Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) - Index Page

The following is a list of the volumes of the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) that I was able to locate at Google Books and/or Archive.org. I wish to express my appreciation for the work I found at "Pr. Stefan"'s blog (link). There were a few issues with his list, and I have attempted to improve upon it, to the extent that I am able.

As you will note there is no obvious pattern to the order of the books. If you are looking for a particular father's work, therefore, you may have to a word search on his Latin name to find whether his works are included. I have not attempted to track down every Google copy for each volume (although there is a bibliogroup that may be helpful). If you find that any of the links are not to versions that are still "full view," please let me know.

Vol. 1 SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Opera – ed. C. Halm 1866; PSEUDO-SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Epistulae – ed. C. Halm 1866 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 2 FIRMICUS MATERNUS, De errore profanarum religionum – ed. C. Halm 1869; MINUCIUS FELIX – ed. C. Halm 1867 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 CYPRIANUS, Opera – ed. W. Hartel 1868/71 (via Archive)(copy 2)(copy 3)(copy 4)
Vol. 4 ARNOBIUS, Adversus nationes – ed. A. Reifferscheid 1875 (via Archive)
Vol. 5 OROSIUS, Historiae adversus paganos, Apologeticus – ed. C. Zangemeister 1882 (via Archive)
Vol. 6 ENNODIUS, Opera – ed. W. Hartel 1882 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 7 VICTOR VITENSIS, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae, PSEUDO-VICTOR VITENSIS, Passio septem monachorum, Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africae – ed. M. Petschenig 1881 (via Archive)
Vol. 8 SALVIANUS, De gubernatione dei, Epistulae, Ad ecclesiam – ed. F. Pauly 1883 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 9/1 EUGIPPIUS, Excerpta ex operibus S. Augustini – ed. P. Knöll 1886
Vol. 9/2 EUGIPPIUS, (Epistula ad Probam virginem??), Vita S. Severini – ed. P. Knöll 1885
Vol. 10 SEDULIUS, Carmen paschale, Opus paschale, Epistulae – ed. J. Huemer 1885; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. V. Panagl 2007) (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 11 CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS, De statu animae, Epistula ad Sapaudum – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1885 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 12 AUGUSTINUS, Speculum, Liber de divinis scripturis – ed. F. Weihrich 1887 (via Archive)
Vol. 13 Iohannes CASSIANUS, Conlationes – ed. M. Petschenig 1886; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. G. Kreuz 2004) (via Archive)
Vol. 14 LUCIFER CALARITANUS, De non conveniendo cum haereticis, De regibus apostaticis, De sancto Athanasio, De non parcendo in deum delinquentibus, Moriendum esse pro dei filio, Epistulae – ed. W. Hartel 1886 (via Archive)
Vol. 15 COMMODIANUS, Carmen apologeticum, Instructiones – ed. B. Dombart 1887 (via Archive)
Vol. 16/1-2 Poetae Christiani Minores: PAULINUS PETRICORDIAE, Carmina – ed. M. Petschenig; ORIENTIUS, Carmina – ed. R. Ellis; PAULINUS PELLAEUS, Eucharisticos – ed. W. Brandes; CLAUDIUS MARIUS VICTOR, Alethia – ed. C. Schenkl; PROBA, Cento – ed. C. Schenkl; ANONYMUS, Sancti Paulini epigramma, Versus ad gratiam domini, De verbi incarnatione, De ecclesia – ed. C. Schenkl; 1888 (via Archive)
Vol. 17 Iohannes CASSIANUS, De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium vitiorum remediis, De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium – ed. M. Petschenig 1888; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. G. Kreuz 2004) (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 18 PRISCILLIANUS, Tractatus, Canones; OROSIUS, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum – ed. G. Schepss 1889 (via Archive)
Vol. 19 LACTANTIUS, Divinae institutiones, Epitome divinarum institutionum – ed. S. Brandt 1890
Vol. 20 TERTULLIANUS, De spectaculis, De idololatria, Ad nationes, De testimonio animae, Scorpiace, De oratione, De baptismo, De ieiunio, De anima, De pudicitia – ed. A. Reifferscheid, G. Wissowa 1890 (via Archive)
Vol. 21 FAUSTUS REIENSIS, Opera – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1891 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 22 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS, Tractatus super psalmos – ed. A. Zingerle 1891 (via Archive)
Vol. 23 CYPRIANUS GALLUS, Heptateuchos, Fragmenta, De Sodoma, De Iona propheta; PSEUDO-HILARIUS, In Genesin ad Leonem papam, De martyrio Maccabaeorum, De evangelio – ed. R. Peiper 1891 (ANONYMUS, (Cypriani) Carmen ad quendam senatorem – ed. R. Peiper 1881); bound with (same link) Vol. 24 IUVENCUS, Evangeliorum libri – ed. J. Huemer 1891 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 25/1, 25/2 AUGUSTINUS, De utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus, Contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, Contra Adimantum, Contra epistulam fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, Contra Felicem Manichaeum, De natura boni, Epistula Secundini, Contra Secundinum Manichaeum – ed. J. Zycha 1891/92 (via Archive)
