"His Resurrection alone can remove every doubt"

[St. Columba]

Even I'm infallible when repeating infallible truths, and I'm a moron.

Acute realization of the limitations of one's intellect and understanding is a marker of both high intelligence, and humility.

Morons think they know everything, intelligent people know that they know next to nothing.

God bless you Gardener.

[Gardener]

Hint: he was not living those 3 days, but was dead in the belly of the fish.

His body was in the fish, but his prayer plainly says he (his soul) was in hell (Sheol in the Hebrew, simply the realm of the dead not hell of the lost). One doesn't pray from Sheol unless they're dead.

Is this your personal interpretation, or have you come across it in a commentary somewhere? Because it does seem plausible, except I'm not sure a plain reading is even appropriate here, given the poetic language. Not to mention that I haven't come across such an interpretation in any of the commentaries I've ever read.

And Jonas prayed to our Lord his God out of the belly of the fish.
Prayed. The prophet doubtless prayed before and when they cast him out of the ship, and continued the same prayer being in the whale's belly, with more confidence, that he should be safely cast on the dry land.

I cried out of my tribulation to our Lord, and he heard me: out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou hast heard my voice.
cf. Psalms 119 and 129

I am descended to the extreme parts of the mountains: the bars of the earth have shut me up for ever: and thou wilt lift up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
Extreme parts. Furthest that can be cast from mountains, even into the depth of the sea, which is lower than any other valleys.

(https://web.archive.org/web/20170824080108/http://haydock1859.tripod.com:80/id530.html)

And Jonas prayed to the Lord, his God, out of the belly of the fish.
Prayed. He entertained these sentiments. (Sanct. xiv.) --- He afterwards wrote them down. (Calmet)

I cried out of my affliction to the Lord, and he heard me: I cried out of the belly of hell, and thou hast heard my voice.
cf. Psalms 119:1
I cried. These five verses (Haydock) express his thoughts while he was in the sea, (St. Jerome; Calmet) or in the fish. (Haydock) --- He doubtless prayed before, when he was cast into the sea, and also in the whale's belly, having then greater confidence that he should arrive safely on dry land, (ver. 5.) and therefore vowing sacrifices of thanks, ver. 10. (Worthington) ---
Hell; the whale's belly, (Theodoret; &c.) or rather the depth of the sea. It may denote any imminent danger.

I went down to the lowest parts of the mountains: the bars of the earth have shut me up for ever: and thou wilt bring up my life from corruption, O Lord, my God.
Lowest. Hebrew and Septuagint, "clefts." ---
Bars, or prisons, in the abyss, (Calmet) farthest from the heights. (Worthington)

It's not my interpretation. Before I came across it in the work of Dr. Brant Pitre, I always understood Jonah as having simply lived in the fish for 3 days -- not because that's what Scripture says plainly, but because that's the most popular interpretation, at least modernly.

Ch 3 begins with the Lord telling Jonah to "arise". That's the same word for Resurrection in Greek.

Hebrew:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm

Greek:
http://biblehub.com/greek/450.htm


So the interpretation cannot be discounted. However, that word is also used for simply "get up" or similar without the necessity of resurrection proper.

There are two schools of thought:

1) Jonah simply lived 3 days in the belly of the fish
2) Jonah died and was resurrected

Option 1 provides a sort of lackluster connection, and even calls into question Christ's death when conjoined to the story of Jonah. Recall the heresy that Christ didn't actually die, but simply appeared dead and then "woke up" and left the tomb (a medical marvel in the school of MSG Roy Benevidez!).

Option 2 provides a spot on reality for the conjoined event of Christ's resurrection and shares a similar character of Christ's phrasing/word usage and examples. Often, the truth is more awesome and simple. So much so that it is "unbelievable" when cast into plain language.

Would it make sense for Christ to say to the Pharisees and Scribes, who knew the Scripture, "I'm gonna be hidden but alive" for 3 days, or "I'm going to die and resurrect"? The former would have been kinda boring. The latter would have simply stopped them in their tracks. In some ways, it would almost seem He is daring them to try it.

In Matthew 12, Christ says the men of Nineveh will "????????????" which is a V-FIM-3P word, which is a conjugation of the same word for arise/resurrect.

