Pillars of Catholicism: Lecture Notes, Readings, Study Guide: 13 Sessions

John Paul the Great
Catholic University

10174 Old Grove Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92131


858-653-6740 www.JPCatholic.com

==========================================================




Sessions





Lecture Notes


1

Pillars of Catholicism:

Introduction / Jesus
 
Michael Barber, Ph.D. / John Paul the Great Catholic University © 2012

www.JPCatholic.com / www.TheSacredPage.com




Introduction
 
1. Welcome to Session 1 of Catholicism 101

2. Brief course at JP Catholic

a. University in Southern California

b. Undergraduate programs: in Media, Business, New Evangelization

c. Graduate Program in Biblical Theology

d. Take courses on campus and/or on-line

e. Goal: Impact Culture for Christ! (especially through Media, Business and Theology)

f. JP Catholic students producing new media projects—like this one!

3. This course, filmed in 2012, school’s response to “The Year of Faith”

A serious problem for the Church today is the lack of knowledge of the faith, ‘religious illiteracy’, as

the Cardinals described this situation last Friday. ‘Religious illiteracy’ and with this illiteracy we are

unable to grow, unity is unable to grow. We ourselves must therefore recover this content, as a

wealth of unity, not a packet of dogmas and orders but a unique reality which is revealed in its

depths and beauty. We must do our utmost for a catechetical renewal, so that the faith may be

known and in this way God may be known, Christ may be known, the truth may be known, so that

unity may develop in truth.”

—Pope Benedict XVI1

4. Benedict: focus of Church in 2012—studying Catholic faith, particularly as it appears in the Catechism

5. All JP Catholic students work through the entire Catechism



6. Catholicism 101:


a. Making available to all some of what students learn here

b. If you want to go deeper, check out our program at JPCatholic.com

7. Presenters from our faculty—each presenting on areas in which they have particular expertise:

a. Christine Wood, Ph.D. (Theology and Scripture )

b. Fr. Andrew Younan (Rector of Chaldean Rite Catholic Seminary/Philosopher professor)

c. Michael Barber, Ph.D. (Theology and Scripture)
Heart of Christian Faith: Jesus
 
1. The whole of Christianity is basically a response to a question asked by Jesus:

Who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:15)



2. Who was Jesus?


3. What do we know about him?
Jesus is not a legend
 
1. Claim: Jesus Never Really Existed

a. He is a fairy tale; a fable; a myth

b. Impossible to accept



2. Non-believers wrote about him

1 Benedict XVI, “Lectio Divina,” Meeting of His Holiness Benedict XVI with the Parish Priests of the Rome Diocese, Paul VI




Audience Hall , Thursday, 23 February, available on-line at:


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120223_parrociroma_

en.html
 
2

a. Josephus: Jewish historian from the 1st Century

b. Tacitus (A.D. 56– A.D. 117): Roman Historian



“[‘Christians’] derive their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had

suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate (Annals 15.44)

c. Suetonius (c. A.D. 70–130): Roman historian “Chrestus” (Lives of the Caesars, Claudius, 5.25.4)

d. Lucian: Greek writer (2nd cent. A.D.)

3. Believers: Disciples wrote Gospels—big deal when you realize what it meant for Jesus to be a teacher!

a. Emphasis on memorization in Greco-Roman education2

b. Students were expected to memorize their teachers’ words3

c. Professionals could recite all of Homer by memory4

d. A man could hear a poem and recite it back verbatim5

e. Hortensius listed every purchaser and their price at the end of a day long auction6

f. Seneca could repeat 2000 names in the sequence he heard them or recite 200 verses—in reverse!7

g. Students of rabbis memorized sources8

h. Many writers recognize the need to relate the substance of speech9

i. Use of tools for memorization: e.g., note-taking10—notes even published!11

2 See Quintilian 1.3.1; Plutarch, The Education of Children 13, Mor. 9E; Musonius Rufus frg. 51, p. 144.3–7; Diogenes Laertius,

6.2.31; Helmet Koester, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (vol. 1 of Introduction to the New Testament; Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1982), 93; Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (2d. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 84; Malcom Heath,

trans., Hermogenes, On Issiues: Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 11; Duane F. Watson,

“Education: Jewish and Greco-Roman,” in Dictionary of the New Testament Background (C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, eds.; Downers




Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 310, 312. Quintilian affirms that the youngest students learned by memorization. See Quintilian 2.4.15;
 
James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove:




InterVarsity, 1999), 256. Keener writes that “. . . higher education (after about age sixteen) included memorizing many speeches and
 
passages useful for speeches” citing Jeffers, Greco-Roman World, 256).

3 Antisthenes rebukes one of his students who lost his notes, “You should have inscribed them . . . on your mind instead of on paper”

(Diogenes Laertius, 6.1.5, LCL).

4 Xenophon, Symposium 3.5–6.

5 Seneca, Controversiae, 1.pref.2.

6 Seneca, Controversiae, 1.pref.2.

7 Seneca, Controversiae, 1.pref.2. Keener writes, “Even if his recollections of youthful prowess are exaggerated, they testify to an

emphasis on memory that far exceeds standard expectations today” (Gospel of John, 1:57).

8 See Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript. Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity

(Uppsala: Gleerup; Coenhagen: Munksgaard, 1961; repri., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998); idem., The Reliability of the Gospel

Tradition (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2001; trans. from Evangeliernas forhistoria (Lund: Verbum-Hakan Ohlssons, 1977); “Der

Weg der Evangelientradition,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vorträge vom Tübinger Symposium 1982 (ed. P. Stuhlmacher;




Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 79–102. Gerhardsson writes, “The implication is that the words and works of Jesus were stamped on


the memories of these disciples. Remembering the attitude of Jewish disciples to their master, it is unrealistic to suppose that

forgetfulness and the exercise of a pious imagination had too much hand in transforming authentic memories beyond all recognition in
 
the course of a few short decades” (Memory and Manuscript, 329).




While Gerhardsson’s work was originally overlooked it has attracted a great deal of attention of late. One of the reasons for this is the


ringing endorsement Gerhardsson has received from no less a Rabbinic scholar than Jacob Neusner, formerly a critic, now an
 
enthusiastic supporter of Gerhardson’s work. In fact, Neusner has written the foreword to the latest reprint of Gerhardsson’s Memory

and Manuscript. There he offers a stinging critique of his former mentor, Morton Smith, whose opposition to Gerhardsson was hugely




instrumental in the marginalization of his work. Undoubtedly, another reason for the renewed interest in Gerhardsson’s work is the


widespread acceptance of the recent work of his student, Samuel Byrskog.
 
9 Conrad Gempf, “Public Speaking and Published Accounts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (vol. 1 of The Book of

Acts in Its First Century Setting; B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 259–303. Jeener writes, “Free




invention of speeches seems to have been a last resort rather than a normal practice; Polybius expects his readers to be outraged, as he
 
is, that Timaeus invents speeches” (Keener, Gospel of John, 73).

