Recently in History Category

Ever wonder how and why Islam spread so quickly after its birth, and why so many lands that were Christian became Muslim? I did, so I researched the subject and wrote a ten-page paper on it for my Church History course. For this blog article though, I will give you a highly condensed version of the paper and only highlight the main points.

The main conclusion drawn from my research was that the areas most affected by heresy (the Middle East and North Africa) were the areas that eventually became Muslim. Arianism, Monophysitism, and Nestorianism plagued these lands so much that in some cases the local population helped the Muslim invaders defeat the Byzantine, Christian rulers. The molding of Christianity under Greek culture in the Byzantine Empire tended to alienate non-Greek populations from orthodoxy and encourage the molding of Christianity to their culture and different beliefs. They were persecuted for these beliefs and some saw a change in authority as a better option.

These lands were conquered militarily by the Muslim Arabs, but conversions were not made by the sword. Non-Muslims suffered a special tax and some political disadvantages. Over the centuries, in some places faster than others, the population eventually became Muslim. It seems that without the fullness of the Christian Faith, virtually all these Christian sects succumbed to the political-religious phenomenon of Islam. Unlike the Roman persecution of Christians centuries before, there were few heroic acts of martyrdom or adherence to Christianity.

History can teach us a lot about today and the future. In light of recent events, we in the West better think twice before we discard the Truth and the fullness of the Faith. Pursuing it in Christ and His Church is best way to defeat any heresy, any evil. May ecumenical dialogue and ongoing conversion that begins with “me” bring the fruit of peace in the world.

In Christ,
Daniel

Over the last twenty years or so this has been a common assertion: Pope Pius XII helped Hitler during World War II. He’s even been called “Hitler’s Pope” by a less-than-honest writer that in some ways started the controversy. I’ve written on this topic before in Piux XII and Hitler: Facts, not Fiction, but I just read an excellent passage in Did Jesus Have a Last Name? by Matthew Pinto and Jason Evert. So good I had to post it, in fact:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As nearly every reputable historian will attest, the suggestion that the Catholic Church did nothing to help Jews escape Nazi oppression during World War II is totally false. This claim is nothing more than popular anti-Catholic propaganda of the worst kind.

Here are the facts: In 1937, Pope Pius XI, responding to the rise of Adolph Hitler’s oppression of the Jews, condemned Nazism in his encyclical letter Mit Brennender Sorge, “With Burning Sorrow.” (Interestingly, this encyclical was written in German – not the traditional Latin – so that its message would be clearly understood by the Nazis.) His successor, Pius XII, took office in 1939 just as World War II was beginning.

By 1940, Nazi Germany had conquered most of Europe and Northern Africa and had allied itself with Italy, which was then led by the dictator Benito Mussolini. As a result, the Vatican, located in the heart of the Italian capital of Rome, found itself isolated and cut off from the rest of the world. However, this did not deter the pope from continuing to speak out against the actions of the Nazis. For example, in his Christmas message of 1941, Pius XII specifically denounced the persecution of the Jewish people, something that many people were denying was occurring. The New York Times praised his message and wrote, “This Christmas more than ever Pope Pius XII is a lonely voice crying out in the silence of a continent . . . When he assails violent occupation of territory, the exile and persecution of human beings for no reason other than race or political opinion . . . the ‘impartial’ judgment is like a verdict in our high court of justice.” In other words, the editors of the New York Times at that time affirmed that the pope was speaking out against Nazi oppression of the Jews.

In addition to official Church statements, the Vatican issued numerous protests directly to Hitler’s government. This fact was attested during the Nuremburg war crimes trials immediately following the war. The Church also quietly took many other actions during this time, all of which helped save thousands of lives. In his book, Three Popes and the Jews, leading Jewish author, historian, and Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide estimates that more than 860,000 Jews were saved due to the rescue efforts coordinated by Pope Pius XII.

During the Nazi occupation of Rome, Pius XII helped hide thousands of Jewish refugees in religious houses and in the Vatican itself, and allowed false baptismal certificates to be issued to protect them from being discovered. He also ordered other general relief efforts such as the distribution of food and clothing, as well as the melting down of sacred vessels to use their gold as a ransom for Jews held by the Nazis. The pope did all of this knowing that any defiance of Hitler’s regime would mean immediate and severe retaliation, especially to those who were directly involved in such efforts.

After the war, Israel’s chief rabbi formally thanked the pope for all his efforts in helping rescue so many Jews. The chief rabbi of Rome went a step further – he was baptized into the Catholic faith on February 13, 1945, taking the baptismal name Eugenio (Pius XII’s birth name) to show his gratitude.