V - Verb
F - Future
I - Interjection
M - Middle voice
3 - 3rd person
P - Plural

In other words, the men of Nineveh will resurrect. It has to be the Resurrection of the Dead, because it's future and the occurence of judgement with the Saints is yet to occur.

But the General Judgement and Resurrection are predicated on the Resurrection of Christ. So if Christ's sign to the Jews is the sign of Jonah, Resurrection post-death makes the most sense. It's a much more profound statement in line with the Faith. For Jonah's death due to disobedience and resurrection for the purpose of obedience is still lesser than Christ's death due to obedience and resurrection. Jonah's death and resurrection demanded preaching and conversion of a despised enemy of Israel, a proxy for all the nations (goyim) just like Israel is a proxy for all of the elect. And so not only do we see the Passion, Death, and Resurrection in Jonah, but also everything that followed encapsulated in what amounts to a single sentence.

In scripting terms, this would be like a "function".

I should close with the concession that this is an allowed interpretation, and does not change the meaning of Christ's words, but in fact more perfectly shows forth the truth of the sign.

In my own research, it seems the Fathers gloss over this and never say specifically if Jonah was dead or alive in the body. Augustine and Jerome had quite the spat over the book, but more about the translation of ivy or gourd in Chapter 4. Of all the things to spill ink about, two fo the greatest saints of the Church got into a tizzy over what sort of plant grew over his head in Chapter 4. Go figure.

Even Lapide's commentary only addresses the spiritual implications: resurrection, preaching, etc. He delves into the question of 3 literal days or 3 days as commonly counted (which also Jerome addresses).

So, there is nothing I can find which specifically denies Jonah's death and subsequent resurrection. The prayer and subsequent verses themselves tend toward language which indicates death and resurrection. Which is more great: that a man might survive 3 days with sufficient space to breathe, or that he should be resurrected? So the charge that it is calling into question divine providence is spurious, since it contends a greater sign of divine intervention. Many men have overcome odds, but none death save by the work of God.

If this interpretation is correct, Christ's words to the Scribes and Pharisees are astounding and indicate a sort of "period. full stop. hold my beer and watch this." sort of bravado. If Jonah was merely alive 3 days in the body and spat out alive, it's not as rich and beautiful.

Pax.

[An aspiring Thomist]

Basically what Columba is saying is how do you get from the testimony of seemingly fallible men (hence normally just moral certainty) to infallible knowledge and absolute certainty? Saying how many or how great certain miracles misses the point. Sure some of them have even been scientifically tested and we should treat them like we would other scientific theories. But all of the miracles have the "what if they are lying" problem. Granted it may be extremely unlikely. What kind of certainty do we have in the Resurrection and how?

Well, Aspiring Thomist, the Resurrection is infallibly certain and therefore we are to believe it with a firm and irrevocable assent. Infallible certainty arises from the testimony of God Who cannot lie; we believe all that we do, on the authority of God revealing. This is explained by Pope St. Pius X, "faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord."

Now, in explaining it to someone who does not believe, showing the Resurrection is a morally certain historical fact is enough - moral certainty is the same certitude arrived at in courts of law. It is certitude beyond reasonable doubt. It is safe to act upon but not safe to ignore. Thus, the unbeliever, once he recognizes that Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead, must feel called by God to give his life to Christ and enter the Church by Baptism. The rest he will understand with greater conviction after he is illuminated in Baptism with supernatural faith. One very famous skeptic who converted to Christ was Sir William Ramsay, he was an Oxford-educated archaeologist. His studies led him to Our Lord Jesus Christ and he entered the Church. He had an audience with Pope Leo XIII. Like countless other former skeptics through the ages, the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Our Lord was compelling for him. For some, the evidence reason furnishes for God's existence is part of what draws them to the Faith. For others, there are many other things besides.

Let me ask you one question in turn, what kind of certainty do you have that God exists? If you say reason gives you moral certainty, and faith gives you infallible certainty, then it's exactly analogous here. Would you on the contrary say reason gives you infallible certainty, AT?

I agree that reason+evidence gives moral certainty of the Resurrection and faith through baptism as the normal means gives absolute certainty. I have absolute certainty that God exists. Some of His attributes are a little hard for me to get a good grasp of their proofs but I understand the proofs for a "large slice" of God. I think two dangers to be avoided are to downplay the moral certainty we can have by reason of the faith or to overstate that moral certainty and make synonymous with faith. As Chesterton says Catholicism is a series of transcendent means between extremes.

