Why it's called the Mass, (aka Its not from Ite misa est).

Masa/dough

A couple of weeks ago, on Catholic365, I asked the question, "Why is it called "the Mass"?  In that article, I challenged the consensus that the name of the Catholic Liturgy comes from the dismissal.  And I suggested the Mass derives from the Latin root "masa" which is an ancient and universal word signifying bread.

Massah/test

I followed that up with another article, The Mass, St. John chapter 6 and the test of faith.  In this article, I suggested that it is more likely that the name of the Mass derives from the Hebrew word massah or test. Another ancient word which can be traced to Moses' time, when the Israelites tested God in the desert.  That ties back to the idea that the Doctrine of the Eucharist is so hard for many to believe, that it is a test (massah) of faith as witnessed in John 6 when many walked away from Christ based upon that Teaching.

Masa goes back to Moses

What I didn't know at the time, is that the Latin root, "masa" derives from the Greek word "mazza" which signifies "wheat cakes" and that Greek word derives from the Hebrew "matstsah" which means, unleavened bread.  And that ties the word "masa" directly to the Passover.  Again, all the way back to Moses' time.

Not a Teaching from the Early Church

But, someone said that I am opposing the Church.  They claimed this was a Teaching from the early Church.

That is not the case, the oldest document I could find that ties the Mass to the dismissal, is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgy of the Mass.  This article makes the claim that "mass" derives from the Latin "misa" in the dismissal of the Latin Mass.  But I think I've detected several errors in the logic used to arrive at that conclusion.

Let's go through it together.  I'll skip to the pertinent parts.  But you can examine my findings in the link above.

Under the Category, "Name and Definition"

The first paragraph is an introduction to the theory that the word "misa" was not in extensive use in the first and second centuries.  He says:

....the Holy Eucharist was celebrated as Christ had instituted it at the Last Supper, according to His command, in memory of Him. But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin name Missa, used at first in a vaguer sense, became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service.

I can't disagree with that.  The only thing to say, perhaps, is that there is really no way to know, since we don't have very much from that early date.

The 2nd paragraph begins in the same vein.  Relating how, in the first period (the first 300 years), even in Rome, the Greek language was the language of Christianity.

Nothing there with which to disagree.  One thing to note, however, is that during that period, none of the names for the Mass signify a dismissal or departure.  Many of them do make a reference to the Eucharist, such as, eucharistia and koinonia.

The 3rd paragraph begins the transition, in the West, from the Greek to the Latin language and the appearance of the word, misa.  Let's look at what he says:

All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa. The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397). He writes to his sister Marcellina describing the troubles of the Arians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church: "The next day (it was a Sunday) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed the catechumens, I explained the creed [symbolum tradebam] to some of the competents [people about to be baptized] in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi]. While I offer [dum ofero], I hear that a certain Castulus has been seized by the people" (Ep., I, xx, 4-5). It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known.

There are some very interesting things said there.

1st.  He (St. Ambrose) dismissed the Catechumens.

How did he dismiss them?  Did he use the word, "misa" in the sense of dismissal when he did so?

2nd.  There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers

How did they send them?  Did they use the word, "misa" in the sense of sending when they did so?

Apparently not, I'm sure he would have said so since the entire point of this article is how "mass" is derived from a form of "dismissal".

But there's more.

3rd.  But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi]. 

St. Ambrose uses the word "missa" for the Mass in such a matter of fact manner that the author is forced to admit,

It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known.

In fact, St. Ambrose is using the term in the same way that it is used today.  The author makes noise about it being a reference to the Liturgy of the Faithful.  But, so what?  It remains a reference to the Eucharist as he also admits.

Still on the 3rd paragraph, the author continues:

There is another, still earlier, but very doubtfully authentic instance of the word in a letter of Pope Pius I (from c. 142 to c. 157): "Euprepia has handed over possession of her house to the poor, where . . . we make Masses with our poor" (cum pauperibus nostris . . . missas agimus" — Pii I, Ep. I, in Galland, "Bibl. vet. patrum", Venice, 1765, I, 672). The authenticity of the letter, however, is very doubtful. If Missa really occurred in the second century in the sense it now has, it would be surprising that it never occurs in the third. We may consider St. Ambrose as the earliest certain authority for it.