When Pius XII died in 1958, Golda Meir, the Israeli delegate to the United Nations, said this about him: “When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.” Dr. Raphael Cantoni, a leader in Italy’s Jewish Assistance Committee added, “Six million of my co-religionists have been murdered by the Nazis . . . but there would have been many more victims had it not been for the efficacious intervention of Pius XII.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, far from being “Hitler’s Pope,” Pius XII saved almost 1 million Jewish lives during the Holocaust and spoke out at great personal peril. We owe him thanks, not lies, for his work during that time.

By the way, the book cited, Did Jesus Have a Last Name? is a pretty good Catholic book for teens and other new Catholics. It takes common questions and answers them insightfully – most are theological questions, but some like this were deemed important enough to add.

God bless,
Jay

Since the Titanic, James Cameron hasn’t done much as a director. But this week he produces a new documentary that has stirred a ton of controversy: The Tomb of Jesus airs on the Discovery channel this weekend. The documentary claims that Jesus’ tomb was found with his family – including his wife, Mary Magdalene and their son. Is this true? And what does it mean, if so?

Ramifications: Who Cares if the Tomb of Christ is found?
Before we examine the claims, it’s important to understand what the claim means. What are the ramifications if the tomb of Jesus has been found? Here are the big ones:

• The Bible is false. The central claim of the Bible is that Jesus was physically raised from the dead after three days, rather than entombed. If this claim is proven false, the Bible cannot be believed as a honest account of the events of Jesus’ life.
  
• The Catholic Church is false. For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has taught that Jesus rose bodily from the dead in accord with Scripture. If His tomb was found, she is wrong and her claim to infallibility is gone. In addition, her teachings on the Resurrection saving us are wrong, which means . . .
  
• All of Christianity is dead. The Christian faith claims that Jesus died for our sins as the perfect sacrifice and that this sacrifice is what allows us to go to heaven. If Jesus died like regular men, then He is not God and thus cannot save us from our sins.
  

Our faith is based upon the pillar of Christ’s death and resurrection. If His body is found, then He was not resurrected as we have been told. All of our faith would then be in vain.

Evidence: What does the Documentary Claim?
The documentary claims that a tomb found by Amos Kloner 27 years ago contains the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene, and their child, among others. They base much of their evidence on numbers: the statistical chances that a tomb would contain Jesus’ name along with other graves containing those believed to be Jesus’ family during that time.

The proof from Cameron’s point of view lies in possibilities: what is the possibility of a tomb containing a grave labeled “Jesus” from that time period. He extrapolates this to be proof of Jesus’ remains.

So did James Cameron find Jesus’ Tomb?
Since James Cameron is a movie director, let’s look at what historians and archeologists tell us rather than what James Cameron tells us. One tell-tale sign from the start is that not one single respected archeologist from the region will support Mr. Cameron’s theory. Not one. And Amos Kloner, who found the original tomb, calls these claims both “impossible” and “nonsense.” Only the writer of the book (that the documentary is based on) named Simcha Jacobovici agrees with Mr. Cameron. Father Jonathan Morris on FoxNews writes what James Cameron should have said:

We really got scared when people like Joe Zias, who spent 25 years as an archeologist at Rockefeller University in Jerusalam, called into question our integrity. I think he said publicly “Simcha has no credibility whatsoever.” And even though the great archeologist, Amos Kloner, tried to rain on our party when he said, “The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell.”

But why? What is the evidence that this claim is not true? Let’s start with the claims of the name. From US Today:

The claim rests on a statistical analysis of the inscribed names on the ossuaries in the tomb, which was first uncovered during construction in 1980, and a DNA analysis of the remains in ossuaries inscribed with the names "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara." The analysis suggests the two were not blood kin and thus perhaps married.
The statistical analysis set odds of about 600-to-1 that the combination of names on the ossuaries didn't belong to the family of Jesus.
Shimon Gibson of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem, one of the three archaeologists who first explored the "middle-class" tomb, appeared with Cameron at the announcement and pronounced himself "skeptical but open-minded" about the possibility that Jesus' family tomb has been found.
But others were less charitable.
"These were very widespread names at the time, and finding a family tomb with ossuaries inscribed with them proves nothing," says biblical scholar Robert Eisenman of California State University-Long Beach.
Burials show 21% of women in Jesus' era were named Mary, says Richard Bauckham of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.
Jesus, Joseph, Judah and Mara (Martha) were also among the top 10 names.

