,” and, “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister,” and, “Proclaim Wisdom so that understanding might attend you,” (3) and, “Wisdom is better than jewels,” and, “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars,” and all the other statements akin to these [that] are presented in the same book. In none of them was Wisdom said to be of God, but Wisdom without qualification, so that we might not think it is some accidental thing that is a contingent feature of God, like knowledge in an intelligent man, but subsisting and living Wisdom, the very same as the (4) Son of God. (Eusebius, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 135 - Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology, trans. Kelley McCarthy Spoerl and Markus Vinzent, Book 3, Chapter 2, pp. 276-277 –bold emphasis mine.)

A bit later, Eusebius distances himself the Arian interpretation of verse 22. Note the following:

...if you suppose that these remarks apply to the Son (for he himself was Wisdom), the entire passage will read well, since no impious thought provides an impediment, given that the Apostle Paul gives testimony that agrees with this; with unmistakable clarity he named our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ “Wisdom,” having said, “Christ the power and wisdom of God.” [1 Cor. 1:24] (8) Since these things are so, it follows from all that has been laid out previously that the statement “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works” has also been said by him.

If he says, however, that he himself was created, he did not say this as if he had come into being from what is not, nor as if he were like the rest of the creatures and he himself had come into being from nothing, as some have supposed incorrectly, but as if he both subsisted and lived, and was before and preexisted the establishment of the whole cosmos, having been appointed to rule the universe by the Lord, his Father. (Ibid. p. 278 – bold emphasis mine.)

In addition to clearly rejecting the defining Arian doctrine that God’s Son/Wisdom was created “from what was not”, Eusebius is now beginning to distance himself from the LXX translation of verse 22. He then writes:

Therefore, do not wonder if metaphorically also in that statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” the verb he created was used for he established or he appointed me to rule...

And if one searched at one’s leisure, one would find myriads of metaphorical statements throughout the whole of the divine Scripture, some of which have a complex meaning, and still others that are predicated univocally of different things, concerning which it would be no small task to pursue at the present time.

Therefore, in this way, even here the statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” was used for, “He appointed me to rule over his works.” For this reason, [Scripture] did not simply say, “He created me,” but added, “as the beginning of his ways for his works.”

The Hebrew text explicitly shows this. And so, if someone should investigate the true meaning of the divinely inspired Scripture, he would find that the Hebrew reading did not include [the phrase] “He created me,” for which reason none of the remaining translators made use of this wording. For example, Aquila said, “The Lord acquired me as the head of his ways,” while Symmachus said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways,” and Theodotion said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his way,” and the translation seems reasonable. (Ibid. pp. 280-281)

Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were second century A.D. translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Their translations were included in Origen's Hexapla. Utilizing these non-LXX translations, Eusebius then writes the following:

“The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” or, “The Lord acquired me,” according to the previously (21) cited translation. For the great acquisition of God was the only-begotten Son, first in that he came into existence from him since he is his Son, and second in that he was appointed the benefactor and Savior of all. And so he is and was named the greatest and most honored acquisition of the Father. For there could be no other acquisition of the Father’s more honored than the Son. (Ibid. p. 282 bold emphasis mine.)

He then adds:

Now kana [kanah or qanah] is used for “he acquired” in Hebrew. In this way it was said of Abraham, “the field that Abraham acquired (ἐκτήσατο),” for which the Hebrew has kana, the same term used in the Hebrew and in [the phrase] “The Lord created (ἔκτισεν) me as the beginning of his ways for his works.” For given that the verb kana is used here, all the translators are unanimous in rendering it with “he acquired.” (23) But the phrase “he created” was rejected by the Hebrews, which is not found in the Scripture that lies before [us].

There would be a very great difference between “he created” and “he acquired,” by which “creation,” according to common opinion, shows the passage from nothingness into being, while “acquiring” characterizes the belonging of something that already pre-existed (24) to someone who had acquired [it].

Now, when the Son of God says, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” at one and the same time he revealed his pre-existence and his characteristic belonging to the Father, and also the usefulness and necessity of his own (25) foresight and government with regard to the Father’s works. For this reason, he next adds, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Before the making of the depths, before the springs abounding with water came forth, before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me,” through all of which statements his usefulness and necessity to all is shown, teaching that he both was and pre-existed, and ruled over the whole cosmos, and guided it in accordance with its needs. (Ibid. pp. 282-283 – bold emphasis mine.)