Vol. 26 OPTATUS MILEVITANUS, Contra Parmenianum Donatistam, Appendix decem monumentorum veterum – ed. C. Ziwsa 1893 (via Archive)
Vol. 27/1 LACTANTIUS, De opificio dei, De ira dei, Carmina, Fragmenta – ed. S. Brandt 1893; bound with (same link) Vol. 27/2 LACTANTIUS, De mortibus persecutorum – ed. S. Brandt, G. Laubmann 1897 (via Archive)(copy 2)(copy 3)
Vol. 28/1 AUGUSTINUS, De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus, De Genesi ad litteram, Locutiones in Heptateuchum – ed. J. Zycha 1894
Vol. 28/2 AUGUSTINUS, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Adnotationes in Iob – ed. J. Zycha 1895 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 29 PAULINUS NOLANUS, Epistulae – ed. W. Hartel 1894; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Kamptner 1999)
Vol. 30 PAULINUS NOLANUS, Carmina; PAULINUS PELLAEUS, Oratio – ed. W. Hartel 1894; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Kamptner 1999) (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 31 EUCHERIUS, Opera – ed. C. Wotke 1894 (via Archive)(via Archive)
Vol. 32/1 AMBROSIUS, Hexameron, De paradiso, De Cain, De Noe, De Abraham, De Isaac, De bono mortis – ed. C. Schenkl 1896 (other edition)(via Archive)(via Archive)
Vol. 32/2 AMBROSIUS, De Iacob, De Ioseph, De patriarchis, De fuga saeculi, De interpellatione Iob et David, De apologia prophetae David, De Helia, De Nabuthae, De Tobia – ed. C. Schenkl 1897 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 32/3 ???
Vol. 32/4 AMBROSIUS, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam – ed. C. Schenkl 1902 (via Archive)
Vol. 33 AUGUSTINUS, Confessiones – ed. P. Knöll 1896 (via Archive)
Vol. 34/1 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 1-30 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1895 (via Archive)
Vol. 34/2 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 31-123 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1898 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 35/1 COLLECTIO AVELLANA, Epistulae 1-104 - ed. O. Günther 1895, 1898
Vol. 35/2 COLLECTIO AVELLANA, Epistulae 105-244 - ed. O. Günther 1895, 1898 (via Archive)
Vol. 36 AUGUSTINUS, Retractationes – ed. P. Knöll 1902 (via Archive)
Vol. 37 CASSIODORUS, Contra Apionem – ed. C. Boysen 1898 (via Archive)
Vol. 38 FILASTRIUS, Diversarum hereseon liber – ed. F. Marx 1898
Vol. 39 ITINERARIA HIEROSOLYMITANA – ed. P. Geyer 1898 (via Archive)
Vol. 40/1 AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei (libri i-xiii) – ed. E. Hoffmann 1899/1900 (via Archive)
Vol. 40/2 AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei (libri xiv-xxii) – ed. E. Hoffmann 1899/1900 (via Archive)
Vol. 41 AUGUSTINUS, De fide et symbolo, De fide et operibus, De agone christiano, De continentia, De bono coniugali, De virginitate, De bono viduitatis, De adulterinis coniugiis, De mendacio, Contra mendacium, De opere monachorum, De divinatione daemonum, De cura pro mortuis gerenda, De patientia – ed. J. Zycha 1900 (via Archive)
Vol. 42 AUGUSTINUS, De perfectione iustitiae hominis, De gestis Pelagii, De gratia Christi, De nuptiis et concupiscentia – ed. C. F. Vrba, J. Zycha 1902
Vol. 43 AUGUSTINUS, De consensu evangelistarum – ed. F. Weihrich 1904 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 44 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 124-184 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1904 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 45 EVAGRIUS, Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum – ed. E. Bratke 1904
Vol. 46 RUFINUS, Interpretatio orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1910 (via Archive)
Vol. 47 TERTULLIANUS, De patientia, De carnis resurrectione, Adversus Hermogenem, Adversus Valentinianos, Adversus omnes haereses, Adversus Praxean, Adversus Marcionem – ed. E. Kroymann 1906 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 48 BOETHIUS, In Prophyrii isagogen commenta – ed. S. Brandt 1906
Vol. 49 VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS, Opera – ed. J. Haussleiter 1916
Vol. 50 [AMBROSIASTER] PSEUDO-AUGUSTINUS, Quaestiones veteris et novi testamenti – ed. A. Souter 1908 (via Archive)
Vol. 51 AUGUSTINUS, Psalmus contra partem Donati, Contra epistulam Parmeniani, De baptismo – ed. M. Petschenig 1908 (Via Archive)
Vol. 52 AUGUSTINUS, Contra litteras Petiliani, Epistula ad catholicos de secta Donatistarum, Contra Cresconium grammaticum et Donatistam – ed. M. Petschenig 1909 (via Archive)
Vol. 53 AUGUSTINUS, De unico baptismo, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, Contra partem Donati post gesta, Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem, Gesta cum Emerito Donatistarum episcopo, Contra Gaudentium Donatistarum episcopum – ed. M. Petschenig 1910 (via Archive)
Vol. 54 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 1-70 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; (editio altera supplementis aucta 1996)(via Archive)