10 See the sources in Keener, Gospel of John, 55. As early as 1978 scholars had begun to make this point. See George Kennedy,

“Classical and Christian Source Christian,” in The Relationship among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (ed. W. O. Walker; San

Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), 151 and E. E. Ellis, “New Directions in Form Criticism,” in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in

Early Christianity: New Testament Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978), 242–47. The point has been made more forcefully by



3

4. Gospels fit genre of Greco Roman biography

a. Greco-Roman biographies as historical narratives12

b. Greco-Roman biographies sometimes written as memoirs of eye-witnesses13



5. Gospels all attributed to credible sources


a. No reason to doubt authenticity of titles

b. Many scholars even coming around to the idea of apostolic authorship!
Jesus Claimed to Be God
 
1. New book by scholar Sigurd Grindheim, God’s Equal, demonstrates that Jesus identified himself as God!

a. Miracles accomplished in his own name, by his will (Mark 1:40–45)14

b. Forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:1–12—in all three Synoptic Gospels)15

c. Jesus as Bridegroom (Mark 2:19–20; cf. Isa 54; Ezek 16)16



d. Greater than the OT figures, angels (Matt 13:41; 16:27), the temple (Matthew 12)


e. “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2)

f. Son of Man: symbol of righteous, but rides on clouds & sits on God’s right (HP: “blasphemy”)

others. See James M. Robinson, “A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige,” HTR 92 (1999): 61: “The history of the

synoptic tradition is no longer dependent only on the forms of oral transmission. . .” Similarly, Barry W. Henaut [Oral Tradition and

the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 116] writes: “The assumption of an early and




exclusively oral phase of transmission terminating in written documents only after a lengthy passage of time . . . may not be
 
warranted.” Likewise, Peter M. Head [“A Futher Note on Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus,” EQ 75 (2003): 345] states: “The




emerging picture suggests that the production of written records would have had a place in the cultural milieu of the Galilean disciples
 
of Jesus.” Furthermore, see Alan R. Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (BS 99; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,




2000), 181–82: “The evidence indicates the presence of some people, not professional scribes, who could use writing in their daily


business throughout Palestine, even in rural regions, able to make notes of a preacher’s words if they wished.” Millard adds, “To

imagine some of them opening note-books they carried for their day-to-day business, perhaps hung at the belt, and jotting down a few

key striking sayings that they had heard, or writing a summary of what they had experienced while it was fresh in the memory is quite
 
feasible” (223). The conclusion of Graham N. Stanton [Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004), 189] is thus




correct: “The widely held view that the followers of Jesus were either illiterate or deliberately spurned the use of notes and notebooks


for recording and transmitting Jesus traditions needs to be abandoned. Oral and written traditions were not like oil and water. They
 
could exist side by side; orally transmitted traditions could be written down by the recipients—and written traditions could be




memorized and passed on orally.” Of course, of all the disciples to be nominated to record such teachings, Gundry is probably right


that Matthew, the former-tax collector, a profession especially associated with “trade literacy,” would have been the obvious choice. See
 
Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1967). This coheres well with Papias’ record that

Matthew collected the words of Jesus (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., 3.39.16). See Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His

Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2d. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

11 George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Secular and Christian Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (2nd ed.; Chapel Hill:





University of North Carolina, 1999), 19.
  
12 See Aune, “Greco-Roman Biography,” 125: “. . . while biography tended to emphasize encomium, or the one-sided praise of the




subject, it was still firmly rooted in historical fact rather than literary fiction. Thus, while the Evangelists clearly had an important


theological agenda, the very fact that they chose to adapt Greco-Roman biographical conventions to tell the story of Jesus indicates that

they were centrally concerned to communicate what they thought really happened.” Furthermore, see the comments by Dunn, “Can

the Third Quest Hope to Succeed,” 43–44.
 
13 See, e.g., Xenophon’s Memorabilia, a “life” of Socrates.

14 “And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, ‘If you will, you can make me clean.’ 41 Moved with pity, he




stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I will; be clean.’” (Mark 1:40–41)
 
15 “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘My son, your sins are forgiven.’ 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting

there, questioning in their hearts, 7 ‘Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ 8 And




immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, Why do you question thus in
 
your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk’? 10 But that

you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic— 11 ‘I say to you, rise, take up your

pallet and go home.’ 12 And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and




glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mark 2:5–12)
 
16 “‘Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

20 The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.’” (Mark 2:19–20).



4

2. That Jesus claimed to be God attested in various ways



a. Thomas the Apostle: “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28)


b. Book of Hebrews chapter 1: “Thy Throne O God”

c. Belief also attested in other early Christian writings (Philippians 2)
Who Was Jesus? Four Options
 
1. Legend: Not an option—too much evidence!

2. Lunatic: Jesus was like that man next to the Freeway who thought he was Napoleon

a. To what end? What did it profit him? Crucifixion!

b. How do you explain his miracles?! (reputation even mentioned in Josephus!)

c. Brilliant, lucid teachings!

3. Liar

a. What possible goal?

b. Why be crucified?

c. The problem of the empty tomb: Why did the disciples not recant?!

4. Lord: most probable explanation—all other theories fail




Jesus is a Real Person
 
1. Christianity: About a real person—not illogical, not a myth

2. Unique Christian Claim: God has a Human Face

3. This God established a Church with authoritative teachers

4. From earliest times we can trace successors

5. Requires Faith

Matthew 16:13–17: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his

disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist,

others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you

say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus

answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but

my Father who is in heaven.



5

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPELS

CCC 125: The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and



teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior".


1. Are the reliable?

a. Dei Verbum, 19: Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and



continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church


unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did

and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

2. Attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John

AUTHORSHIP

1. TRADITIONAL VIEW: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

a. Papias: First Century Writer Cited in Eusebius’ 4th Century Ecclesiastical History



i. Papias on eyewitness testimony. “I shall not hesitate also to put into properly


ordered form for you [singular] everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders

and noted down well, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I did not

enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy

those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who remember the

commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. And if



by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I

inquired about the words of the elder―[that is,] what [according to the elders] Andrew



or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any of the Lord’s


disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For

I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information

from a living and surviving voice (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4).



ii. Papias on authorship of the Gospels. "This also the presbyter [John] said: Mark,


having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in

order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither

heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who

adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a

connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he

thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to

omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These

things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as

follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one

interpreted them as he was able." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)

b. Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100–A.D. 165)



i. On the Gospels as Memoirs. “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities

on in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the



writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has


ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things”

(First Apology, 67).

c. Irenaeus (2nd Century A.D.)



i. On the Gospels. “Matthew also issues a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their


own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and laying the foundations of

the Church (ca. 60 A.D.). After their departure (ca. 62 A.D.), Mark, the disciple and

interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by
6
Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by

him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast (cf.

John 19), did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” (Against

Heresies 3.1.1).

d. Clement of Alexandia (c. A.D. 150–A.D. 215)



i. On the Order of the Gospels. "The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e.


Matthew and Luke], he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this

occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by

the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a

long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed

the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History



6.14.5-7).

2. MODERN SKEPTICISM:



a. The Anonymous Gospel Theory


i. Titles (e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew”) Added Later

ii. Not Really Written by Matthew (or Other Evangelists) At All

iii. “Pseudonymous” Writings Commonly Accepted Practice

b. Authorship a “Fluid” Concept:

i. Gospels Really the Product of a Long Process of Development & Accretions

c. Reflects More of the Concerns of Early Christians than the True Teaching of Jesus

d. Adaptation of Greco-Roman Pagan Myths, e.g., “the Virgin Birth”

3. THE GOSPELS AS EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS

a. “The Gospel according to Matthew” is Universally Attested17

i. If Added Later How Did Everyone Get the Message?



ii. Why Aren’t There Divergent Attributions

b. Why Attribute to These Men?



i. Matthew: Tax Collector


ii. Mark: Peter’s Secretary, Never Mentioned in Gospels

iii. Luke: Paul’s Secretary, Never Mentioned in Gospels

iv. John: Never Identifies By That Name in the Story

v. If the Names Were Added to the Gospels Later One Would Expect “Peter” or “James”

c. Authorship Not As “Fluid” as People Claim

i. Pseudonymity Was Rejected

ii. See E. Earle Ellis18



d. Concern for Eyewitness Testimony

i. Luke 1-4: 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things

which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who

from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me



also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for

you, most excellent The-ophilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of



which you have been informed.