Shall end here for now…

 

Grace and peace,

David

Whitewashing the Darkness of Islam – A critique of Pope Francis’ stance on Islam

Over the past few days, I have been rereading the second edition of Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr’s., The Great Façade [LINK]. It has been almost a decade since my first reading. Some significant events have transpired within the Catholic paradigm since that first reading; as such, this reading has been proceeding at a much slower rate due to my delving into a substantial number of the references provided in the copious footnotes.

For reasons I do not fully understand, I felt compelled to share the following extract from the book that I had read earlier this morning.

Whitewashing the Darkness of Islam

Respecting Islam, EG had nothing but the usual post-Vatican II praise, which Francis managed to bring to a new level. EG presents Mohammed’s invention as pleasing to God and a suitable vehicle for the salvation of Muslims (along with pagan religions and their Holy Ghost–inspired rituals).[36] For starters, citing only the patently false factual contention of Nostra Aetate, EG declares that Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God....” Going further than Vatican II, however, EG also refers to “[t]he sacred writings of Islam,” which “have retained some Christian teachings....” And what of the plenitude of Mohammed’s errors, beginning with his denial of Christ’s very divinity? According to EG, “interreligious dialogue” with Muslims requires “suitable training . . . for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs.” EG thus represents a definitive abandonment of the traditional teaching of the Church as reflected in the traditional Good Friday intercessions for the salvation of non-Christians and the prayer composed by Leo XIII which Pius XI, a mere 37 years before Vatican II, instructed the entire Church to pray on the Feast of Christ the King: “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God.”[37]

Worse, if that were possible, was Francis’s assumption of the role of Koranic exegete in order to exculpate Mohammed’s cult from its historic connection to the conquest and brutal persecution of Christians: “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”[38] Disconcerting episodes? The bloody persecution of Christians by various Islamic entities was endemic in the Middle East and was posing an ever-greater threat to the heart of Europe itself. This development, predicted nearly eighty years ago by Hilaire Belloc,[39] was a bit more than “disconcerting.”

Moreover, Francis did not seem to notice that it was not a few “fundamentalists” who were not “true followers of Islam” but rather the government of Pakistan that had sentenced Asia Bibi to death for “insulting the Prophet.” (Francis has to date done nothing to save her, although Benedict publicly called for her pardon by the President of Pakistan[40] as part of an international movement to stop her execution.) Nor was it a few fundamentalists but rather the government of Sudan that had sentenced Meriam Ibrahim to death for converting to Christianity and jailed her to await her execution, to take place after she gave birth to her unborn child in prison. She was freed only after a storm of international protest to which Francis contributed nothing (although he did pose with her for photos in the Vatican after her release). It is Saudi Arabia, not a few fundamentalists, that routinely beheads people for “blasphemy” and “apostasy” from Islam.[41] And what of Kuwait, where “blasphemy” against the Sunni version of Islam is also punishable by death?[42] What, for that matter, of the Islamic world in general, in which flogging, imprisonment and death are commonly imposed for offenses ranging from insulting the Islamic religion or “the Prophet” to adultery. As for adultery, in Islamic nations no one heeds Our Lord’s counsel that he who is without sin should cast the first stone; rather, the legal barbarism that preceded the Gospel, including that which Our Lord condemned among the Pharisees, persists to this day in Islamic legal systems.

Was Francis prepared to tell the rulers of Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere that they are not “true followers of Islam” and that their reading of the Koran is not “authentic”? Perhaps the Muslims who control these governments and their Muslim clerics know better than Francis what “authentic” Islam is. Perhaps they have demonstrated what authentic Islam is by the laws and institutions they have erected to enforce the dictates of that man-made religion. That “authentic Islam” is not, and never has been, a “religion of peace” but rather quite the opposite is why Our Lady appeared at Fatima, named after a Muslim princess who became a Catholic following the reconquest of the Muslim-dominated regions of Portugal by Christian forces in the 12th century. In fact, Princess Fatima married the very knight who had captured her, taking the Christian name Oreana, for which the nearby Portuguese town of Ourém is named.

Francis’s willful blindness to the nature of Islam would account for his consistent refusal to issue anything beyond a few generic protests against terrorist violence as Christians are being butchered or driven from their homes throughout the Middle East and Africa by The Islamic State (ISIS), Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab. Instead, he would pray in the Blue Mosque of Istanbul with an Imam and stage a Prayer for Peace event in the Vatican gardens at which an Imam sang: “grant us victory over the heathen/disbelieving/infidel” (reading from Sura 2: 286) to the embarrassment of those who understood Arabic and of Vatican Radio, which censored those words from the broadcast.43 The planting of an olive tree by Francis, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on that occasion was so ludicrous it was parodied by a popular non-traditionalist Catholic website: “Peace Breaks Out In Israel Moments After Magic Olive Tree Planted.” In fact, only days after the event the worst violence in decades erupted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and elsewhere in the Middle East, prompting this parodic report: “But less than one day after receiving news that every single Middle East conflict had been resolved, the magic Olive Tree that Francis, Peres, and Abbas had shoddily planted into the ground toppled over with a gust of wind, instantaneously causing a chain reaction of violent outbreaks all across the Middle East.”[44]