Vol. 55 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 71-120 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; (editio altera supplementis aucta 1996) (via Archive)
Vol. 56/1 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 121-154 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; (editio altera supplementis aucta 1996) (via Archive)
Vol. 56/2 HIERONYMUS, Epistularum Indices – comp. M. Kamptner 1996
Vol. 57 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 185-270 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1911
Vol. 58 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae: Praefatio et indices – ed. A. Goldbacher 1923
Vol. 59 HIERONYMUS, In Hieremiam prophetam – ed. S. Reiter 1913
Vol. 60 AUGUSTINUS, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, De spiritu et littera, De natura et gratia, De natura et origine animae, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum – ed. C. F. Vrba, J. Zycha 1913
Vol. 61 PRUDENTIUS, Carmina – ed. J. Bergman 1926
Vol. 62 AMBROSIUS, Expositio de psalmo CXVIII – ed. M. Petschenig 1913, (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Zelzer 1999)
Vol. 63 AUGUSTINUS, Contra Academicos, De beata vita, De ordine – ed. P. Knöll 1922
Vol. 64 AMBROSIUS, Explanatio super psalmos XII – ed. M. Petschenig 1919; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Zelzer 1999)
Vol. 65 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS, Tractatus mysteriorum, Fragmenta, Ad Constantium Imperatorem, Hymni; PSEUDO-HILARIUS, Epistula ad Abram filiam, Hymni – ed. A. Feder 1916
Vol. 66/1 HEGESIPPUS, Historiae – ed. V. Ussani 1932
Vol. 66/2 HEGESIPPUS, Historiae: Praefatio et indices – comp. C. Mras 1960
Vol. 67 BOETHIUS, De consolatione philosophiae – ed. W. Weinberger 1934
Vol. 68 GAUDENTIUS BRIXIENSIS, Tractatus – ed. A. Glück 1936
Vol. 69 TERTULLIANUS, Apologeticum – ed. H. Hoppe 1939
Vol. 70 TERTULLIANUS, De praescriptione haereticorum, De cultu feminarum, Ad uxorem, De exhortatione castitatis, De corona, De carne Christi, Adversus Iudaeos – ed. E. Kroymann 1942
Vol. 71 CASSIODORUS, Historia tripartita – ed. W. Jacob, R. Hanslik 1952
Vol. 72 ARATOR SUBDIACONUS, De actibus apostolorum (Historia apostolica) – ed. McKinlay 1951
Vol. 73 AMBROSIUS, Explanatio symboli, De sacramentis, De mysteriis, De paenitentia, De excessu fratris Satyri, De obitu Valentiniani, De obitu Theodosii – ed. O. Faller 1955
Vol. 74 AUGUSTINUS, De libero arbitrio – ed. W. M. Green 1956
Vol. 75 BENEDICTUS NURSINUS, Regula – ed. R. Hanslik 1960 (editio altera et correcta 1977)
Vol. 76 TERTULLIANUS, Ad martyras, Ad Scapulam, De fuga in persecutione, De monogamia, De virginibus velandis, De pallio – ed. V. Bulhart 1957
Vol. 76 TERTULLIANUS, De paenitentia – ed. Ph. Borleffs 1957
Vol. 77 AUGUSTINUS, De magistro – ed. G. Weigel 1961
Vol. 77 AUGUSTINUS, De vera religione – ed. W. M. Green 1961
Vol. 78 AMBROSIUS, De fide ad Gratianum Augustum – ed. O. Faller 1962
Vol. 79 AMBROSIUS, De spiritu sancto, De incarnationis dominicae sacramento – ed. O. Faller 1964
Vol. 80 AUGUSTINUS, De doctrina christiana – ed. W. M. Green 1963
Vol. 81/1-3 AMBROSIASTER, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas – ed. H. J. Vogels
Vol. 82/1-4 AMBROSIUS, Epistulae et acta – ed. O. Faller, M. Zelzer 1968-1996
Vol. 83/1 MARIUS VICTORINUS, Ad Candidum Arrianum, Adversus Arium, De homoousio recipiendo, Hymni – ed. P. Henry, P. Hadot 1971
Vol. 83/2 MARIUS VICTORINUS, In epistulam Pauli ad Ephesios, In epistulam Pauli ad Galatas, In epistulam Pauli ad Philippenses – ed. F. Gori 1986
Vol. 84 AUGUSTINUS, Expositio quarumdam propositionum ex epistula ad Romanos, Epistulae ad Galatas expositio, Epistulae ad Romanos inchoata expositio – ed. J. Divjak 1971
Vol. 85/1-2 AUGUSTINUS, Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem opus imperfectum, lib. 1-3; 4-6 – ed. M. Zelzer 1974; (editio altera 2004?)
Vol. 86 RUFINUS, Basili regula – ed. K. Zelzer 1986
Vol. 87 EUGIPPIUS, Regula – ed. F. Villegas, A. De Vogüé 1976
Vol. 88 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae nuper in lucem prolatae (Epistulae Divjak) – ed. J. Divjak 1981
Vol. 89 AUGUSTINUS, Soliloquia, De inmortalitate animae, De quantitate animae – ed. W. Hörmann 1986
Vol. 90 AUGUSTINUS, De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum – ed. J. B. Bauer 1992
Vol. 91 AUGUSTINUS, De Genesi contra Manichaeos – ed. D. Weber 1998
Vol. 92 AUGUSTINUS, Contra sermonem Arrianorum (praecedit Sermo Arrianorum) – ed. M. J. Suda, De correptione et gratia – ed. G. Folliet 2000
Vol. 93/1 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 1-32 (expos.) – ed. C. Weidmann 2003
Vol. 94/1 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 51-60 (expos.) – ed. H. Müller 2004
Vol. 95/3 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 119-133 – ed. F. Gori 2001
Vol. 95/4 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 134-140 – ed. F. Gori adiuvante F. Recanatini 2002
Vol. 95/5 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 141-150 – ed. F. Gori adiuvante I. Spaccia 2005
Vol. 96 ANONYMUS, In Iob commentarius – ed. K. B. Steinhauser adiuvantibus H. Müller et D. Weber 2006