17 See Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (J. Bowden, trans.; Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000), 48ff.

18 E. Earle Ellis, “Pseudonymity and and Canonicity of New Testament Documents,” in Worship, Theology, and Ministry in the Early

Church (M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige, eds.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 212-24. See for example the story of the Gospel of Peter in

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6, 12, 3, which reports the rejection of the Gospel by Serapion, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 211 ), who




offered the following counsel: “For we, brothers, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ. But pseudepigrapha in their name


we reject, as men of experience, knowing that we did not receive such [from tradition]. Indeed while there are examples of works

writing in the name and style of an ancient master with no intention to deceive, the NT writings are in no way analogous to these

works.
 
7
ii. Many eyewitnesses: the Apostles, the 70 (cf. Luke 10:1); replacement for Judas (Acts

2:21-23)

iii. Richard Bauckham19: Eye-Witness Testimony



1. Points to Practice of Ancient Historians


2. Ancient Witnesses, e.g., Papias

iv. Craig Keener: well-known scholar who reversed himself, admitting that he now leans

toward the likelihood of apostolic authorship20

19 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing




Company, 2006).
 
20 Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 40. Also see R. T. France, The Gospel of

Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans, 2007), “I think that much modern scholarship has too hastily assumed that the




gospels circulated for a generation or more without attribution and that the names of proposed authors were rather arbitrarily attached


to them some time in the second century. Attribution of this gospel to Matthew the apostle goes back to our earliest surviving patristic

testimonies, and there is no evidence that any other author was ever proposed. As far back as we can trace it, and from the earliest
 
manuscript attributions that have survived, it is always the Gospel kata Matthaion. It often seems to be assumed that whatever the early




church said about the origins of the NT books must be treated with suspicion unless it can be independently proved, but I do not


share that assumption. Of course authorship cannot now be proved, and for practical purposes of exegesis it does not matter very

much, but the contents and tone of the gospel (indicating its ‘love-hate relationship’ with Judaism…) seem tot me to make someone

like the apostle Matthew as likely a candidate as any, once it is accepted that the gospel is likely to have been written well within his

lifetime…” 



==============================================================




Quiz 1 Study Guide


1. In the lecture, Frank Sheed was quoted saying, “Every new thing known about God

is ___________”?1



2. What question asked by Jesus is the whole of Christianity a response to?


3. In catechesis "Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,. . . is taught - everything


else is taught with reference to him - and it is Christ alone who teaches - anyone else


teaches to the extent that he is Christ's spokesman, enabling Christ to teach with his

lips. . . Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of

Jesus: 'My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me' (John 7:16)."2
 


4. Which non-believers wrote about Jesus?


5. Which genre do the Gospels fit?


6. Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus

and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this

faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church3 
Excuse Me?!
That is the Protestant argument against
Peter being the rock. This argument is used to deny the primacy of Peter then and the role of the Pope in the role of Peter through apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church now! This paragraph(424) in the catechism says that
'On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter,
  Christ built his Church'3   is from Matthew 16:16  BUT
THat is NOT what Matthew 16:16 says!  It seems to me that someone slipped a protestant interpretation in here, at least in the English translation...I wonder how the other anguages translate this thought...Christ built his Church on the Rock of Peter (Peter got a name change and everything...keys to the kingdom...powers of binding and loosing..) not on the 'faith of Peter' nor on Peter's 'confession of faith.  



7. What is at the heart of catechesis?


8. “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born


under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive


adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:4-5).

9. Believers: Disciples wrote Gospels—big deal when you realize what it meant for Jesus



to be a teacher!


What does the term 'under the law' mean in 8?
Jesus was born under the law to redeem those who were under the law...
The Law of Moses? but what  that mean? Is is sayong that Jesus was born of the Jews to save the Jews?--that he was/is a JEWISH Messiah?
Also...  Don't Muslims refer to Jews  and Christians as 'people  of the law and people of the book?




10. Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son


of the living God", for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has

not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:16-17).4



11. On who did Jesus build his Church?


12. What is Christianity’s unique Claim?


13. Very often in the Gospels people address Jesus as "Lord". This title testifies to the


respect and trust of those who approach him for help and healing. At the prompting

of the Holy Spirit, "Lord" expresses the recognition of the divine mystery of Jesus. In

the encounter with the risen Jesus, this title becomes adoration: "My Lord and my

1 Sheed, F. J. Theology and Sanity. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1946. Print.

2 Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 427

3 Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 424

4 Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 442



God!" It thus takes on a connotation of love and affection that remains proper to the

Christian tradition: "It is the Lord!"5



14. The name Jesus means "God saves". The child born of the Virgin Mary is called

Jesus, "for he will save his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21): "there is no other name

under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).6

5 Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 448

6 Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 452

=============================================================================\

Readings



www.JPCatholic.com
  
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
 
SECOND EDITION
 
PART ONE

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
 
SECTION TWO

THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO

I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
The Good News: God has sent his Son

422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to
 
redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'1 This is 'the gospel of Jesus

Christ, the Son of God':'2 God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his

descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.3




423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time


of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in

Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of
 
God made man. He 'came from God',4 'descended from heaven',5 and 'came in the flesh'.6 For 'the Word




became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son
 
from the Father. . . And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'7




424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are
 
the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his

Church.9

"To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"10




425 The transmission of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead


others to faith in him. From the beginning, the first disciples burned with the desire to proclaim Christ: "We
 
cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."'11 And they invite people of every era to enter into the joy of




their communion with Christ:


That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which

we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made

manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the

Father and was made manifest to us- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so

that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus
 
Christ. And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.12




At the heart of catechesis: Christ


426 "At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son
 
from the Father. . .who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever."13 To




catechize is "to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God's eternal design reaching fulfillment in that


Person. It is to seek to understand the meaning of Christ's actions and words and of the signs worked by
 
him."'14 Catechesis aims at putting "people . . . in communion . . . with Jesus Christ: only he can lead us to the

love of the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity."15




427 In catechesis "Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,. . . is taught - everything else is taught with


reference to him - and it is Christ alone who teaches - anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ's

spokesman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips. . . Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the
 
mysterious words of Jesus: 'My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.'"16




428 Whoever is called "to teach Christ" must first seek "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus"; he


must suffer "the loss of all things. . ." in order to "gain Christ and be found in him", and "to know him and the

power of his resurrection, and [to] share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible [he] may
 
attain the resurrection from the dead".17




429 From this loving knowledge of Christ springs the desire to proclaim him, to "evangelize", and to lead


others to the "yes" of faith in Jesus Christ. But at the same time the need to know this faith better makes itself

felt. To this end, following the order of the Creed, Jesus' principal titles - "Christ", "Son of God", and "Lord"
 
(article 2) - will be presented. The Creed next confesses the chief mysteries of his life - those of his Incarnation

(article 3), Paschal mystery (articles 4 and 5) and glorification (articles 6 and 7).