Personally, if that is the only reason he doubts the authenticity of this letter, then he has no grounds at all except his own presupposition that it could not be true.

Intermission (pun not intended)

To me, that puts the last nail on the coffin for the idea that the "mass" comes from the dismissal.   However, something to note in the remainder of the article.  Although, the author wants us to see a progressive use of the word "misa" as dismissal and then somehow to jump to the conclusion that "misa" therefore comes from dismissal, we need only remember that the word "misa" as the Eucharist already exists.  There is no need to conclude that "misa" comes from "dismissal".  In fact, it is very likely in my mind, that the word "misa" becomes a conjugal form of "mittere" due to the its continued association with the dismissal.

What?  Isn't that what the author says?

No.  I'm saying that dismiss comes from misa.  Not that misa comes from dismiss.  I'm saying that the root word for dismissal comes into existence due to its continued assocation with the dismissal at the end of the Mass of the Catechumens.

In other words, Its time for the Mass takes on the meaning, its time to depart (i.e. misa).  Anyway, let's get back to the article:

4th paragraph, he says,

From the fourth century the term becomes more and more common. For a time it occurs nearly always in the sense of dismissal. St. Augustine (d. 430) says: "After the sermon the dismissal of the catechumens takes place" (post sermonem fit missa catechumenorum — Serm., xlix, 8, in P.L., XXXVIII, 324). 

I'm not a Latin expert, but I read that as saying, "After the sermon, ends (fin) the mass of the Catechumens".  And, of course, the Catechumens are dismissed.

But, even if I'm wrong, we know that the word "missa" for Mass, already exists.  Therefore, this would be an example of the word now becoming associated with the dismissal.  Not an example of the dismissal being the source of the name for the Mass.

4th paragraph continued

The Synod of Lérida in Spain (524) declares that people guilty of incest may be admitted to church "usque ad missam catechumenorum", that is, till the catechumens are dismissed (Can., iv, Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles", II, 1064).

I put that phrase in the Google Translate tool and here is what I got, "as far as the mass of catechumens".  Try it yourself.

He says that phrase is used very frequently.  And I say, the phrase doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

Anyway, in the 4th paragraph, he continues with examples of that phrase as though they prove his point, when in fact, they prove simply that the Mass was always called the Mass.  Then he says that "misa" suddenly gets the connotation as the entire Liturgy.  Which, I think is disproved by his very first comments on the subject in paragraph 3.

But in the 5th paragraph, he says,

The origin and first meaning of the word, once much discussed, is not really doubtful. We may dismiss at once such fanciful explanations as that missa is the Hebrew missah ("oblation" — so Reuchlin and Luther), or the Greek myesis ("initiation"), or the German Mess ("assembly", "market").  

I was quite surprised when I read this.  I didn't realize that he knew anything about these arguments.  But, it seems really arrogant of him to say that these can merely be dismissed because he says so.  In my opinion it is much more plausible for these to be the source of the name for the Mass, than the convoluted and faulty reason he has proposed.

He goes on and says:

Nor is it the participle feminine of mittere, with a noun understood ("oblatio missa ad Deum", "congregatio missa", i.e., dimissa — so Diez, "Etymol. Wörterbuch der roman. Sprachen", 212, and others).

This is what most people seem to believe today.  I guess they didn't bother to read the whole article.

Then he says:

It is a substantive of a late form for missio. There are many parallels in medieval Latin, collecta, ingressa, confessa, accessa, ascensa — all for forms in -io. It does not mean an offering (mittere, in the sense of handing over to God), but the dismissal of the people, as in the versicle: "Ite missa est" (Go, the dismissal is made). It may seem strange that this unessential detail should have given its name to the whole service.

I guess he didn't bother to read the etymology for the word, "missio".  It turns out, that the word "missio" comes from the Catholic Church.  It is attributed to the Jesuits.

mission (n.) 