(see also this collection)

Starbucks Christianity

This video (link), which I don't endorse, provides a "parable" regarding how Starbucks would look if it were marketed like a church. While there are a number of amusing aspects to the video, the apparent underlying message (that the church, to be successful, should be more like Starbucks) is wrong.

Yes, there are bad things that go on in churches. Nevertheless, the point of church is not simply so random folks off the street can come in, get served, and go. The church is a fellowship of believers.

Yes, there are many pulpit crimes taking place in churches throughout the world. There are many inappropriate ways that churches handle new visitors. Despite that, though, the point of church is not simply to purvey a commodity as a coffee shop does: it is not designed to help one relax and unwind. It is not a place where a person should feel anonymous and simply a part of the crowd. It is a place where discipline is exercised and fellowship is nurtured and fostered.

The services of worship are about serving and worshiping God, not the congregants. We do want people who visit to make their stay permanent. But we do not wish to do so by giving up our zeal for God, the reality of our fellowship with one another, or the push for proselytizing.

Give up any of those and we might as well run a coffee shop instead.

-TurretinFan

Rome Teaches?

Mr. Shea seems to think that because Rome's teaching on the painlessness of Mary's birth is not explicit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it's not one of Rome's teachings (link). To put that issue to bed, let's provide him with that teaching from a bishop of Rome. Sorry it's not Benedict XVI or John Paul II, but there were bishops of Rome before them.

Pope Alexander III (1169) wrote: "Mary conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and has departed from earth without undergoing the corruption of the tomb, thus proving - according to the word of the angel - that she was full of grace and nothing less." (Translation by Joseph Duhr, S.J.)(Latin taken from Denzinger: "(Maria) concepit nempe sine pudore, peperit sine dolore, et hinc migravit sine corruptione, iuxta verbum angeli, immo Dei per angelum, ut plena, non semiplena, gratiae esse probaretur ... ." as reported in Denzinger-Schoenmetzer, 1963, at item 748).

That really ought to be enough to shut Shea up about whether or not the teaching is a Roman teaching, whether or not the teaching made it into the "Catechism of the Catholic Church." That document, after all and massive as it is, is not an exhaustive work. But perhaps we should show what else makes this a teaching of Rome.

We already pointed out that Aquinas taught that Jesus birth did not cause Mary pain. Mr. Shea chooses to misrepresent this evidence as "because everything Aquinas ever said is Roman Catholic doctrine" (despite the fact that we repeatedly point out how Aquinas differs from Rome on things like the Immaculate Conception and Sola Scriptura, even while not being fully Reformed in his view of the bishop or Rome, plenary councils, or the life of Mary).

Worse than the misrepresentation, though, is Mr. Shea's attempt to dodge Aquinas' reasoning: Aquinas reasoned that Mary didn't have birth pains because she didn't give birth through the birth canal, because she remained a virgin even despite the birth of Christ. Mr. Shea seems afraid to address what Aquinas' reasoning is (it's, of course, not for me to say whether Aquinas knows more about what "Catholic" theology is than Mr. Shea, but I think Aquinas is a better known and respected theologian).

Mr. Shea appeals vaguely to the "Catholic Catechism," but fails to make clear to his readers that the "Catholic Catechism" confirms this premise on which Aquinas' argument is made. Specifically:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

- CCC 499 (footnotes omitted)

Mr. Shea tries to characterize the Roman teaching that Mary did not suffer during childbirth in this way:

A broad tradition has always existed in Catholic circles which holds that our Lady experienced no labor pains. One can see the tradition reflected in sundry sources and attested by luminaries like St. Thomas. It is certainly generally regarded as a pious opinion and is certain compatible with the Church's dogmatic teaching.

As to the "always," of course Mr. Shea is being anachronistic. The concept of the perpetual virginity, and its extreme form with respect to Jesus not using the birth canal, were developments. The doctrine of Jesus' birth being painless for Mary is a further development based on those. It's not something that has "always" been around, although we can trace it back quite a few centuries.

Nevertheless, despite the ancient lineage and broad acceptance of this view, Mr. Shea tries to dismiss this view as not being something that Rome teaches because, "But as the carefully worded language of the Catechism (quoted in the combox) makes clear, the Church doesn't go to the mat on this question."

Of course, the Catechism (as see above) actually makes it quite explicit that Mary's virginity was not affected by the birth of Jesus. It just doesn't come out and say "and she didn't, therefore, suffer birth pangs." Besides that, of course, the Catechism isn't an exhaustive list of everything Rome has ever taught about everything and on every subject. I'd love to see Mr. Shea prove to us his unspoken premise that "if it's not in the Catechism it's not something that Rome teaches."

One wonders, though, why Mr. Shea doesn't think that the teachings of Pope Alexander III and Thomas Aquinas are teachings of Rome. Does he find fault with Aquinas' explanation? Aquinas argues his position from a premise that is a teaching that made its way into the Catechism.

But let's look at it the other way. Mr. Shea wants to think of this as just a "broad tradition" and not something that Rome actually teaches. Here's a relatively simple request: show us who teaches that Mary's virginity was not destroyed by Christ's birth but rejects Alexander III's and Aquinas' view that she did not suffer in childbirth.

I'd love to hear from Shea who he thinks opposes the opinion of John of Damascus who said:

For He who was of the Father, yet without mother, was born of woman without a father’s co-operation. And so far as He was born of woman, His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while so far as He had no father, His birth was above the nature of generation: and in that it was at the usual time (for He was born on the completion of the ninth month when the tenth was just beginning), His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while in that it was painless it was above the laws of generation. For, as pleasure did not precede it, pain did not follow it, according to the prophet who says, Before she travailed, she brought forth, and again, before her pain came she was delivered of a man-child [Is. lxvi. 7.].

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 14

That's an even different argument (than Aquinas' argument) for the same result. What argument from tradition can Mr. Shea bring forth? How does Mr. Shea conclude that the painless birth of Christ is not one of Rome's teachings?