1 Gal 4:4-5.

2 Mk 1:1.

3 Mk 1:11; cf. Lk 1:5,68.

4 Jn 13:3.

5 Jn 3:13; 6:33.

6 1 Jn 4:2.

7 Jn 1:14,16.

8 Mt 16:16.

9 Cf. Mt 16:18; St. Leo the Great, Sermo 4,3:PL 54,150-152; 51,1:PL 54,309B; 62,2:PL 54,350-351; 83,3:PL 54,431-432.

10 Eph 3:8.

11 Acts 4:20.

12 1 Jn 1:1-4.

13 CT 5.

14 CT 5.

15 CT 5.

16 CT 6; cf. Jn 7:16.

17 Phil 3:8-11.




PART ONE


THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
 
SECTION TWO

THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO

I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
ARTICLE 2

"AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD"

I. JESUS

430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as
 
his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.18Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God

who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins".19 In Jesus, God recapitulates all




of his history of salvation on behalf of men.
 
431 In the history of salvation God was not content to deliver Israel "out of the house of bondage"20 by




bringing them out of Egypt. He also saves them from their sin. Because sin is always an offence against God,
 
only he can forgive it.21 For this reason Israel, becoming more and more aware of the universality of sin, will no

longer be able to seek salvation except by invoking the name of the Redeemer God.22




432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for


the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and
 
henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation,23 so that "there

is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."24




433 The name of the Savior God was invoked only once in the year by the high priest in atonement for the


sins of Israel, after he had sprinkled the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies with the sacrificial blood. The mercy
 
seat was the place of God's presence.25 When St. Paul speaks of Jesus whom "God put forward as an expiation

by his blood", he means that in Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself."26




434 Jesus' Resurrection glorifies the name of the Savior God, for from that time on it is the name of Jesus that
 
fully manifests the supreme power of the "name which is above every name".27 The evil spirits fear his name; in

his name his disciples perform miracles, for the Father grants all they ask in this name.28




435 The name of Jesus is at the heart of Christian prayer. All liturgical prayers conclude with the words
 
"through our Lord Jesus Christ". The Hail Mary reaches its high point in the words "blessed is the fruit of thy

womb, Jesus." The Eastern prayer of the heart, the Jesus Prayer, says: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have




mercy on me, a sinner." Many Christians, such as St. Joan of Arc, have died with the one word "Jesus" on their


lips.

II. CHRIST
 
436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It




became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ"


signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This
 
was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets.29 This had to be the case all the more so

for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively.30 It was necessary that the

Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet.31 Jesus fulfilled




the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king.


437 To the shepherds, the angel announced the birth of Jesus as the Messiah promised to Israel: "To you is
 
born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."32From the beginning he was "the one

whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world", conceived as "holy" in Mary's virginal womb.33 God




called Joseph to "take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", so that Jesus,
 
"who is called Christ", should be born of Joseph's spouse into the messianic lineage of David.34




438 Jesus' messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name 'Christ' implies 'he who anointed',


'he who was anointed' and 'the very anointing with which he was anointed'. The one who anointed is the
 
Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.'"35 His




eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by


John, when "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power", "that he might be revealed
 
to Israel"36 as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God".37




439 Many Jews and even certain Gentiles who shared their hope recognized in Jesus the fundamental attributes
 
of the messianic "Son of David", promised by God to Israel.38 Jesus accepted his rightful title of Messiah,




though with some reserve because it was understood by some of his contemporaries in too human a sense, as
 
essentially political.39




440 Jesus accepted Peter's profession of faith, which acknowledged him to be the Messiah, by announcing the
 
imminent Passion of the Son of Man.40 He unveiled the authentic content of his messianic kingship both in the




transcendent identity of the Son of Man "who came down from heaven", and in his redemptive mission as the


suffering Servant: "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
 
many."41 Hence the true meaning of his kingship is revealed only when he is raised high on the cross.42 Only




after his Resurrection will Peter be able to proclaim Jesus' messianic kingship to the People of God: "Let all the


house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you
 
crucified."43




III. THE ONLY SON OF GOD
 
441 In the Old Testament, "son of God" is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel,

and their kings.44 It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between




God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called "son of God", it does not necessarily imply


that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus "son of
 
God", as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.45




442 Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God",
 
for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in

heaven."46 Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, "When he who had set




me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order
 
that I might preach him among the Gentiles. . ."47 "And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed

Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'"48 From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship

will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation.49




443 Peter could recognize the transcendent character of the Messiah's divine sonship because Jesus had clearly


allowed it to be so understood. To his accusers' question before the Sanhedrin, "Are you the Son of God,
 
then?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am."50 Well before this, Jesus referred to himself as "the Son" who knows




the Father, as distinct from the "servants" God had earlier sent to his people; he is superior even to the
 
angels.51 He distinguished his sonship from that of his disciples by never saying "our Father", except to




command them: "You, then, pray like this: 'Our Father'", and he emphasized this distinction, saying "my
 
Father and your Father".52




444 The Gospels report that at two solemn moments, the Baptism and the Transfiguration of Christ, the voice
 
of the Father designates Jesus his "beloved Son".53 Jesus calls himself the "only Son of God", and by this title

affirms his eternal pre-existence.54 He asks for faith in "the name of the only Son of God".55 In the centurion's

exclamation before the crucified Christ, "Truly this man was the Son of God",56 that Christian confession is




already heard. Only in the Paschal mystery can the believer give the title "Son of God" its full meaning.


445 After his Resurrection, Jesus' divine sonship becomes manifest in the power of his glorified humanity. He

was "designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his Resurrection from the
 
dead".57 The apostles can confess: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of

grace and truth."58




IV. LORD


446 In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the ineffable Hebrew name YHWH, by which God
 
revealed himself to Moses,59 is rendered as Kyrios, "Lord". From then on,"Lord" becomes the more usual name




by which to indicate the divinity of Israel's God. The New Testament uses this full sense of the title "Lord"
 
both for the Father and - what is new - for Jesus, who is thereby recognized as God Himself.60




447 Jesus ascribes this title to himself in a veiled way when he disputes with the Pharisees about the meaning of
 
Psalm 110, but also in an explicit way when he addresses his apostles.61 Throughout his public life, he




demonstrated his divine sovereignty by works of power over nature, illnesses, demons, death and sin.


448 Very often in the Gospels people address Jesus as "Lord". This title testifies to the respect and trust of
 
those who approach him for help and healing.62 At the prompting of the Holy Spirit, "Lord" expresses the

recognition of the divine mystery of Jesus.63 In the encounter with the risen Jesus, this title becomes adoration:




"My Lord and my God!" It thus takes on a connotation of love and affection that remains proper to the
 
Christian tradition: "It is the Lord!"64




449 By attributing to Jesus the divine title "Lord", the first confessions of the Church's faith affirm from the


beginning that the power, honor and glory due to God the Father are due also to Jesus, because "he was in the
 
form of God",65 and the Father manifested the sovereignty of Jesus by raising him from the dead and exalting

him into his glory.66




450 From the beginning of Christian history, the assertion of Christ's lordship over the world and over history


has implicitly recognized that man should not submit his personal freedom in an absolute manner to any
 
earthly power, but only to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Caesar is not "the Lord".67 "The




Church. . . believes that the key, the center and the purpose of the whole of man's history is to be found in its
 
Lord and Master."68




451 Christian prayer is characterized by the title "Lord", whether in the invitation to prayer ("The Lord be
 
with you"), its conclusion ("through Christ our Lord") or the exclamation full of trust and hope: Maran

atha ("Our Lord, come!") or Marana tha ("Come, Lord!") - "Amen Come Lord Jesus!"69




IN BRIEF


452 The name Jesus means "God saves". The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, "for he will save his
 
people from their sins" (Mt 1:21): "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must

be saved" (Acts 4:12).




