We were exhorted this morning at Mass to pray urgently for Pope Francis' trip to Egypt. Egypt is anything but safe for Christians these days, and Francis isn't exactly helping matters by refusing to travel around in his bulletproof Popemobile. That's just how he rides (literally). You have to both shake your head at it and respect it at the same time. Pope Francis clearly wishes to be with the Christians of Egypt at this most difficult time. They suffer greatly for their faith. We can learn so much from them.

Notice I said "their" faith. The majority of Egyptian Christians are, of course, orthodox Coptic. This dates back to the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451. The controversy surrounded the nature(s) of Christ. The Monophysites held that Christ had one nature. The Church upheld that Christ has a Divine nature and a human nature. Anything other than this would not allow Christ to be fully Divine and fully human. It would be to say that Christ is, I don't know, a mod or a Gan? Some sort of blend of God and man. This is fraught with problems. God cannot change or He wouldn't be God. Christ must be fully man or else humanity wouldn't be redeemed. The theological problems of Monophysitism are extremely significant. Hence a complete schism in 451.

How does this relate to the upcoming Papal trip? It may or it may not. For starters, the Coptics consider their Patriarch of Alexandria to be their head. For many Francis would merely be considered a schismatic bishop of Rome. Thus, I fear that if our Pope Francis arrives with his recent TED talk mentality of fluffy hope, revolution of tenderness, and future you blather, his words and actions will be to no effect. It would be the equivalent of the local Church of the Rock protestant worship leader coming over to our local Catholic church in the midst of some crisis to tell us that we are one, peace is flowing like a river, and that we should cherish his words and be honoured by his visit because he's so significant to the community. He'd then kiss a baby for the cameras and leave. I fear there'd be no real point to such a visit. It would have a touch of hegemony and pride.

Yet I also believe Pope Francis can have an impact with his visit. If he follows the method of his predecessor Benedict XVI. Benedict's method is twofold for it involves truth and justice. Firstly, Benedict understands when there are deep differences, and does not cover them. For Egypt, this would involve Pope Francis being cognizant of the schism, and not assuming Coptic Christians will heed his words as if he were their pope. The truth is that beliefs on Christ and the papacy differ, and thus the approach must reflect this reality.

Benedict XVI also firmly believes that peace is not possible without justice. For instance, in his second book of the Jesus of Nazareth series, Benedict explains that Pilate had Jesus handed over to death in order to maintain a false peace. This false peace was completely un-Romanesque, and ultimately ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. Peace requires justice. Benedict backed up the call for justice in his famous Regensburg Address where he lucidly explained the violence found in Islam. If Pope Francis comes out and demands justice for our Egyptian Christian brothers, he will surely make an impact. His visit will not be a photo op filled with empty words, but rather will be the head of the Roman Church showing a true concern for a Christian people struggling for daily survival. The orthodox Coptic Christians would surely appreciate this effort.

Therefore, I still see the schism of 451 as significant to the upcoming visit of Pope Francis. Though we are Christians, there is a difference which will affect the message Pope Francis brings. His substance must be true and it must speak of justice. Only then will they observe the love behind it.

Jesus Loves Me This I know, for the Summa Tells Me So!

Throughout the past 2 1/2 months I have been taking a Christology course through Holy Apostles College and Seminary. Now I have taken Christology courses before, be it through the Academy or even at Redeemer (from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox). In these courses the study of the Church Fathers was emphasized. However, this current course is different. Namely, it examines Christology through the mind of St. Thomas Aquinas, via the Summa Theologica and the the Summa Contra Gentiles. As a supplement we are also studying many of the works of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict on Christology. Also, the course is a 900-level course, which essentially means it demands more work and deeper insight.

Currently I am studying in anticipation of my final exam in two weeks. I won't have much time to study while I teach, so I thought it best to start now. I am currently pouring over many Summa articles. Here are some of my favourites from this semester (though I have dumbed them down slightly)...

III, Q. 1, Art. 2 - Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate?

I like this question because it is the grandaddy of all questions for Christians. Did Christ have to come down as man to save us? To answer, in the words of Bilbo Baggins: "well no!...    ...and YES..."

Essentially Aquinas gives the classic distinction of relative vs. absolute necessity. Absolutely speaking, Christ did not have to come down as man to save us. God could have snapped his immaterial fingers and man could have been saved. However, relatively speaking it was necessary. In other words, it was fitting that Christ became man; to help strengthen our faith, hope, and charity, and to atone for the sins of man to God through the sacrifice of the God-man. Very fitting indeed. But not of absolute necessity, which in a sense demonstrates all the more the love of God by willingly humbling himself to become man, and suffer.