In stark contrast to Francis’s absurd whitewash of Islam was Benedict’s realistic assessment in the famous Regensburg address, which had resulted in a storm of denunciations in the media and even fears for his life: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[45] But then Benedict was not much concerned with his standing before world opinion, which had held him in contempt throughout his short reign. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr., The Great Façade - The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution, Second Edition 2015, pp. 389-391.)

Footnotes:

36. EG, nn. 252, 253. [EG = Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium; link to Vatican’s official English translation HERE]

37. From Leo XIII’s Act of Consecration of the World to the Sacred Heart, promulgated along with the encyclical Annum Sacrum (1899); cf. Chapter 13.

38. EG, n. 253.a

39. Cf. Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies (1938), Chapter 4: “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.”

40. “APPEAL OF THE HOLY FATHER: In these days the international community is following with deep concern the difficult situation of Christians in Pakistan who are often victims of violence or discrimination. Today I express my spiritual closeness to Ms Asia Bibi and her relatives

in particular, while I ask that full freedom be restored to her as soon as possible. I also pray for all those in similar situations, so that their human dignity and fundamental rights may be fully respected.” General Audience, November 17, 2010, @ w2.vatican.va (with video).

41. See, e.g., “Saudi court gives death penalty to man who renounced his Muslim faith,” Reuters, February 24, 2015, @ reuters.com.

42. See, e.g., “Kuwait: New Death Penalty for Blasphemy,” Gatestone Institute Report, June 14, 2012, @ gatestoneinstitute.org.

43. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, “What Did the Imam Really Say?”, July 20, 2014, @ wdtprs.com.

44. June 9, 2014, @ eyeofthetiber.org.

45. Address at University of Regensburg, September 12, 2006 @ w2.vatican.va (quoting the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus in his dialogue with a Persian follower of Mohammed).

An interesting time we are living in...

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper - the four principal interpretations and historical continuity

In the second through the fourth centuries, four divergent interpretations concerning the Christian doctrine of God made their appearance—strict Unitarianism (Ebionites, adoptionists), modalism (Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius), Arianism (Arius, Aetius, Eunomius), and Trinitarianism (Athanasius, Hilary, Cappadocians). It took two Ecumenical Councils, copious apologetic writings from a number of bishops, and some imperial support for Trinitarianism to emerge—in the last two decades of the fourth century—as the predominant view. In the seventh century, a new religion founded by Muhammad—Islam—became the only substantial threat to the Trinitarian view until the sixteenth century.

The Protestant reformation/revolt created the environment for the reemergence of Unitarianism, various forms of Arianism, and eventually, even modalism. It also allowed for the first time four distinct, opposing views of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper: Zwinglian (memorial only), Lutheran (consubstantiation), Calvinist (spiritual presence) and Catholic/Council of Trent (transubstantiation).

Now, with that said, one important question that needs to be asked is this: which of the four views has the most continuity with the preceding centuries of Christian thought?

A few years ago (2010), Tim Troutman identified three types/categories of statements found in the writings of the Church Fathers that are quite useful for a detailed analysis of the historical continuity of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. First, ‘Affirmation of Change During the Consecration’; second, 'Simple Identification of Consecrated Species as the Body and Blood’; and third, ‘Demand of Extraordinary Reverence’. [Link to Tim’s informative treatment HERE.]

Tim provides numerous germane quotations from the Church Fathers for each type/category, along with some brief commentary. At the end, there is an appendix that addresses some objections and a short list of additional reading resources.

Tim’s contribution is a must read for folk who have an interest in our topic at hand. Shall end this post with Tim's 'Introduction':

The claim that the Church fathers believed in Transubstantiation is not a claim that any particular father commanded a precise understanding of the doctrine as formulated by Trent. Any given Church father could no sooner express this doctrine precisely in its developed form than could any given ante-Nicene father express the Niceno-Constantinoplitan doctrine of the Trinity. Yet this does not mean either that they did not believe it, or even that it existed in mere “seed form.” The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity can be detected not only in the early Christian writings and in the New Testament, it is an unavoidable development. That is, anything other than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity would be contrary to the Tradition of the Church. Likewise, the affirmations that the fathers made about the Eucharist were not only compatible with Transubstantiation, they were incompatible with anything less.

Grace and peace,

David