1590s, "a sending abroad," originally of Jesuits, from Latin missionem (nominative missio) "act of sending, a despatching; a release, a setting at liberty; discharge from service, dismissal," noun of action from past participle stem of mittere "to send," oldest form probably *smittere, of unknown origin. 

Essentially, what the Catholic Encycopledia has proven, is that the word "dismiss" comes from the name for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the Mass.

Let me know what you think.

Analysis of a Conversion - Why I left the Catholic Church, other Christians

I've been cataloguing the main reasons why I left the Church.  In case you're keeping up, so far I've gone through the introduction, the devil's trick, my aversion to kneeling, my hatred of the Mass, and in my previous entry, I revealed that one of the reasons that I left the Catholic Church was becauase of the witness of other Catholics.  But Catholics weren't the only ones giving poor witness in those days.  So were other Christians.

What a different world this is to the world in which I was raised.  When I was young, only one household in the neighborhood had a television.  That same household had a telephone.  The rest of us didn't have them, so we didn't miss them.  We spent most of our waking hours, outdoors.  Playing baseball, basketball, football, soccer, even spinning tops and casting marbles.  Or we just explored and played using our imagination.  Does anyone remember imagining being a dinosaur?  Or a panther?  Or a soldier?  And as for me, I also spent a lot of time, reading books.  One of my favorite subjects was dogs.  And one of my favorite authors was Jack London.  In one of his books, Jack London said something that had a profound effect upon me.  He said that each man makes his own god.

This rang so true to me.

This article would more accurately be described as, "Why I became an atheist".   You see, I could have left the Catholic Church and gone to another Christian denomination, the way others have done. But I spent a lot of time outdoors and I saw Protestants.   There were Baptists, here.  Jehovahs, there.  Presbyterians, over there.  And they were always stopping people who were minding their own business and asking them if they were saved.  And then, trying to force their religion upon them if they didn't like the answer.  There weren't very many in my mostly Catholic neighborhood, but those few were making a nuisance of themselves.  Whenever I saw one, I would cross the street to avoid him.

As I said in the previous article, Protestants like to claim that Catholics don't give very good example of Christianity.  But guess what, to an atheist, neither do Protestants.  Yeah, they do a lot of talking.  Loud talking.  But they don't walk the walk.  That is why, outside of Protestant circles, Protestantism, is known as Catholic lite.

I still remember the day when my Protestant friend derided me for being drunk at a billiards bar.  He assumed that I was Catholic.  But I was atheist.  Funny thing, he was also drunk at the very same billiards bar.  So, I turned it around on him.  I said, "Don't give me that, your sitting here drunk as me, and I seen you in your suit walking into church on Sunday."  And that is the first time I heard this rejoinder, "Christ died for my sins!"  Giving me to understand that he could sin at will because Christ had died for all his sins.  That sounded ludicrous to me.  After all, I'd been to Catechism.  So, I said, "That's not what that means!"  Then I remembered that I was an atheist and dropped the matter.  What's the sense in fighting over something in which I didn't believe anyway, right?

In my life, I've met lots of Protestants who believe like that.  Although many "confessional" Protestants deny that those type of Protestants exist at all, I get the impression they are the majority.

Aside from the bad example of most Protestants that I've ever met.  It is the reason why that saying of Jack London's rang so true to me.  I had the impression that every Protestant had picked up a bible and by virtue of their belief in Sola Scriptura, had made of himself, his own god.  Believing, not what was passed down by Jesus Christ, but only that which they wanted to believe.  This is something which Jesus Christ sought to prevent when He said:


John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;  21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Jesus Inc.

Jesus Christ established the first CORPORATION. He established a Church (Matt 16:18). Appointed a Leader (John 21:17).
Read More...

Analysis of a Conversion - Why I left the Catholic Church, Public Schools

I can truly say I lived a sheltered life, until I was enrolled in Public School. I had been led to believe that teachers were nice people who loved children. But my very first teacher was a chain smoking woman who loved nothing better than to crack her knuckles or her ruler on the nearest student, just cause she could. 
Read More...

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 1, Article 10

Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

Is Christian doctrine revealed by God?  Does it teach us about the supernatural as well as the natural?

Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?