How does Mr. Shea know what Rome teaches?

That's the question that should be troubling Mr. Shea and his readers. It's nice to act as though the Catechism were an infallible canon of Rome's teachings, but it doesn't make that claim for itself. Mr. Shea likes the way that the current CCC words things, but the Catechism of the Council of Trent put it this way:

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.

Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.

- Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Second Part of the Third Article of the Creed

So, yes. It is a teaching of Rome. Is it a defined dogma? No. Neither is everything that is found in the Catechism. Yet still it is a teaching. In fact, on this particular point, Mr. Shea has been unable to point us to any authority within Roman Catholicism that would suggest otherwise. Where are these Roman Catholic teachers who claim that Mary gave birth the normal way, or that she suffered birth pains in any way. Who are these teachers who disagree with Aquinas and John of Damascus?

Oh? Mr. Shea doesn't know? He can't find them? What a surprise! It's just like the problem that Irenaeus faced. We confront them with Scripture, they turn to tradition, and when we confront them with tradition they reject it as well. And this is even a bit worse, for the tradition I'm citing to Mr. Shea is not the apostolic tradition, not tradition properly derived from Scripture, but the tradition on which his sect is built!

-TurretinFan

P.S. I notice that Mr. Shea seems interested to run to his fall-back position of allegorizing the travail of the Revelation 12 woman. Its very easy to use ad hoc allegorizations (Shea writes sarcastically: "Only a fool could see in the image of birth pangs an image of the anguish Mary endured watching her Son die as he brought the kingdom to birth in his passion.") but it is quite another thing to justify those from the text (totally impossible in the case of Revelation 12, which places the travails before the birth of the child). Sarcasm is something Shea is quite good at, and he's demonstrated that for us. Now, let's see if he can be as skillful at exposition either of Scripture or tradition.

Protoevangelium of James: a Question of Sources

Opinions regarding: Protoevangelium of James:

• Aquinas: "apocryphal ravings" (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)(source)(apparently quoting from Jerome)
• Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question "How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?": "We don't." (source)
• [Pseudo?]-Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among "The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5 (source)(attesting authenticity of chapter 5)(negative review)
  

By way of contrast, it is used as authority on the following topics by Roman Catholic apologists and authors:

• Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin? By Christine Pinheiro, "This Rock," Volume 16, Number 10, December 2005 (source)
• Mary: Ever Virgin, "This Rock,"Volume 13, Number 2, February 2002 (source)
• St. Anne, in the "Quick Answers" section of two issues of volume 17 of "This Rock" (source)
• Joseph's children by a prior marriage, "This Rock," Volume 13, Number 10, December 2002 (source)
• How to Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, by Jason Evert, "This Rock," Volume 11, Number 7-8, July 2000 (source)

And frankly, we could go on and on. I've picked on the Catholic Answers team because they are one of the more well-known groups.

Why would Roman Catholic authors use apocryphal ravings whose credibility they cannot confirm and which works have been condemned (apparently) by a pope of their church? There are two obvious explanations: (1) many Roman Catholic apologists have only a passing knowledge of history and the fathers, and (2) some Roman Catholic apologists simply don't care: if it seems to support Rome's position, it is used. In some cases, there is a third reason, which is that it is heretical works like the Protoevangelium of James from which, as an historical matter, were the true sources of the Roman Catholic doctrines and beliefs.

-TurretinFan

P.S. Updated thanks to Peter Holter, who pointed out that the English editors seem to have failed to note that the "apocryphal ravings" language of Thomas is actually taken from Jerome.

Why Do Roman Catholics Think that Mary Didn't Have Pain During Childbirth?

One belief that is common in Roman Catholicism today is that Jesus was born without Mary suffering any pain. While sometimes Roman Catholics think that this fits with the concept of Mary being immaculately conceived, when we examine this doctrine prior to the acceptance of the view of Mary's immaculate conception, we see some slightly different justifications.

Article 6. Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents, according to Genesis 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulgate: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Genesis 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.

Objection 2. Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Isaiah 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.

Objection 3. Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."

I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Isaiah 35:1-2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."

Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.

Reply to Objection 2. As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.

Reply to Objection 3. We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 35, Article 6

As you can see, the justifications are:

1) Birth pangs result from sin due to the mingling of the sexes. Christ was not born from sexual intercourse, and Mary was not therefore, stained by that sin, and did not suffer the punishment for that sin. Pseud-Augustine is cited in support of this idea. "Supposititious" is the editor's way of noting that the work is not really something Augustine wrote, though Aquinas mistakenly believed it was.

2) Mary didn't have to suffer, because Mary didn't come to atone for our sins. What a marvelously clear rejection of the modern Roman doctrine of the co-redemption of Mary!

3) Aquinas rejects the idea that there were midwives present, rejecting the Protevangelium of James (Protevangelium Jacobi) as "apocryphal ravings."

4) Aquinas mistakenly thinks that Augustine taught that Mary didn't suffer birth pangs.

5) But most of all, because Jesus was not born the normal way, according to Aquinas: he did not come out through the birth canal. This preserves Mary as a virgin, something she would not physically be after a normal birth for reasons that are obvious to anyone who understands anatomy.

-TurretinFan

Mark Shea and the Revelation 12 Woman

Over at his own blog, Mr. Shea has provided comments on what he calls: "For My Money, One of the Weakest Arguments Against the Immaculate Conception" (link). One of the reasons its such a weak argument against the immaculate conception is that it's not actually an argument against the immaculate conception. Someone with average reading skills will quickly spot this fact when reading the argument:

I have always understood that the woman of Revelation to be the Blessed Mother. I was discussing the Immaculate Conception with a Baptist co-worker, specifically how she had no pain during child birth; he replied that if that was the case that she couldn't be the woman of Revelation as "she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered."