So the next time something doesn't go your way, don't get mad at God! He knows what it's like to suffer...


III, Q. 1, Art. 5 - Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race?

In other words, why didn't Jesus come earlier? Or even, as article 6 asks, why didn't Jesus come at the end of the world? Why come when he did?

Quite simply, the world wasn't ready for Jesus at the beginning of the human race. It took many years to understand that, golly gee, this world is messed up and needs some saving. On the other hand, waiting until the end of the world would be a little late, don't you think? Sort of like getting the answer to a movie while the final credits are rolling.


III, Q. 3, Art. 8 - Whether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than any other Divine Person should assume human nature?

Could the Father have come instead? Or how about the Holy Spirit? Or what about all three?
Yes, yes, and yes.

But, it was more fitting that Jesus come. Why? Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. In other words, as the Son he's the best exemplar. He's the best example of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God, for he is the image of the invisible God. Does that make sense? Sigh. Just read the article.


III, Q. 4, Art. 1 - Whether human nature was more assumable by the Son of God than any other nature?

Why didn't God assume the nature of a butterfly instead? That's discrimination! God should be taken to the human rights tribunal. Or, why didn't God assume the nature of an angel? Surely angels are higher than men!

Well, irrational creatures lack dignity for God to assume their nature. Sorry butterflies. You're nice, but not that nice. On the other hand, angels have no need of God taking on their nature to save them. Angels are good, and will always remain good.

But what about the devil and his demons??? Their choice is an eternal choice. They can't be saved, because they have made an eternal decision to disobey God. So to hell with them!


III, Q. 7, Art. 3 and 4 - Whether in Christ there was faith? Whether in Christ there was hope?

Christ had no faith. Christ had no hope. Now go out there and be Christ-like!

True. But Christ didn't have faith because faith is for Divine things unseen. And Christ had the beatific vision (i.e. he constantly beheld the Divine, for he was Divine). Christ didn't have hope either, for God is the object of hope, and Christ is God. So, strictly speaking, Christ did not have faith or hope (but he had charity, of course).


III, Q. 8, Art. 8 - Whether Anti-christ may be called the head of all the wicked?

Who doesn't love a good debate on demonology? I feel like Brent and Hank at Corner Gas debating the age old question: "Who is worse, the devil or the Anti-Christ?"

The devil is worse. The devil is first in the order of wickedness and sin. The devil also has more power and influence of evil. However, in a sense the Anti-Christ will have the wickedness of the devil most fully impressed on him. Further, the Anti-Christ more closely represents the opposite of Christ. You know, the Anti of Christ, hence the name the Anti-Christ. It gets the point across. So in that sense he's a greater mockery to Christ. But the devil is still the head of the wicked.

With all of this in mind, I hope you don't have to go to sleep anytime soon...


III, Q. 15, Art. 2 - Whether there was the "fomes" of sin in Christ?

I just like this question because of the word "fomes." Fomes is a Latin word meaning "tinder." In other words, it refers to our likelihood, or tremendous inclination, to sin. Christ did not have this "tinder" towards sin. Why? Because Christ always obeyed right reason. His reason perfectly controlled his passions. Therefore, there was no inclination to sin in Christ. He just followed reason perfectly.


III, Q. 18, Art. 1 - Whether there are two wills in Christ?

Christ is not Gollum, but he does have two wills - one Divine, and one human.  If Christ didn't have a human will then he wouldn't truly be a man. If he didn't have a Divine will then he wouldn't truly be God. Simple, isn't it? It's hard to believe so many heresies started over such a simple truth.

I love how Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Ratzinger, explains Christ's two wills:

“the two ‘wills’ are united in the way in which two wills can be united, namely, in a common affirmation of a shared value. In other words, what unites the two wills is the Yes of Christ’s human will to the divine will of the Logos. Thus, in concrete terms – ‘existentially’ – the two wills become a single will while remaining, at the ontological level, two independent realities.”

Behold the Pierced One - p. 92

If our wills are totally united to doing God's will, in essence we will be acting as one will (though in actuality it will be two). Very beautiful, Pope Benedict!


So, there you have some of my favourite articles from this semester. I really didn't do them justice. You'll just have to read them yourself!