453 The title "Christ" means "Anointed One" (Messiah). Jesus is the Christ, for "God anointed Jesus of
 
Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38). He was the one "who is to come" (Lk 7:19), the

object of "the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20).




454 The title "Son of God" signifies the unique and eternal relationship of Jesus Christ to God his Father: he
 
is the only Son of the Father (cf. Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18); he is God himself (cf. Jn 1:1). To be a Christian, one

must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (cf. Acts 8:37; 1 Jn 2:23).




455 The title "Lord" indicates divine sovereignty. To confess or invoke Jesus as Lord is to believe in his
 
divinity. "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit'" (1 Cor12:3).

18 Cf. Lk 1:31.

19 Mt 1:21; cf. 2:7.

20 Deut 5:6.

21 Cf. Ps 51:4,12.

22 Cf. Ps 79:9.

23 Cf. Jn 3:18; Acts 2:21; 5:41; 3 Jn 7; Rom 10:6-13.

24 Acts 4:12; cf. 9:14; Jas 2:7.

25 Cf. Ex 25:22; Lev 16:2,15-16; Num 7:89; Sir 50:20; Heb 9:5,7.

26 Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19.

27 Phil 2:9-10; cf. Jn 12:28.

28 Cf. Acts 16:16-18; 19:13-16; Mk 16:17; Jn 15:16.

29 Cf. Ex 29:7; Lev 8:12; 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 16:1,12-13; 1 Kings 1:39; 19:16.

30 Cf. Ps 2:2; Acts 4:26-27.

31 Cf. Isa 11:2; 61:1; Zech 4:14; 6:13; Lk 4:16-21.

32 Lk 2:11.

33 Jn 10:36; cf. Lk 1:35.

34 Mt 1:20; cf. 1:16; Rom 1:1; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 22:16.

35 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,18,3:PG 7/1,934.

36 Acts 10:38; Jn 1:31.

37 Mk 1:24; Jn 6:69; Acts 3:14.

38 Cf Mt 2:2; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9,15.

39 Cf. Jn 4:25-26; 6:15; 11:27; Mt 22:41-46; Lk 24:21.

40 Cf. Mt 16:16-23.

41 Jn 3:13; Mt 20:28; cf. Jn 6:62; Dan 7:13; Isa 53:10-12.

42 Cf. Jn 19:19-22; Lk 23:39-43.

43 Acts 2:36.

44 Cf. Deut 14:1; (LXX) 32:8; Job 1:6; Ex 4:22; Hos 2:1; 11:1; Jer 3:19; Sir 36:11; Wis 18:13; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 82:6.

45 Cf. 1 Chr 17:13; Ps 2:7; Mt 27:54; Lk 23:47.

46 Mt 16:16-17.

47 Gal 1:15-16.

48 Acts 9:20.

49 Cf. 1 Thess 1:10; Jn 20:31; Mt 16:18.

50 Lk 22:70; cf. Mt 26:64; Mk 14:61-62.

51 Cf. Mt 11:27; 21:34-38; 24:36.

52 Mt 5:48; 6:8-9; 7:21; Lk 11:13; Jn 20:17.

53 Cf. Mt 3:17; cf. 17:5.

54 Jn 3:16; cf. 10:36.

55 Jn 3:18.

56 Mk 15:39.

57 Rom 1:3; cf. Acts 13:33.

58 Jn 1:14.

59 Cf. Ex 3:14.

60 Cf. 1 Cor 2:8.

61 Cf. Mt 22:41-46; cf. Acts 2:34-36; Heb 1:13; Jn 13:13.

62 Cf Mt 8:2; 14:30; 15:22; et al.

63 Cf. Lk 1:43; 2:11.

64 Jn 20:28,21:7.

65 Cf. Acts 2:34-36; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Rev 5:13; Phil 2:6.

66 Cf. Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:9-11.

67 Cf. Rev 11:15; Mk 12:17; Acts 5:29.




68 GS 10 § 3; Cf. 45 § 2.
 69 1 Cor 16:22; Rev 22:20.

============================================

Session 2


Lecture Notes

Pillars of Catholicism:

Natural Philosophy
 
Father Andrew Younan / John Paul the Great Catholic University © 2012
www.JPCatholic.com
  
Introduction

1) The question asked is, “What is most real?”


a) The way we ask a question determines the way we will answer it

2) Thales, a Pre-Socratic philosopher, asked, “What is everything made of?”

a) This forced him to answer in a materialistic way

b) He said everything is made up of water

c) Others said everything is made up of the four classical elements (earth, air, fire, and

water)

3) Aristotle is the first to ask, “What is everything?” then, “What is it that makes a tree act


the way it acts?”

a) He affirmed that particles are part of things, but questioned whether particles were



everything
 
b) Particles can explain some things (i.e. that a tree is stiff, tall, etc.), but they do not

explain the nature of things

The Hylomorphic Theory

4) Matter is part of something, but its form is more important


a) The universe is not simply many things put together like building blocks, but the

universe is what particles build

5) What is most real? For Aristotle, the form of things is most real because it is what causes

the matter to act the way it acts and is made of the particles it is made of

6) St. Thomas Aquinas looked at the world as a beautiful variety of natural things

a) It is through this variety that philosophers were able to see nature as something more

than just particles

William of Ockham

7) Took a philosophy similar to Plato’s that what is the most real thing is the Form

a) Not, however, a Form in nature, but the eternal and unchangeable Forms in the

world of Forms

b) For Ockham, there are no unchangeable Forms in another world, but there are no

such things as forms at all

8) For him, there is no such thing as the nature of something


a) i.e. every individual tree has the nature of a tree, but for Ockham there is no such

thing has the nature of a tree

i) William of Ockham broke philosophy, because if there are no natures (or forms),

then we cannot study the universe because we would have to study every single

individual thing in nature, which is impossible

b) Debates and complexities began in philosophy, until Rene Descartes

Rene Descartes

9) Asked a new question: “What can we do with nature?”1


a) He was frustrated with philosophy because he did not feel like philosophy came to a

decision about anything, so he turned it into something we can use for our advantage

b) This, as good as it is, is a different question

c) He founded technology and medicine

d) For Descartes, however, it does not matter what the nature of a tree is, what matters is


that it is made of wood and using the wood we can build a bed

i) This is not the only question we can ask about a tree

Isaac Newton

10) He followed on Descartes and drove mathematics forward tremendously

a) We have gained much from this type of science

b) However, what happened unnoticeably was that it began to be assumed that there

were not any other questions worth asking, and that if something cannot be

expressed mathematically, then it cannot be true

i) Science does not teach this, but it has become an assumption made

c) It does not mean there are no more questions to ask just because something can be

described mathematically and scientifically

i) It is possible that there is more to the world than what we can describe using

mathematics – this is what Aristotle believed

11) If the world is nothing but particles, then only we are particles as well

12) Science gives us many answers, but it does not give us all of them

Quantum Theory

13) We broke the atom and found subatomic particles (neutron, photon, and electron)

a) We thought when we got to the smallest particles, they would be the most knowable

b) The opposite was true – we can describe them, but we cannot even know their

location at any given moment

14) Werner Heisenberg (who was at the forefront of Quantum Theory)