Yes, this is an argument that came up during a discussion of the immaculate conception, but it is not actually against the immaculate conception, at least not in any direct way.

Instead, the argument is an argument against Rome's attempt to connect their conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus, with the woman of Revelation 12. They want to connect her with the woman of Revelation 12 because of this:

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Doesn't that sound grand? And Mary, in Roman Catholic theology, has a very grand place. In fact, they use as an excuse for crowning Mary (compare this discussion of the impropriety of crowning Mary) the idea that Mary is the woman of Revelation 12. But is that so?

One approach we could take is to see whether anyone in the early church believed that Mary was the woman of Revelation 12. However, when we do so, we discover that the unanimous opinion of the early church was not that this was about Mary, but that the woman in Revelation 12 signified the church (as demonstrated here).

Another approach is to make an internal critique of modern Roman Catholic theology. That critique accepts, for the sake of the argument, Rome's teachings about Mary and then asks whether they are contradictory:

1) On the one hand, Rome teaches that Mary did not suffer birth pangs with Jesus; and
2) On the other hand, Rome teaches that Mary was the woman of Revelation 12, but
3) The woman of Revelation 12 did suffer birth pangs, and consequently
4) Rome's theology is self-contradictory.

What is Mr. Shea's response to this internal critique? It is very flowery but flawed. Wherein lie the flaws?

First, Mr. Shea changes the argument a bit. Mr. Shea presents the argument as though the person criticizing Rome's doctrine is saying that because the birth pangs are part of the curse for sin, Mary couldn't have had them.

Mr. Shea then responds to this argument by stating: "By the logic of this argument, it would also be possible to indict Jesus as a sinner since he suffered, toiled, sweated, and died, just like Adam (cf. Gen. 3:17-19)." Two things must be distinguished here, however. Jesus suffered, toiled, sweated, and died, just like Adam because Jesus was bearing the sins of his people. Jesus is our mediator. Mary is not. No one's sins are imputed to Mary: the sins of the elect were imputed to Jesus. Thus, there is a reason consistent with divine justice for Jesus to labor under the curse: there is not a reason consistent with divine justice for Mary likewise to do so, unless Mary was a sinner. And that, of course, is the real reason why she suffered and died.

As Augustine put it:

For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin.

- Augustine, on Psalm 34:13

Mr. Shea's argument, though, makes it sound as though he is unaware of the Roman view that Mary did not suffer pain in giving birth to Christ. This view does not come from the view of the immaculate conception, but from the view of the perpetual virginity (in its most extreme form). Aquinas (who did not accept the immaculate conception) affirmed the perpetual virginity and argued that Mary must not have suffered for several reasons, among which:

But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 8, Response to Objection 2

But most of all, for Aquinas, it was the idea that Jesus came out some other way than through the birth canal that proved that Mary did not suffer at Christ's birth. It wasn't based on her being sinless, or not suffering the corruptions and curses brought on by the fall. Instead, it was based on her remaining a virgin (as I discuss at greater length here).

Mr. Shea doesn't seem to get it, though. At one point in his discussion he seems to recognize the fact that this is an internal critique, but then he uses the argument:

It's like saying, "Okay! I grant that Mary is the Cosmic Queen of the Universe, crowned with twelve stars, clothed with the majesty of the sun, and treading the moon under her feet with the awesome glory that God has bestowed upon her! But what's this? Is that a thread I spy hanging loose on her garments that outshine the sun?"

Sorry, Mr. Shea, but it's not like that. No one is criticizing Mary - they're pointing out the inconsistencies of your doctrine. It's rather more like saying, "Okay! I grant (for the sake of the argument) that Mary is the Cosmic Queen of the Universe, crowned with twelve stars, clothed with the majesty of the sun, and treading the moon under her feet with the awesome glory that God has bestowed upon her! But what's this? This Mary is not the Mary that your church worships, because this one had birthpangs, while yours did not." See the difference?

Mr. Shea wraps things up with what he seems to think is a bolstering argument:

It's a very silly argument, particularly since the language used by Revelation is so close to the imagery of the "birth pangs of the kingdom" (Matt. 24:8) used by her Son and can easily be taken to refer to the "sword" that pierced her soul at the Passion, not to physical labor pains.

Here's the problem, though. Practically the only reason anyone would link the Revelation 12 woman to Mary in the first place is that she gives birth to a man child. But if the birth pangs are to be allegorized into something else, why wouldn't we allegorize the birth into something else? This attempt is transparently the sort of selective allegorization that Mr. Camping is so fond of. It lets a desired outcome dictate what gets taken literally and what gets taken figuratively. Never mind that the birth pangs in the text happen before the child's birth - since that doesn't fit the outcome that Mr. Shea wants, he just ignores it.

The weakest argument against the immaculate conception? Hardly. Yet it was a very weak rebuttal to an argument that demonstrates the internal inconsistencies of the Roman Catholic religion.

-TurretinFan

Did Israel Ever Make Idols of God?

Introduction

Some people wonder whether perhaps the 2nd commandment's prohibition on idolatry is limited to making idols of false gods. One of the questions asked is whether Israel ever made idols of the true God, or whether the idols were always of false gods. There are two or three times that come to mind when the nation of Israel made and worshiped an image purporting to be of God. Bear in mind as well, that whatever you may think of these three negative examples, there is no positive example of God authorizing or permitting any image of himself.