[St. Columba]

Jesus being raised form the dead does not prove He was divine.  Lazarus was not divine, nor was Jonah.  Jesus being raised from the dead by his own power is almost infallible proof that He was God.  However, even this does not provide epistemic certainty, since it is conceivable that God could create a creature with the ability to self-regenerate (especially for a creature like man that has an immortal soul that cannot die, whose consciousness endures beyond the grave). 

But anyway, I still don't see how any of this provides certitude beyond any shade of doubt.  And all of it is still contingent on the historicity of the resurrection event.  How do we prove that?

[St.Justin]

Jesus being raised form the dead does not prove He was divine.  Lazarus was not divine, nor was Jonah.  Jesus being raised from the dead by his own power is almost infallible proof that He was God.  However, even this does not provide epistemic certainty, since it is conceivable that God could create a creature with the ability to self-regenerate (especially for a creature like man that has an immortal soul that cannot die, whose consciousness endures beyond the grave). 

But anyway, I still don't see how any of this provides certitude beyond any shade of doubt.  And all of it is still contingent on the historicity of the resurrection event.  How do we prove that?

I believe "absolute certainty" relies on proven facts. I can see no proven facts as pertains to what the Bishop seems to be claiming.

[Kreuzritter]

Supernatural faith gives absolute certainty. There is none outside of it: all other knowledge is at least contingent upon trust in the power of reason, even that which is analytic a priori.

[St.Justin]

Supernatural faith gives absolute certainty. There is none outside of it: all other knowledge is at least contingent upon trust in the power of reason, even that which is analytic a priori.

Chapter 4.
On faith and reason

1. The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.

2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

Vatican Council (III, iii;) teaches that "faith is a supernatural virtue by which we with the inspiration and assistance of God's grace, believe those things to be true which He has revealed"

"faith must ever be "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1). Hence St. Thomas (De Veritate, xiv, 9, ad 2) says: "Although the Divinely infused light of faith is more powerful than the natural light of reason, nevertheless in our present state we only imperfectly participate in it; and hence it comes to pass that it does not beget in us real vision of those things which it is meant to teach us; such vision belongs to our eternal home, where we shall perfectly participate in that light, where, in fine, in God's light we shall see light"

"that Newman reserves the term certitude for the state of mind, and employs the word certainty to describe the condition of the evidence of a proposition."

[St. Columba]

Supernatural faith gives absolute certainty. There is none outside of it: all other knowledge is at least contingent upon trust in the power of reason, even that which is analytic a priori.

Thank you Kreuzritter.

If supernatural faith alone produces absolute certainty, then, in its contrapositive form, a lack of absolute certainty implies a lack of supernatural faith.

Furthermore, if supernatural faith is required in order to be saved, then it seems to follow that a lack in absolute certainty implies that a person is not in a state of salvation.

Agreed?

[St. Columba]

So what is a person to do if they do not have epistemic certainty?  The Church teaches that anyone who knows that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and chooses to remain outside and not practice the religion, is damned. 

[An aspiring Thomist]

So what is a person to do if they do not have epistemic certainty?  The Church teaches that anyone who knows that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and chooses to remain outside and not practice the religion, is damned.

Assuming that they know there is a God and know there is a strong probability that the Church is true, they should pray to God to grant them faith and to desire to have faith if the Church is what she says she is. They should hope in God and trust in His mercy and in seeking they shall find the truth.

[St. Columba]

So what is a person to do if they do not have epistemic certainty?  The Church teaches that anyone who knows that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and chooses to remain outside and not practice the religion, is damned.

Assuming that they know there is a God and know there is a strong probability that the Church is true, they should pray to God to grant them faith and to desire to have faith if the Church is what she says she is. They should hope in God and trust in His mercy and in seeking they shall find the truth.

And what should a person do in the meantime besides pray?  If they do not possess absolute infallible certainty that Catholicism is true, and therefore do not have faith, they should not, for example, go to communion right?  Should they stop practicing the Catholic faith until they have surety of the intellect?