Several archeologists have also suggested that the names were translated incorrectly, since Hebrew is notoriously difficult to decipher in cases like this. The Wall Street Journal also points out some of the issues:

The "Jesus tomb" explorers trot out statistics on ancient Hebrew names, claiming that the ones in the tomb sound too much like known Jesus family members for the similarity to be a coincidence. But since we've only excavated a minority of archaeological and tomb sites even in Jerusalem, most ancient names are still buried in the earth, making meaningful statistical analysis difficult. What we can say for certain is that most of the names found in the Talpiot tomb on the outskirts of Jerusalem have been seen in many places elsewhere--in texts, on potsherds, in inscriptions, in the Bible itself. They are not rare even by the standards of the limited evidence we do have.
Any good scientific theory must account for all the evidence--in this case, all the names we find in the Talpiot tomb and not just the ones that match the holy-family theory. For instance, we have a Matthew in the tomb, but Jesus had no brothers named Matthew. And where are brothers like Simon, or the sisters mentioned in Mark 6, and where especially is brother James? We actually know that James was buried within sight of the Temple Mount, and Talpiot is miles from there. Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian, saw the tomb and the standing inscribed slab in front of it.
You also have to ask yourself: Why would most of the holy family from Galilee be buried in a middle-class tomb several miles outside of Jerusalem in some sheep pasture? They were, in fact, poor and could not afford an ornamental tomb like this one. This family was from Nazareth, too, with connections in Bethlehem. Why wouldn't its members be buried in one of those places?
We also know that crucifixion was considered the most shameful and hideous way to die, a blow from which one's family honor did not soon recover, if ever. So shamefully did Jesus die that his first followers and even most of his family abandoned him: He was not buried by family members or by the Galilean disciples. He was put in a tomb near the old city that did not belong to any of them.

We live in a day and age that any claim against Christianity, no matter how ridiculous, is taken seriously. James Cameron can make up any stories he likes – he even ignores much of the evidence in this case – and the Discovery channel will run it. Not because it is scientifically valid (since when has the Discovery channel cared about science?), but because James Cameron has the money to widely publish his claims. If we but knew more – as the Wall Street Journal also points out:

In a surreal moment on "Larry King Live" earlier this week, the film's producer, James Cameron (of "Titanic" fame), told us with a straight face that we should all be thankful that we now have tangible evidence that Jesus existed. Actually, no serious historian of biblical antiquity has ever doubted that there was a historical Jesus. Yet it tells us a lot about the state of our culture that Mr. Cameron's remark, backed by pseudo-science, could be seriously made on national television and that the film's companion book has already shot up to No. 5 on Amazon's rankings. We are a Jesus-haunted culture that is so historically illiterate that anything can now pass for knowledge of Jesus.

Our ignorance lines the pockets of those who, like Mr. Cameron, seek fortune over reality.

Is this real? No. Last year we had The Da Vinci Code and this year we have The Tomb of Christ. As long as our populance is so ignorant of history the will be money made with pseudo-science and rewritten history – anything that trieds to contradict Christianity. And why not? After all, materialists can sleep easy if they find that there is no judgment after this world.

God bless,
Jay

History is being made this week as Pope Benedict XVI visits the predominately-Muslim nation of Turkey. It is a wonderful example of Pope Benedict taking Christianity throughout the world and calling us all to holiness in the process. For updated coverage, take a look at the Spero New page on the Pope's journey. It is full of information about the purpose and meaning of the Pope's trip as well as details on a daily basis.

Also, take a moment and pray for Muslims that they would come closer to Jesus Christ and his Church.

God bless,
Jay

We're still on the Pope Benedict comments since it is creating quite the controversy in the world. And the Wall Street Journal published an excellent analysis of the situation today (registration required). Some key points:

[Regarding the Pope's quote] Taken alone, these are strong words. However, the pope didn't endorse the comment that he twice emphasized was not his own. No matter. As with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," which millions of outraged Muslims didn't bother to read (including Ayatollah Khomeini, who put the bounty on the novelist's life), what Benedict XVI meant or even said isn't the issue. Once again, many Muslim leaders are inciting their faithful against perceived slights and trying to proscribe how free societies discuss one of the world's major religions.

This is a big problem for Muslims in the world: they are protesting something that didn't actually happen. Not just protesting - they are threating to kill someone over remarks that they either don't understand or didn't bother to understand. There's more:

The question raised by the pope is whether this convergence has taken place in Islam as well. He quotes the Lebanese Catholic theologist Theodore Khoury, who said that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent, his will is not bound up with any of our categories." If this is true, can there be dialogue at all between Islam and the West? For the pope, the precondition for any meaningful interfaith discussions is a religion tempered by reason: "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures," he concluded.

This is not an invitation to the usual feel-good interfaith round-tables. It is a request for dialogue with one condition--that everyone at the table reject the irrationality of religiously motivated violence. The pope isn't condemning Islam; he is inviting it to join rather than reject the modern world.

The whole piece is good, so read it here.

Glad to see someone in the media is paying attention.