I. The Aaronic Calf

The first and primary account is found in Exodus 32:

And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.

And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."

And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, "To morrow is a feast to the LORD." And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

And the LORD said unto Moses, "Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, 'These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.'"

And the LORD said unto Moses, "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."

And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, "LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever."

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, "There is a noise of war in the camp."

And he said, "It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear." And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.

And Moses said unto Aaron, "What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?"

And Aaron said, "Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief. For they said unto me, 'Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.' And I said unto them, 'Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off.' So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf."

And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:) then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, "Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me." And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

And he said unto them, "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour."

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. For Moses had said, "Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day."

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, "Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin." And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, "Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written."

And the LORD said unto Moses, "Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them." And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

- Exodus 32:1-35

In this account, we see the Israelites making a golden calf. I recognize that there have been various expositions of this text, but I submit to you that the golden calf was intended to picture the one true God. The evidence in support of this is manifold.

1) "Make us gods"

The word translated "gods" is the Hebrew word אלהים (Elohim), which is one of the names of God. In fact, out of the times that the word (or one of its forms) appears in the Old Testament (2605), it is translated "God" 2366 times, or about 90.8% of the time. That statistical data is not proof, of course, but it does show that we should not assume that because the plural word "Elohim" is used, the reference must be a plurality of false gods.

2) "Make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him"

The "gods" to be made were to replace Moses. They were not designed to replace Jehovah. Thus, we may reasonably understand this request to be one of making some visible substitute for the missing Moses, not as a request to make some false gods to worship instead of the true God.

3) "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt"

Notice how the "gods" are described (by the translator) as "thy gods" and are specified in the text as being those "which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." This attribute uniquely identifies who is being described:

Micah 6:4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

Deuteronomy 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Furthermore, while the translators used "gods" here, they could rightly have used "God" as they did in Nehemiah:

Nehemiah 9:18-19
Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, This is thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt, and had wrought great provocations; yet thou in thy manifold mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go.

4) "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto,"

Notice that God accuses them of "turn[ing] aside quickly out of the way" and of making the image, but not of worshiping another god. The Deuteronomy account is similar:

Deuteronomy 9:12 And the LORD said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.

And likewise, when Moses chides them, he repeats that same expression:

Deuteronomy 9:16 And I looked, and, behold, ye had sinned against the LORD your God, and had made you a molten calf: ye had turned aside quickly out of the way which the LORD had commanded you.

In contrast, when the issue is worshiping other gods, that is made clear (in other passages):

Deuteronomy 11:28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

Judges 2:17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.

This event is never described in Scripture, as far as I can find, as being an event where Israel turned after other gods, but simply as an event where Israel left the proper way of worshiping the true and living God.

5) "Aaron made proclamation, and said, 'To morrow is a feast to the LORD.'"

Notice that it is Jehovah whom they are worshiping. Aaron calls it a feast to the LORD (employing the tetragrammaton) not to "the lord" (adonai) or to lords or gods. The golden calf was supposed to depict the Lord, and consequently the feast was not a feast to the calf, but a feast to the LORD, whom it supposedly represented.

6) "a molten calf" - "gods"

Notice that there was only one calf here, and yet "gods" are spoken of. The Israelites were a very foolish people to anger God in this way. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that a whole nation of people couldn't tell that one calf is not "gods" (plural) but only "a god" (singular). As such, it seems likely that "Elohim" (discussed above) refers not to a plurality of deities, but to the most high God. If they wanted to worship many gods, they would need many images, but only one image for one god.

For all these reasons, I am persuaded that the one golden calf was intended to be Jehovah, Elohim, the one true God, He who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The strongest case that I can think of making against it is to notice that in Stephen's speech, as recorded for us in Acts, Stephen states:

Acts 7:38-41
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, Saying unto Aaron, "Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him." And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

There may be a variety of explanations for this statement (from the idea that Stephen was just quoting from a septuagint translation, or that Stephen's comments were harmonized with the septuagint translation of Exodus 32, or that both Stephen's comments and the septuagint translations were following a speculative protocol for not referring to images as the one true God). A very simple explanation is that Stephen's speech was not, before the point at verse 55 where he was filled with the Holy Ghost, an inspired account. It's rather an inspired recital of Stephen's fallible recollection of the history of Israel. Regardless the explanation, "gods" is a literal translation of "Elohim" and Stephen does confirm for us that only one calf was made in response to this request to "make us gods."

II. Jeroboam's Calves

The second time that Israel did this is like the first time. It is recorded in 1 Kings:

1 Kings 12:28-30
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.

Although there were two calves here, the two calves were simply because there were two places of worship. It was not as though one calf were one god, and the other were another god. Instead, both were designed to illustrate the true God, and to subvert the authorized worship of God. As you will recall, the motivation for making these calves was to replace the temple worship at Jerusalem:

1 Kings 12:26-27
And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.

Thus, to preserve his own power, Jeroboam perverted the worship of the LORD. Instead of worshiping at Jerusalem, they worshiped at one of the calves (the fact that they worshiped at one of them, not both of them, confirms that the calves were not supposed to be two gods, but two idols of the one God):

1 Kings 12:30 And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.

III. Samaria's Calf

There is yet a third time. This time is recorded for us in the book of the prophet Hosea:

Hosea 8:5-6
Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off; mine anger is kindled against them: how long will it be ere they attain to innocency? For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.

Hosea declares that this calf was "not God" but it is clear from the context that he is contradicting the claims of the Samaritans who claim it is God. Furthermore, as in the two previous instances, the name of God used is "Elohim." Now, whether this calf is simply one of the Dan or Bethel calves, we're not told. However, this provides yet a third instance (whether through a new act or a further perpetration of the sins of Jeroboam) in which the children of Israel broke the second commandment in the exemplary way.