1 Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy (4th ed. Hackett Publishing



Company, Inc. Indianapolis, 1999). “…to arrive at knowledge that is very useful in life and that in place of the

speculative philosophy taught in the Schools, one can find a practical one, by which, knowing the force and the

actions of fire, water, air, stars, the heavens, and all the other bodies that surround us, just as we understand the

various skills of our craftsmen, we could, in the same way, use these objects for all the purposes for which they

are appropriate, and thus make ourselves, as it were, masters and possessors of nature. This is desirable not only

for the invention of an infinity of devices that would enable us to enjoy without pain the fruits of the earth and
 
all the goods one finds in it, but also principally for the maintenance of health…” (Discourse on Method, Part 6)

a) He uses possibilities or tendencies (potentia) to describe the smallest particles2


b) This is Aristotelian language

15) Perhaps, Aristotle’s vision of the world is the right one

2 Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (Harper and Row Publishers:



New York, 1962). “The probability function combines objective and subjective elements. It contains statements
 about possibilities, or better, tendencies (‘potentia’ in Aristotelian philosophy).”

==============================================
 
Readings



A Glance at Ancient Physics
 
Although at the time of Christ's birth Hellenic science had produced nearly all its masterpieces, it was still to

give to the world Ptolemy's astronomy, the way for which had been paved for more than a century by the works

of Hipparchus. The revelations of Greek thought on the nature of the exterior world ended with the

"Almagest", which appeared about A.D. 145, and then began the decline of ancient learning. Those of its

works that escaped the fires kindled by Mohammedan warriors were subjected to the barren interpretations

of Mussulman commentators and like parched seed, awaited the time when Latin Christianity would furnish a

favourable soil in which they could once more flourish and bring forth fruit. Hence it is that

the time when Ptolemy put the finishing touches to his "Great Mathematical Syntax of Astronomy" seems the

most opportune in which to study the field of ancient physics. An impassable frontier separated this field into

two regions in which different laws prevailed. From the moon's orbit to the sphere enclosing the world,

extended the region of beings exempt from generation, change, and death, of perfect, divine beings, and these

were the star-sphere and the stars themselves. Inside the lunar orbit lay the region of generation and corruption,

where the four elements and the mixed bodies generated by their mutual combinations were subject to

perpetual change.

The science of the stars was dominated by a principle formulated by Plato and the Pythagoreans, according to

which all the phenomena presented to us by the heavenly bodies must be accounted for by combinations of

circular and uniform motions. Moreover, Plato declared that these circular motions were reducible to the

rotation of solid globes all limited by spherical surfaces concentric with the World and the Earth, and some of

these homocentric spheres carried fixed or wandering stars. Eudoxus of Cnidus, Calippus, and Aristotle vied

with one another in striving to advance this theory of homocentric spheres, its fundamental hypothesis being

incorporated in Aristotle's "Physics" and "Metaphysics". However, the astronomy of homocentric spheres could

not explain all celestial phenomena, a considerable number of which showed that the wandering stars did not

always remain at an equal distance from the Earth. Heraclides Ponticus in Plato's time, and Aristarchus of

Samos about 280 B.C. endeavoured to account for all astronomical phenomena by a heliocentric system, which

was an outline of the Copernican mechanics; but the arguments of physics and

the precepts of theology proclaiming the Earth's immobility, readily obtained the ascendency over

this doctrine which existed in a mere outline. Then the labours of Apollonius Pergæus (at Alexandria,

205 B.C.), of Hipparchus (who made observation at Rhodes in 128 and 127 B.C.), and finally

of Ptolemy(Claudius Ptolemæus of Pelusium) constituted a new astronomical system that claimed the Earth to

be immovable in the centre of the universe; a system that seemed, as it were, to reach its completion when,
 
between A.D. 142 and 146, Ptolemy wrote a work called Megale mathematike syntaxis tes astronomias,



its Arabian title being transliterated by the Christians of the Middle Ages, who named it "Almagest".

The astronomy of the "Almagest" explained all astronomical phenomena with a precision which for a long time

seemed satisfactory, accounting for them by combinations of circular motions; but, of the circles described,

some were eccentric to the World, whilst others were epicyclic circles, the centres of which described deferent

circles concentric with or eccentric to the World; moreover, the motion on the deferent was no longer uniform,

seeming so only when viewed from the centre of the equant. Briefly, in order to construct a kinematical

arrangement by means of which phenomena could be accurately represented, the astronomers whose

work Ptolemy completed had to set at naught the properties ascribed to the

celestial substance by Aristotle's "Physics", and between this "Physics" and the astronomy of eccentrics and

epicycles there ensued a violent struggle which lasted until the middle of the sixteenth century.

In Ptolemy's time the physics of celestial motion was far more advanced than the physics of sublunary bodies,

as, in this science of beings subject to generation and corruption, only two chapters had reached any degree

of perfection, namely, those on optics (called perspective) and statics. The law of reflection was known as early

as the time of Euclid, about 320B.C., and to this geometrician was attributed, although probably erroneously, a

"Treatise on Mirrors", in which the principles of catoptrics were correctly set forth. Dioptrics, being more

difficult, was developed less rapidly. Ptolemy already knew that the angle of refraction is not proportional to the

angle of incidence, and in order to determine the ratio between the two he undertook experiments the results of

which were remarkably exact.

Statics reached a fuller development than optics. The "Mechanical Questions" ascribed to Aristotle were a first

attempt to organize that science, and they contained a kind of outline of the principle of virtual

velocities, destined to justify the law of the equilibrium of the lever; besides, they embody the happy idea of

referring to the lever theory the theory of all simple machines. An elaboration, in which Euclid seems to have

had some part, brought statics to the stage of development in which it was found by Archimedes (about 287-

212 B.C.), who was to raise it to a still higher degree of perfection. It will here suffice to mention the works of

genius in which the great Syracusan treated the equilibrium of the weights suspended from the two arms of a

lever, the search for the centre of gravity, and the equilibrium of liquids and floating bodies. The treatises of

Archimedes were too scholarly to be widely read by the mechanicians who succeeded this geometrician;

these men preferred easier and more practical writings as, for instance, those on the lines

of Aristotle's "Mechanical Questions". Various treatises by Heron of Alexandria have preserved for us

the type of these decadent works.
 
Duhem, Pierre. "History of Physics." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 8 Aug.

2012.
 