[abc123]

It's not my interpretation. Before I came across it in the work of Dr. Brant Pitre, I always understood Jonah as having simply lived in the fish for 3 days -- not because that's what Scripture says plainly, but because that's the most popular interpretation, at least modernly.

Ch 3 begins with the Lord telling Jonah to "arise". That's the same word for Resurrection in Greek.

Hebrew:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm

Greek:
http://biblehub.com/greek/450.htm


So the interpretation cannot be discounted. However, that word is also used for simply "get up" or similar without the necessity of resurrection proper.

There are two schools of thought:

1) Jonah simply lived 3 days in the belly of the fish
2) Jonah died and was resurrected

Option 1 provides a sort of lackluster connection, and even calls into question Christ's death when conjoined to the story of Jonah. Recall the heresy that Christ didn't actually die, but simply appeared dead and then "woke up" and left the tomb (a medical marvel in the school of MSG Roy Benevidez!).

Option 2 provides a spot on reality for the conjoined event of Christ's resurrection and shares a similar character of Christ's phrasing/word usage and examples. Often, the truth is more awesome and simple. So much so that it is "unbelievable" when cast into plain language.

Would it make sense for Christ to say to the Pharisees and Scribes, who knew the Scripture, "I'm gonna be hidden but alive" for 3 days, or "I'm going to die and resurrect"? The former would have been kinda boring. The latter would have simply stopped them in their tracks. In some ways, it would almost seem He is daring them to try it.

In Matthew 12, Christ says the men of Nineveh will "????????????" which is a V-FIM-3P word, which is a conjugation of the same word for arise/resurrect.

V - Verb
F - Future
I - Interjection
M - Middle voice
3 - 3rd person
P - Plural

In other words, the men of Nineveh will resurrect. It has to be the Resurrection of the Dead, because it's future and the occurence of judgement with the Saints is yet to occur.

But the General Judgement and Resurrection are predicated on the Resurrection of Christ. So if Christ's sign to the Jews is the sign of Jonah, Resurrection post-death makes the most sense. It's a much more profound statement in line with the Faith. For Jonah's death due to disobedience and resurrection for the purpose of obedience is still lesser than Christ's death due to obedience and resurrection. Jonah's death and resurrection demanded preaching and conversion of a despised enemy of Israel, a proxy for all the nations (goyim) just like Israel is a proxy for all of the elect. And so not only do we see the Passion, Death, and Resurrection in Jonah, but also everything that followed encapsulated in what amounts to a single sentence.

In scripting terms, this would be like a "function".

I should close with the concession that this is an allowed interpretation, and does not change the meaning of Christ's words, but in fact more perfectly shows forth the truth of the sign.

In my own research, it seems the Fathers gloss over this and never say specifically if Jonah was dead or alive in the body. Augustine and Jerome had quite the spat over the book, but more about the translation of ivy or gourd in Chapter 4. Of all the things to spill ink about, two fo the greatest saints of the Church got into a tizzy over what sort of plant grew over his head in Chapter 4. Go figure.

Even Lapide's commentary only addresses the spiritual implications: resurrection, preaching, etc. He delves into the question of 3 literal days or 3 days as commonly counted (which also Jerome addresses).

So, there is nothing I can find which specifically denies Jonah's death and subsequent resurrection. The prayer and subsequent verses themselves tend toward language which indicates death and resurrection. Which is more great: that a man might survive 3 days with sufficient space to breathe, or that he should be resurrected? So the charge that it is calling into question divine providence is spurious, since it contends a greater sign of divine intervention. Many men have overcome odds, but none death save by the work of God.

If this interpretation is correct, Christ's words to the Scribes and Pharisees are astounding and indicate a sort of "period. full stop. hold my beer and watch this." sort of bravado. If Jonah was merely alive 3 days in the body and spat out alive, it's not as rich and beautiful.

Pax.

Fascinating exegesis I had never considered. Thank you.

[An aspiring Thomist]

So what is a person to do if they do not have epistemic certainty?  The Church teaches that anyone who knows that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and chooses to remain outside and not practice the religion, is damned.

Assuming that they know there is a God and know there is a strong probability that the Church is true, they should pray to God to grant them faith and to desire to have faith if the Church is what she says she is. They should hope in God and trust in His mercy and in seeking they shall find the truth.