Is Sacred Scripture literal in all which it teaches?  Or does it express itself in other senses of the words used?

Objection 1. It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.

If a word can have more than one meaning, then the result is confusion rather than effective communication.  Therefore, Sacred Scripture can't have more than one sense in a word.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.

Even in this series of objections, there is no agreement as to the various senses of Scripture.  Therefore, it does not seem wise that Scripture should be divided into senses of Scripture with which even its adherents can not agree.

Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.

And, there is even an other sense which has not been mentioned.  The parabolical (i.e. parable). 

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."

St. Gregory the Great, in his book "Moralia", chapter 20, p 1, says that Sacred Scripture must convey more than one sense because in every sentence, it explains the word of God.

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God,

The primary author of Scripture is God. 

in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves.

God's greatness is such that words do not suffice to convey His meaning as men are thus limited.

So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification.

But Christian doctrine conveys meaning by the express meaning of the words and by things which the words can indirectly signify.

Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal.

Therefore, the first meaning is the literal 

That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.

Then, there is a spiritual meaning which is based upon the literal and must not contradict the literal. 

Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division.

The spiritual sense can be divided into three categories. 

For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do.

Because, it is known that the New Law was foreshadowed in the Old.  And the New is itself a figure of that which is to come.  And in the New Law, all which Christ did is an example of that which we should do.  So the three sense of the spiritual sense are as follows. 

Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense;

The allegorical sense.  Because the Old Law is an allegory of the New. 

so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense.

The moral sense.  Because all which Christ did for us, is what we should also do. 

But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense.

The anagogical sense.  Because all which we do in Christ leads to our justification, sanctification and ultimate salvation.

Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

Since Holy Scripture is written by a  human author inspired by the Spirit of God, then it is presupposed that the words written will have more than one sense.  

Reply to Objection 1. The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.

There is no confusion by the many senses of Scripture.  Because all the senses are based upon and do not contradict the literal sense.

Reply to Objection 2. These three — history, etiology, analogy — are grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives — namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only — the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological.

Although the various Saints focus on certain senses of Scripture and list what appear to be different categories. They do not, in fact, contradict, when they are examined minutely. For instance, in St. Augustines example, he merely divided the literal sense into three categories. And instead of listing the three spiritual senses, he reduced them to one, allegory. Thus, Hugh of St. Victor doesn't list four but three senses, collapsing the anagogical and allegorical together.

Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

The literal sense can be expressed by the use of figures.  For example, if we speak of God's arm, we don't mean that God has an actual limb.  But that God has power to do the thing being discussed.  So, although the literal sense belongs to the human author, the human author was also not limited to the literal sense of the word for his expressing of God's truths.

Jesus Inc.

Jesus Christ established the first CORPORATION. He established a Church (Matt 16:18). Appointed a Leader (John 21:17). 
Read More...

Why should we be Catholic rather than Protestant?

In the Two true religions article, I answered the question, “if God established Judaism, why should we be Catholic?” The gist of the article is that Catholicism is superior to all other religions, including Judaism, because of the Mass and the Sacraments, wherein, we receive God’s sanctifying grace. 
Read More...

The Mass, St. John chapter 6 and the test of faith

When I first started learning Catholic apologetics, between 15 and 20 years ago, I ran across an article on the web that spoke of the Test of Faith. I can’t find it anymore, but for many years, it was one of my favorite bookmarks. Several pc’s have died on me in that time and I lost the link. Anyway, the article was about the Bread of Life discourse in chapter 6 of St. John’s Gospel. 
Read More...

St. Paul Didn't Say Faith Alone

When St. Paul said, “justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28), Luther interpreted that as faith “alone”: But that’s not what St. Paul meant. St. Paul was teaching the justification which occurs in the Sacraments. 
Read More...

CatholicAdNet.com, a web based banner ad network

Hi,
We've recently launched CatholicAdNet.com, a web based banner ad network connecting Catholic and family-friendly brands with the Catholic community online.

CatholicAdNet.com is a network of Catholic based websites, reaching millions of users per month. We use a variety of technologies to target and optimize ad campaigns for both our advertisers and our publishers. All ads and sites are manually verified to be consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, allowing both brands and site owners to not worry about inappropriate content.