Science and Early Christian Scholars
  
Shortly after the death of Ptolemy, Christian science took root at Alexandria with Origen (about 180-253), and

a fragment of his "Commentaries on Genesis", preserved by Eusebius, shows us that the author was familiar

with the latest astronomical discoveries, especially the precession of the equinoxes. However, the writings in

which the Fathers of the Church comment upon the work of the six days of Creation, notably

the commentaries of St. Basil and St. Ambrose, borrow but little from Hellenic physics; in fact, their tone

would seem to indicate distrust in the teachings of Greek science, this distrust being engendered by two

prejudices: in the first place, astronomy was becoming more and more the slave of astrology, the superstitions of

which the Church diligently combatted; in the second place, between the essential propositions of peripatetic

physics and what we believe to be the teaching of Holy Writ, contradictions appeared; thus Genesis was

thought to teach the presence of water above the heaven of the fixed stars (the firmament) and this was

incompatible with the Aristotelean theory concerning the natural place of the elements. The debates raised by

this question gave St. Augustine an opportunity to lay down wise exegetical rules, and he

recommended Christians not to put forth lightly, as articles of faith, propositions contradicted by

physical science based upon careful experiments. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), a bishop, considered it

legitimate for Christians to desire to know the teachings of profane science, and he laboured to satisfy this

curiosity. His "Etymologies" and "De natura rerum" are merely compilations of fragments borrowed from all

the pagan and Christian authors with whom he was acquainted. In the height of the Latin Middle Ages these

works served as models for numerous encyclopædias, of which the "De natura rerum" by Bede (about 672-735)

and the "De universo" by Rabanus Maurus (776-856) were the best known.

However, the sources from which the Christians of the West imbibed a knowledge of ancient physics became

daily more numerous, and to Pliny the Elder's "Natural History", read by Bede, were

added Chalcidius's commentary on Plato's "Timæus" and Martianus Capella's "De Nuptiis Philologiæ et

Mercurii", these different works inspiring the physics of John Scotus Eriugena. Prior to A.D. 1000 a

new Platonic work by Macrobius, a commentary on the "Somnium Scipionis", was in great favour in

the schools. Influenced by the various treatises already mentioned, Guillaume of Conches (1080-1150 or 1154)

and the unknown author of "De mundi constitutione liber", which, by the way, has been falsely attributed

to Bede, set forth a planetary theory making Venus and Mercury satellites of the sun, but Eriugena went still

further and made the sun also the centre of the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Had he but extended this hypothesis

to Saturn, he would have merited the title of precursor of Tycho Brahe.
 
Duhem, Pierre. "History of Physics." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 8 Aug.

2012.
 
Aristotle’s Physics
   
Physics has for its object the study of "being intrinsically endowed with motion", in other words, the study

of nature. For nature differs from art in this: that nature is essentially self-determinant from within, while art

remains exterior to the products of art. In its self-determination, that is to say in its processes, nature follows

an intelligent and intelligible form. "Nature is always striving for the best". Movement is a mode of being,

namely, the condition of a potential being actualizing itself. There are three kinds of

movement: quantitative (increase and decrease), qualitative (alteration) and spatial(locomotion). Space is

neither matter nor form, but the "first and unmoved limit of the containing, as against the contained". Time is

the measure of the succession of motion. In his treatment of the notions of motion, space, and time, Aristotle

refutes the Eleatic doctrine that real motion, real space, and real succession imply contradictions. Following

Empedocles Aristotle, also, teaches that all terrestrial bodies are composed of four elements or radical principles,

namely: fire, air, earth, and water. These elements determine not only the natural warmth or moisture of

bodies, but also their natural motion, upward or downward, according to the preponderance of air or earth.

Celestial bodies are not constituted by the four elements but by ether, the natural motion of which is circular.

The Earth is the centre of the cosmic system; it is a spherical, stationary body, and around it revolve the spheres

in which are fixed the planets. The First Heaven, which plays so important a part in Aristotle's

general cosmogonic system, is the heaven of the fixed stars. It surrounds all the other spheres and,

being endowed with intelligence, it turned toward the Deity, drawn, as it were, by His Desirability, and it thus

imparted to all the other heavenly bodies the circular motion which is natural to them. These doctrines, as well

as the general concept of nature as dominated by design or purpose, came to be taken for granted in

every philosophy of nature down to the time of Newton and Galileo, and the birth of modern physical science.

Psychology in Aristotle's philosophy is treated as a branch of physical science. It has for its object the study of

the soul, that is to say, of the principle of life. Life is the power of self-movement, or of movement from within.

Plants and animals, since they are endowed with the power of adaptation, have souls, and the human soul is

peculiar only in this, that to the vegetative and sensitive faculties, which characterize plant-life and

animal life respectively it adds the rational faculty--the power of acquiring universal and intellectual knowledge.

It must therefore be borne in mind that when Aristotle speaks of the soul he does not mean merely the

principle of thought; he means the principle of life. The soul he defines as the form, actualization, or realization

of the body, "the first entelechy of the organized body possessing the power of life". It is not a

substance distinct from the body, as Plato taught but a co-substantial Principle with the body, both being

united to form the composite substance, man. The faculties or powers of the soul are five-fold: nutritive,

sensitive, appetitive, locomotive, and rational. Sensation is defined as the faculty "by which we receive

the forms of sensible things without the matter, as the wax receives the figure of the seal without the metal of

which the seal is composed". It is "a movement of the soul", the "form without the matter" being the stimulus
 
which calls forth that movement. The typos, as that form is called, while it is analogous to the "effluxes" about



which the Atomists spoke, is not like the efflux, a diminished object, but a mode of motion, mediating between

the object and the faculty. Aristotle distinguishes between the five external senses and the internal senses, of
 
which the most important are the Central sense and the Imagination. Intellect (nous) differs from the senses in



that it is concerned with the abstract and universal, while they are concerned with the concrete and particular.

The natural endowment of intellect is not actual knowledge, but merely the power of acquiring knowledge.

The mind "is in the beginning without ideas, it is like a smooth tablet on which nothing is written". All

our knowledge, therefore, is acquired by a process of elaboration or development of sense-knowledge. In this

process the intellect exhibits a two-fold phase an active and a passive. Hence it is customary to speak of the

Active and Passive Intellect, though it is by no means clear what Aristotle meant by these concepts. The

corruption of the text in some of the most critical passages of the work "On the Soul"--the mixture

of Stoic pantheism, in the explanation of the earlier commentators, not to speak of the later addition of

extraneous elements on the part of the Arabian, Scholastic, and modern transcendentalist expounders of the

text--have rendered it impossible to say precisely what meaning to attach to the terms Active and

Passive Intellect. It is enough to remark here that:
 
• according to the Scholastics Aristotle understood both Active and Passive Intellect to be parts, or



phases, of the individual mind;
 
• according to the Arabians and some earlier commentators, the first of these, perhaps, being Aristocles,



he understood the Active Intellect to be a divine something, or at least something transcending

the individual mind;
 
• according to some interpreters the Passive Intellect is not properly an intellectual faculty at all, but



merely the aggregate of sensations out of which ideas are made, as the statue is made out of the

marble.

From the fact that the soul in its intellectual operations attains a knowledge of the abstract and universal, and

thus transcends matter and material conditions, Aristotle argues that it is immaterial and immortal. The will, or

faculty of choice, is free, as is proved by the recognized voluntariness of virtue, and the existence of reward and

punishment.
 
Turner, William. "Aristotle." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 8 Aug.