Conclusion

So then, let us learn from the errors of Samaria, of Jeroboam, and of Aaron, and let us not make to ourselves any images purporting to be of God, whether as calves or in the likeness of any living thing that lives on the Earth. Let us not bow down to them, nor serve them, for God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him, but showing mercy unto thousands of generations to those that love Him and keep His commandments.

-TurretinFan

Postscript

I figure some folks may wish to have convenient access to the Deuteronomy account of the Aaronic golden calf event. Here goes:

Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD.

Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you. When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water: and the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant. And the LORD said unto me, "Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image."

Furthermore the LORD spake unto me, saying, "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they."

So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands. And I looked, and, behold, ye had sinned against the LORD your God, and had made you a molten calf: ye had turned aside quickly out of the way which the LORD had commanded you.

And I took the two tables, and cast them out of my two hands, and brake them before your eyes. And I fell down before the LORD, as at the first, forty days and forty nights: I did neither eat bread, nor drink water, because of all your sins which ye sinned, in doing wickedly in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger. For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also.

And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time. And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.

- Deuteronomy 9:7-21

Notice how the calf which they made is expressed in apposition to their "sin." The sin was making (and worshiping) the representation of God, although - one might argue - that if it had been a statue of a false god, the same appositive could have been made.

UPDATE: (November 2, 2009) There's at least one additional passage that should be mentioned:

Psalm 106:19-20
They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image. Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.

There is some ambiguity here, but it seems that this couplet supports the idea that the calf was supposed to be a representation of Jehovah, since they are changing the glory of the invisible God into the likeness of an ox, not following a false god in place of Jehovah according to the description here.

Aquinas on Sola Scriptura

Some folks seem to imagine that a rejection of Sola Scriptura was the "established faith" prior to the Reformation. Those folks ought to read their Aquinas (emphasis supplied in the following:

Article 8. Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

Objection 1. It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Objection 2. Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

Reply to Objection 1. Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.

Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8

There is more like unto it:

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.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 10, Reply to Objection 1

And that is also not all:

Objection 1. It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Deuteronomy 4:2): "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it." Therefore it was unlawful to make asymbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published.
...
Reply to Objection 1. The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 9

Now, I will certainly concede that Aquinas mistakenly believed that a council of the universal church could not err, and that Aquinas accorded a primacy to the bishop of Rome that was excessive. Nevertheless, Aquinas did not hint or suggest in the least that either council or bishop could rightly go beyond the Scripture, as modern Rome does. For Aquinas, any article of faith had to be taken from Scripture, and he recognized that, in fact, the creeds were drawn up based on Scripture, not in supplement to the content of Scripture.

Aquinas seemed to have more trust in the universal church, as such, then perhaps the Reformed churches had. But consider the qualifications that Aquinas makes:

Objection 5. Further, Augustine (Tract. xxix in Joan.) expounding the passage, "You believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 14:1) says: "We believe Peter or Paul, but we speak only of believing 'in' God." Since then the Catholic Church is merely a created being, it seems unfitting to say: "In the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
...
Reply to Objection 5. If we say: "'In' the holy Catholic Church," this must be taken as verified in so far as our faith is directed to the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies the Church; so that the sense is: "I believe in the Holy Ghost sanctifying the Church." But it is better and more in keeping with the common use, to omit the 'in,' and say simply, "the holy Catholic Church," as Pope Leo [Rufinus, Comm. in Sym. Apost.] observes.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 9

He adopts Rufinus' comments that, as we noted before, disclaim any faith in the church, placing it instead in the Holy Ghost, and specifically Scripture:

“The Holy Church; The Forgiveness of Sin, the Resurrection of This Flesh.” It is not said, “In the holy Church,” nor “In the forgiveness of sins,” nor “In the resurrection of the flesh.” For if the preposition “in” had been added, it would have had the same force as in the preceding articles. But now in those clauses in which the faith concerning the Godhead is declared, we say “In God the Father,” and “In Jesus Christ His Son,” and “In the Holy Ghost,” but in the rest, where we speak not of the Godhead but of creatures and mysteries, the preposition “in ” is not added. We do not say “We believe in the holy Church,” but “We believe the holy Church,” not as God, but as the Church gathered together to God: and we believe that there is “forgiveness of sins;” we do not say “We believe in the forgiveness of sins;” and we believe that there will be a “Resurrection of the flesh;” we do not say “We believe in the resurrection of the flesh.” By this monosyllabic preposition, therefore, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine are separated from things human.

This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, “All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction.” [2 Tim. iii. 16] And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ.

- Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, Section 36

Was Aquinas' view of all things doctrinal the same as that of the Reformed churches? Of course not. As to Scripture, however, his views were quite close (if not identical). Scripture is the supreme authority. While Aquinas did not make councils, or the Roman bishop, or the consent of the fathers a second rule of faith, but rather stuck with Scripture, of which the creeds were "symbols" - extractions of important points.

There is one place where you might think me contradicted by Aquinas. The translation that is most popular on the Internet now has the following reading:

Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 10, Answer to Objection 3

Notice that "so as to be considered a rule of faith."

One might think that the Latin would read: "ut regula fidei habeatur." But in fact, the Latin reads "ut quasi regula fidei habeatur." (emphasis added)

You will recall, after all, that in one of the quotations above, Aquinas had pointed out (in the objection) that the Holy Scriptures ("Holy Writ") are the rule of faith, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be subtracted.

-TurretinFan