CatholicAdNet.com is a bid based banner ad network. As an advertiser you only pay for results, setting how much you’re willing to pay each time someone clicks your ad (CPC) or per 1000 ad impressions (CPM). Whether you bid based on CPC or CPM, we automatically optimize traffic and placements to get you the best results possible. You can change your ad bids as often as you’d like and reporting is real-time.

If you advertise to the Catholic community or run a Catholic based website I would love to discuss how we can work together.

Please visit http://www.CatholicAdNet.com for more information and to get started today.

Thanks
Joe Sweeney
CatholicAdNet.com
(859) 429-7075

Why is it called "the Mass"?

I found this answer on the Internet: The word "Mass" derives from the Latin phrase said during the dismissal (when the Mass is said in Latin), "Ite, missa est," which is usually translated "Go, it is sent." In the Eastern Catholic churches, as in the Eastern Orthodox churches, the service ordinarily is called the divine liturgy. 
Read More...

How do you know that St. Francis didn't say it?

Recently, I was on the internet looking up an old adage. It goes as follows: Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words 
Read More...

Where do Catholics learn about the Word of God?

Catholics approach the Word of God (that includes the Bible) in a manner fundamentally different than Protestants. We approach the Word of God in the manner which Scripture recommends. 
Read More...

Our Lady of Las Lajas

The Spectacular Shrine and Miraculous Image of Our Lady of Las Lajas

• Articles
• History
• Lists
• Supernatural

by ChurchPOP Editor - 

In 1754, the woman Maria Mueces and her deaf-mute daughter Rosa were caught in a terrible storm in a river valley in Colombia.  Read more...

Two articles at Catholic365

Where is the Mass in the Bible?

As usual, the word “mass” is not in the Bible. This is starting to get monotonous, right? Why aren’t any Catholic Doctrines named in the Bible? 
Read More...

The Apostles v Protestant theology

In the comments of the “Five facts….” thread, a Protestant is challenging the idea that the Apostles were Catholic. So, he wants to compare Apostolic Teaching to Catholic Teaching. 
Read More...

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 1, Article 9

Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

Is Christian doctrine revealed by God?  Does it teach us about the supernatural as well as the natural?

Article 9. Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?

Should Christian doctrine ever use figures of speech?

Objection 1. It seems that Holy Scripture should not use metaphors. For that which is proper to the lowest science seems not to befit this science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the aid of various similitudes and figures is proper to poetry, the least of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science should make use of such similitudes.

It is not in accordance with the nobility of something revealed by God that it should be necessary to express its ideas indirectly.  Rather, Divine Revelation should be explicit and clear.  Otherwise, it is not an expression of God but an expression of an imperfect creature.

Objection 2. Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth clear. Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: "They that explain me shall have life everlasting" (Sirach 24:31). But by such similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science.

 Christian doctrine should be clearly expressed in order to properly represent truth.  But figures of speech tend to make truth hard to understand.  Therefore, to compare heavenly things to common things of this world does not help in making Christian doctrine understandable.

Objection 3. Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is often found in Scriptures.

In addition, God should never be represented by the lower forms of life.  Yet, we often find this in Sacred Scripture.

On the contrary, It is written (Hosea 12:10): "I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets." But to put forward anything by means of similitudes is to use metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors.

It is precisely the opposite, it is in figures and visions that God normally communicates with humans.  Therefore, Christian doctrine may contain metaphors.

I answer that, It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature.

Not only is it permissible, but it is necessary that Scripture communicate divine truths by comparing to things of this world.  Otherwise, mankind would not be able to comprehend that which was being communicated.

Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense.

Man's understanding must begin with that which he can see and feel.

Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things.

Therefore, Scripture begins by comparing invisible truths to things which can be seen and felt.

This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils."

Therefore, Dionysius explains that God's grace is given us by means of material things (i.e. the Sacraments).

It is also befitting Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons — "To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" (Romans 1:14) — that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.

And Scripture communicates spiritual truths by means of comparisons to common things in order that  these ideas be comprehended by the simplest minds.