2012
 
Descartes's Work
  
We have just stated what part Descartes took in the building of statics by bringing forward the method of

virtual displacements, but his active interest in the building up of dynamics was still more important. He clearly

formulated the law of inertia as observed by Benedetti: every moving body is inclined, if nothing prevent it, to

continue its motion in a straight line and with constant velocity; a body cannot move in a circle unless it be

drawn towards the centre, by centripetal movement in opposition to the centrifugal force by which this body

tends to fly away from the centre. Because of the similarity of the views held by Descartes and Benedetti

concerning this law, we may conclude that Descartes's discovery was influenced by that of Benedetti, especially

as Benedetti's works were known to Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), the faithful friend and correspondent

of Descartes. Descartes connected the following truth with the law of inertia: a weight constant in size and

direction causes a uniformly accelerated motion. Besides we have seen how, with the aid

of Descartes's principles, Gassendi was able to rectify what Galileo had taught concerning falling bodies and the

motion of projectiles.

In statics a heavy body can very often be replaced by a material point placed at its centre of gravity; but in

dynamics the question arises whether the motion of a body be treated as if this body were entirely concentrated

in one of these points, and also which point this is? This question relative to the existence and finding of a

centre of impulsion had already engrossed the attention of Vinci and after him, of Bernardino Baldi (1553-

1617). Baldi asserted that, in a body undergoing a motion of translation, the centre of impulsion does not differ

from the centre of gravity. Now, is there a centre of impulsion and, if so, where is it to be found in a body

undergoing a motion other than that of translation, for instance, by a rotation around an axis? In other words,

is there a simple pendulum that moves in the same way as a given compound pendulum? Inspired, no doubt,

by reading Baldi, Mersenne laid this problem before Roberval and Descartes, both of whom made great efforts

to solve it but became unfriendly to each other because of the difference in their respective propositions. Of the

two, Descartes came nearer to the truth, but the dynamic principles that he used were not sufficiently accurate

to justify his opinion in a convincing manner; the glory was reserved to Christian Huygens.

The Jesuits, who at the College of La Flèche had been the preceptors of Mersenne and Descartes, did not

teach Peripatetic physics in its stereotyped integrity, but Parisian physics; the treatise that guided the instruction

imparted at this institution being represented by the "Commentaries" on Aristotle, published by

the Jesuits of Coimbra at the close of the seventeenth century. Hence it can be understood why the dynamics

of Descartes had many points in common with the dynamics of Buridan and the Parisians. Indeed, so close

were the relations between Parisian and Cartesian physics that certain professors at La Flèche, such as Etienne

Noël (1581-1660), became Cartesians. Other Jesuits attempted to build up a sort of a combination

of Galilean and Cartesian mechanics with the mechanics taught by Parisian Scholasticism, and foremost among

these men must be mentioned Honoré Fabri (1606-88), a friend of Mersenne.

In every moving body Descartes maintained the existence of a certain power to continue its motion in the same

direction and with the same velocity and this power, which he called the quantity of motion, he measured by

estimating the product of the mass of the moving body by the velocity that impels it. The affinity is close

between the role which Descartes attributed to this quantity of motion, and that which Buridan ascribed to

impetus. Fabri was fully aware of this analogy and the momentum that he discussed was at once the impetus of

the Parisians, and Descartes's quantity of motion. In statics he identified this momentum with
 
what Galileo called momento or impeto, and this identification was certainly conformable to



the Pisan's idea. Fabri's synthesis was well adapted to make this truth clear, that modern dynamics, the

foundations of which were laid by Descartes and Galileo, proceeded almost directly from the dynamics taught

during the fourteenth century in the University of Paris.

If the special physical truths demonstrated or anticipated by Descartes were easily traceable to the philosophy of

the fourteenth century, the principles on which the great geometrician wished to base these truths were

absolutely incompatible with this philosophy. In fact, denying that in reality there existed anything

qualitative, Descartes insisted that matter be reduced to extension and to the attributes of

which extension seemed to him susceptible, namely, numerical proportions and motion; and it was by

combinations of different figures and motions that all the effects of physics could be explained according to his

liking. Therefore the power by virtue of which a body tends to preserve the direction and velocity of its motion

is not a quality distinct from motion, such as the impetus recognized by the scholastics; it is nothing else than

the motion itself as was taught by William of Occam at the beginning of the fourteenth century. A body in

motion and isolated would always retain the same quantity of motion, but there is no isolated body in a

vacuum, because matter being identical with extension, vacuum is inconceivable, as is also compressibility. The

only conceivable motions are those which can be produced in the midst of incompressible matter, that is to

say, vortical motions confined within their own bulk.

In these motions bodies drive one another from the place they have occupied and, in such a transmission of

motion, the quantity of motion of each of these bodies varies; however, the entire quantity of motion of all the

bodies that impinge on one another remains constant, as God always maintains the same sum total of motion

in the world. This transmission of motion by impact is the only action that bodies can exert over one another

and in Cartesian, as well as in Aristotelean physics, a body cannot put another in motion unless it touch it,

immediate action at a distance being beyond conception.

There are various species of matter, differing from one another only in the size and shape of the contiguous

particles of which they are formed. The space that extends between the different heavenly bodies is filled with

a certain subtile matter, the very fine particles of which easily penetrate the interstices left between the coarser

constituents of other bodies. The properties of subtile matter play an important part in all Cartesian cosmology.

The vortices in which subtile matter moves, and the pressure generated by these vortical motions, serve to

explain all celestial phenomena. Leibniz was right in supposing that for this part of his work Descartes had

drawn largely upon Kepler. Descartes also strove to explain, with the aid of the figures and motions of subtile

and other matter, the different effects observable in physics, particularly the properties of the magnet and of

light. Light is identical with the pressure which subtile matter exerts over bodies and, as subtile matter is

incompressible, light is instantly transmitted to any distance, however great.

The suppositions by the aid of which Descartes attempted to reduce all physical phenomena to combinations of

figures and motions had scarcely any part in the discoveries that he made in physics; therefore the identification

of light with the pressure exerted by subtile matter plays no part in the invention of the

new truths which Descartes taught in optics. Foremost amongst these truths is the law of the refraction of light

passing from one medium to another, although the question still remains whether Descartes discovered

this law himself, or whether, as Huygens accused him of doing, he borrowed it from Willebrord Snellius (1591-

1626), without any mention of the real author. By this law Descartes gave the theory of refraction through a

prism, which permitted him to measure the indices of refraction; moreover, he greatly perfected the stud of

lenses, and finally completed the explanation of the rainbow, no progress having been made along this line from

the year 1300, when Thierry of Freiberg had given his treatise on it. However, the reason why the rays

emerging from the drops of water are variously coloured was no better known by Descartes than by Aristotle; it

remained for Newton to make the discovery.
 
Duhem, Pierre. "History of Physics." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 8 Aug.

2012http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm. ==========================================================

Quiz 2 Study Guide

1. For a better understanding of the world, what was the question the pre-Socratics

asked?

2. What did Thales believe everything was made of?

3. What unconventional question did Aristotle ask inquiring about nature?

4. What did Aristotle believe about particles?

5. What is the Hylomorphic Theory?

6. For Aristotle, which of these is the most real?

7. What form of philosophy did St. Thomas Aquinas follow?

8. What did William of Ockham believe about the form of things?

9. Which philosopher changed philosophy into something we can use for medicine and

technology?

10. Which philosopher followed in Descartes’ footsteps and greatly advanced

mathematics?

11. Who was at the forefront of Quantum Theory?

12. In Quantum Theory, we broke the atom and found subatomic particles (neutrons,

photons, and electrons). What surprised us about these tiny particles?

13. What term did Heisenberg use to describe these smallest particles that had not been

used for centuries among philosophers?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)