God bless,
Jay

Today a Cardinal at the Vatican spoke out about Pope Benedict's comments:

In the passage of the speech that has roused so much anger, the Pope was quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, and the Pontiff "did not intend "to make that opinion is own in any way," the Secretary of State said. What the Pope intended, the Italian cardinal emphasized, was "a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come."

Pope Benedict is dismayed, the cardinal said, because his words were "interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions." Far from belittling the faith of Muslims, he noted, the Holy Father had explicitly warned, in that same speech, against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom."

You can read the key part of Pope Benedict XVI's talk in our post on his Muslim comments.

There are some other good blogger opinions on this as well. Start with The Curt Jester's look at the controversy. As always his points are humorous, but don't miss the very valid points. And Relapsed Catholic has even more. And Open Book by Amy Welborn has everything you want to read about it. She points to even more outside bloggers and the insights are amazing.

The world is mad. Pray for us.

God bless,
Jay

Apparently Pope Benedict XVI has stirred up Muslim anger over comments made in his speech last Tuesday. Is the anger justified? Well, we can read the entire speech here. But what offended Muslims was this section of his talk:

[Initial part speaks of the University where he is speaking and where he once taught] This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the [Logos]. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, [not readable in English] (T, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.

The quote is necessarily extensive, since our Holy Father builds the discussion throughout the talk. But I think it's clear: to quote a historically accurate quote is not to accept the quote at face value. To say the Pope's talks are being taken out of context for political gain is an understatement. The Pope, to be sure, is not Muslim and would argue that Islam is not correct and Christianity is correct [obviously].

However, it seems that the very Muslims who call for violence have decided to use this to incite more violence. Never mind that they are lying by taking the words out of context - they don't really believe anyway or they would not be terrorists. What bothers me is the lack of Islamic believers who refuse to quietly allow their faith to be taken over by these terrorists - who do not follow many of the teachings of Islam. Where is your backbone?

The irony here is that one of the Pope's comments are being ignored by those that most need to hear them. Violence, especially in the name of religion, is incongrous with the concept of God. And violence is now being pushed by some in the name of God over the Pope's comments.

What a world we live in. Much, much prayer is needed.

God bless,
Jay

Unfortunately there's one oddity we can't get around: People believe the Da Vinci Code. No matter how clear the errors are expressed, some people will always believe the book is true. Christianity Today points out that 60% of British readers believe there is "some truth" to the book. What's even more remarkable is that 30% of those who had not read the book agree!

As a Christian you need to be ready to counter the claims made by Dan Brown and explain why they are false. It's important to point out to friends and family, even if you think they should know, that the book is completely false. Be sure to read this post on The Da Vinci Code for more details (and don't miss this one either).

Remember, you have to act before stuff like The Da Vinci Code becomes perceived as true. At that point it is very difficult to refute.

God bless,
Jay

May is considered to be a Marian month, so I thought it would be appropriate to consider what the Early Fathers taught about Mary.

On the Immaculate Conception

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary."
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135

"As he formed her without my stain of her own,so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
Theodotus of Ancrya,Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."
Peter Chrysologus,Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97

"[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary."
Jacob of Sarug(ante A.D. 521),in CE

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay" Theotoknos of Livias,Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,180

"Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God.... The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation"
Andrew of Crete,Sermon I,On the Birth of Mary(A.D. 733),in THEO,180

"[T]ruly elect, and superior to all,not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as ecelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever."
Germanus of Constantinople,Marracci in S. Germani Mariali(ante A.D. 733),in ULL,98

"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew."
John of Damascus,Homily I in Nativ.(ante A.D. 749),in THEO,200

[The Gnostics] declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

- - St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:31:1.

From The Founding of Christendom by Warren H. Carroll:

The next two days [after Palm Sunday] He went to the Temple. On Monday, April 3, 30 A.D., the preponderance of evidence suggests that for a second time He drove the money-changers and the animal sellers out of the Temple, the circumstances and His words being very similar to those of His first “cleansing of the Temple” at the beginning of His public ministry two Passovers before. It was this that probably prompted the first challenge flung at Him on that day of ultimate verbal battle, Tuesday, April 4, 30 A.D.: “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?” Jesus’ answer was a counter-question: “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? Answer me.” His enemies dared not answer, because the people venerated the memory of John the Baptist and would have been furious if their leaders had publicly denied that God had sent John; yet if they admitted that, they could have no reason for continuing to resist Him Whose coming and glory John had proclaimed. Jesus’ response was far from a mere debating trick; it was both an answer in essence to the question He had been asked – for John was sent by God, and John had called upon all to follow Jesus – and at the same time an effective exposure of the hypocrisy and malice of the Pharisees.
After that, it was all-out war between Jesus and His foes.

God bless,
Jay