And what should a person do in the meantime besides pray?  If they do not possess absolute infallible certainty that Catholicism is true, and therefore do not have faith, they should not, for example, go to communion right?  Should they stop practicing the Catholic faith until they have surety of the intellect?

Firstly I would like to say these questions are above my pay grade, but I don't know where to point to for answers to these exact questions.
I would say they should talk to a priest. Also, I think it's important to realize that absolute certainty does not normally come in the form of a mystical experience. It's noramly dry and may be intuitive or discursive. Also, the ability to loose absolute certainty does not mean it is not had. Apparently there is a proof that 1+1=3. That's obviously absurd and according Aristotle people cannot actually doubt first principles. However, 1+1=2 seems to be pretty much in that category. Also people doubt or say they doubt from nothing nothing comes. Basically what I am getting at is we can talk or will our selfs out of being certain of something even though we should be. Faith is not vision and is subtle. If we will our intellect to ignore that subtlety and focus only on what is seen, we can loose faith. So too a man can imagine the numbers 2+2=5. The difference between that and faith is that we are by nature rational and cannot truly make ourself believe that while faith is a supernatural gift which can be lost.

Basically, I would ask that person if he psyched himself out into not believing or did he really not have faith. If a person didn't or does not have faith, I would tell him to live like a catechumen. So maybe don't receive Communion but go to Mass. One thing we can be certain though is that a just and loving God would never ask the impossible for  someone to do. If a person has moral certainty that the Church is true then he should act in accordance with that certainty like he would with any other certainty.

Another thought. Is it possible for an adult to have the supernatural virtue of faith but not use it or to only use it for a few basic divine truth like there is a God?

[Gardener]

Even I'm infallible when repeating infallible truths, and I'm a moron.

Acute realization of the limitations of one's intellect and understanding is a marker of both high intelligence, and humility.

Morons think they know everything, intelligent people know that they know next to nothing.

God bless you Gardener.

But how do you know I'm not just being superficially humble? What if I secretly pat myself on the back?

God knows the truth, better than even myself. *shudder*

[Xavier]

Agreed, AT. Well said. Faith and reason are mutually complementary; faith augments reason and supernaturally elevates the intellect. Reason leads us to the door of faith, but it and all nature is powerless of itself to actually give us faith; it obliges us to act upon the moral certainty it provides; it tells us Christ is reliable and to go to Him in Baptism, where we ask of the Church the grace of Her Faith. I know you often emphasize internal and sometimes mystical experience, AT; no doubt that can be helpful for many in confirming them in the Faith. I like the liturgy of St. James where the words "Taste and see that the Lord is good" are prayed just before Holy Communion. It suggests the Church wants us to experience first-hand the love of Jesus Christ, especially in the Holy Eucharist. So one's own internal experience of God's love can also be helpful in persevering in the Faith.

For those already baptized, both our inner experience and reason itself reminds us of our obligation to persevere in being faithful to Christ. Faith is meritorious because we believe the testimony God gives of Himself. God gives His testimony in such a way as is distinguishable from all human testimony. Miracles are a part of that.

We know that all God testifies to must be believed with an irrevocable assent. When God commands something, He always gives us the necessary means to fulfil it. Jesus commanded faith and baptism; He said the one who believed and is baptized will pass from death to life. In order that everyone may come more easily to faith in Him, He gave them signs - signs culminating in and crowned by His Resurrection.

St. Columba, Involuntary doubt does not destroy faith in us. We see before the Resurrection some of the Apostles at times had involuntary doubt - doubt in the intellect alone, while being of good will. But after witnessing the Resurrection and experiencing the love of the Risen Christ and His Holy Spirit, they received the grace of strong and unwavering faith. We should all pray for unwavering faith. St. Paul says "him that is weak in faith, take unto you" (Rom 14:1), so surely such persons need not be cut off from the sacraments; we should avoid scandalizing such persons and help them increase their Faith; they should ask God to nourish and increase their faith through the sacraments; sometimes by experience or by prayer and study, they may come to believe later more strongly; we see the Apostles themselves were once "of little faith" (Mat 8:26) and yet later in life, how strong and what heroes they were in the Faith! So too the father of that possessed man who said, "I do believe, Lord. Help my unbelief" (Mk 9:24) It can be the same for many disciples of the Lord today.