Reply to Objection 1. Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful.

 To the first objection, St. Thomas says, poetry is a discipline but not a science.  It is an art which does not necessarily seek to convey truth, but primarily seeks to entertain.  Therefore, it is improper to compare poetry to Christian doctrine.

However, Christian doctrine uses figures of speech in order to convey truth in a manner that is understood by the simplest of minds.

Reply to Objection 2. The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i); and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths;

The message of God is not destroyed by the common language in which it is conveyed.  The truth is conveyed by common means in order to move the human mind from earthy knowledge to understanding the will of God.

and through those to whom the revelation has been made others also may receive instruction in these matters.

God's message was given to men in order that these men would then convey the message to others.

Hence those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. 

But God's message is not limited to figures.  In some portions, Scripture makes a point figuratively, but in another place, expressly.

The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6).

 In addition, God's truths are not for all.  But only for those who seek God and want to be united to Him.  As the Scripture says, "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6). *

Reply to Objection 3. 

Objection 3 says that divine revelation should never be explained in figures of speech.

As Dionysius says, (Coel. Hier. i) it is more fitting that divine truths should be expounded under the figure of less noble than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons.

St. Thomas gives three reasons why this is not so.  These three were first expressed by St. Dionysius.

Firstly, because thereby men's minds are the better preserved from error. For then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of divine truths, which might have been open to doubt had they been expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who could think of nothing nobler than bodies.

First, because it is easier for men to comprehend and therefore, less likely for men to misunderstand.

Secondly, because this is more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this life. For what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes drawn from things farthest away from God form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him.

2nd, because the essence of God is knowledge which our mind can not comprehend.  Therefore, by giving examples of that which God is not, we come to a better understanding of God's essence.

Thirdly, because thereby divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy.

And finally, because God's truths are not for everyone but only to those who have faith in God and want to please Him. 

On this Feast of All Souls, Prayer FOR the Dead

On this Feast of All Souls, Prayer FOR the Dead

The Protestant object that we should not pray for the dead. They claim that those dead who are in heaven, don't need it. And those dead who are in hell, don't want it. And they deny the existence of Purgatory. How do we respond? Have you ever thought about why you pray for your beloved dead? 
Read More...

Catholic Answers needs your help!

This is the last chance to help Catholic Answers forums - we still need to raise $52,613

Catholic Answers Forums is the largest catholic online forum in the world. It provides a community for people seeking to learn more about God and the faith, that they may come to love Jesus more and serve their neighbor with truth and charity.

Less than 1% of the community donate. That’s why we’re writing to you for your help. If you can help, please do and get an opportunity to receive free gifts for yourself or to share with a friend.

Receive up to 3 Free Gifts

We'd like to send you several special thank yous if you can support the Forums by making a monthly donation of $18 or more (or a one-time gift of $200 or more), including:

• The Glory of the Crusades—A powerful book in which historian Steve Weidenkopf debunks the numerous myths about the Crusades that our secular culture uses as clubs to attack the Church
• The Protestant’s Dilemma—An eye-opening book in which apologist Devin Rose shows over and over again how the premises on which Protestantism is based lead to absurd conclusions

And for a one-time gift of $500, we will give you the above PLUS:

• An Introduction to the Theology of the Body—An 8-part video series on DVD in which popular speaker Christopher West serves as your guide to St. John Paul II’s famous “theology of the body.”
  

Also, you will be entered into a drawing for a FREE iPad Mini that comes with hours of Catholic Answers material.

We know that you value Catholic Answers Forums and all the good they do.

The Forums reach people all over the world with the gospel and many new people are joining them every day, so please CLICK HERE TO HELP SUPPORT THE FORUMS AND BRING MORE SOULS TO CHRIST.

Thank you for your generosity.
 

The Catholic Answers Forums Team

P.S. You need to donate by midnight November 2 to be entered into the drawing for the iPad, CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE SO YOU HELP PEOPLE AND WIN AT THE SAME TIME!

Trick or Treat!

Since today is Halloween, I thought you might be interested in what it means and where it came from. 
Read More...