Mary: The Warrior

Fr. Zuhlsdorf has thrown out a post today relating something the Pope brought up today. Here's the relevant portion:

Elizabeth, welcoming Mary, recognizes that the promise of God to humanity is being fulfilled and she exclaims, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”. The expression “Blessed art thou among women” refers in the Old Testament to Jael (or Yael or Jahel – Judges 5,24) and to Judith (Judith 13,1), two warrior women who strive to save Israel.

Jael is famous for catching the Canaanite general Sisera asleep and then driving a tent peg through his skull. Judith decapitated Holfernes, a general sent by Nebuchadnezzar to destroy the Israelites. I'm aware of their connection with the verse mentioned by the Holy Father because of the extended typology with Our Lady. Sure, those mentioned above are regarded as "blessed among women," but there is more to it than that. You can add the woman of Judges 9:52 who kills Abimelech to the following analysis.

There is enmity between these women and the agents of evil. They crush the heads of serpents sent to harm their people. Here is the image of Our Lady that seems to be forgotten. Many don't seem to have considered this at all. The Blessed Mother is not some kind of passive spectator in the conflict with the Adversary. She is the cause of his destruction. He and all his minions fear and hate her. And if I may be so bold, she hates them as well. It's ENMITY, folks. That is complete opposition and hostility. They are enemies, and it can never be otherwise.

Don't let the images of the peaceful Virgin of Bethlehem and Nazareth make you forget. It's a war, and Our Lady is on the front lines. The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary recalls these verses to our minds.

Thou art beautiful, O my love, sweet and comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army set in array...

Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?

Canticle of Canticles 6:3, 9

Amen.

Emmaus

For they walked not with their eyes shut, but there was something within them which did not permit them to know that which they saw, which a mist, darkness, or some kind of moisture, frequently occasions. Not that the Lord was not able to transform His flesh that it should be really a different form from that which they were accustomed to behold; since in truth also before His passion, He was transfigured in the mount, so that His face was bright as the sun. But it was not so now. For we do not unfitly take this obstacle in the sight to have been caused by Satan, that Jesus might not be known. But still it was so permitted by Christ up to the sacrament of the bread, that by partaking of the unity of His body, the obstacle of the enemy might be understood to be removed, so that Christ might be known.

St. Augustine

Scriptural Goodies

Let's take a look at our readings for today.

First, we've got Habakkuk basically trying to call God out for the fact that things are so bad in the world:

How long, O LORD? I cry for help
but you do not listen!
I cry out to you, "Violence!"
but you do not intervene.
Why do you let me see ruin;
why must I look at misery?
Destruction and violence are before me;
there is strife, and clamorous discord.

This is very much applicable to our modern age, especially among Catholics (like myself) who spend a lot of time lamenting the state of the Church. Posts like this one spell the problem out pretty well.

God's response is what we should all remember:

Write down the vision clearly upon the tablets,
so that one can read it readily.
For the vision still has its time,
presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint;
if it delays, wait for it,
it will surely come, it will not be late.
The rash one has no integrity;
but the just one, because of his faith, shall live.

In other words, why are we in such a hurry? Frankly, we should be looking at this extra time God is giving us as a manifestation of His mercy. All our complaining does is prove that God is way more merciful than we are.

The second reading was from 2 Timothy and was relevant on a couple of points. From the get-go, you have this:

I remind you, to stir into flame
the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.

All I could think of was the recent Baptist trend of self-bishopping, for lack of a better term. Paul seems pretty clear in writing to Timothy that ordination is a gift from God. It's also pretty clear that said gift isn't something you call down from heaven on yourself. You have to get it from someone who already has it. And it sure as hell isn't to help out with your "self-identification."

So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord,
nor of me, a prisoner for his sake;
but bear your share of hardship for the gospel
with the strength that comes from God.

Something tells me this doesn't come up in your average Joyce Meyer sermon. Imprisonment? Hardship? This doesn't sound like complete victory for my personal life, my finances, my profession, my dog, etc. It sounds more like the Truth, so yeah, I doubt Joyce has gotten around to this verse.

Finally, you've got Luke's Gospel:

The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."

Note that the Apostles are asking Jesus to increase their faith. They don't seem to have much of an expectation of being able to pull this off on their own. That's because we only have faith because God gives it to us. It's a tragic symptom of our current ecclesial sentiment that many seem to think that they are the driving force behind their salvation. Folks don't realize that they can't even believe in God without God starting them off.

Then you have this:

"Who among you would say to your servant
who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field,
'Come here immediately and take your place at table'?
Would he not rather say to him,
'Prepare something for me to eat.
Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink.
You may eat and drink when I am finished'?
Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?
So should it be with you.
When you have done all you have been commanded,
say, 'We are unprofitable servants;
we have done what we were obliged to do.'"

This is, of course, applicable to everyone. Chris Rock has a bit in his "Bring The Pain" routine that addresses the stupidity of people desiring praise for doing basic things that everyone knows they are supposed to do (eg- taking care of one's kids). However, this really seems to strike a chord if you consider it in light of the episcopate. Reflect on those who take so many opportunities to disobey the Holy Father, reject Church teaching, commit crimes against the laity, pass the buck for said crimes, etc. When confronted with their defects, even when presented in the most charitable form possible, the reaction is one of indignation, as though God should somehow be glad that they were willing to accept consecration in the first place. And if God has a problem with how they are doing things, then He needs to get His mind right.

Just a few thoughts from the day. Feel free to add your own.

To answer the questions of those who've been asking, yes, we will be resuming regular posting now.

Last Sunday's Readings

I'm running way behind with this topic, I know. It's been one of those weeks. Work has been a tremendously mad house. On to the business at hand, though:

I was thinking last Sunday about some of the stuff in the Gospel reading and picked up on an item I'd never noticed before. For those who don't recall, it was Luke 12 and was about the need for faithful and diligent servants to do their jobs so that when the Master comes back, He doesn't catch them napping.

It was this part that caught my eye (the initial talk is Jesus):

"Be sure of this:
if the master of the house had known the hour
when the thief was coming,
he would not have let his house be broken into.
You also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect,
the Son of Man will come.”

Then Peter said,
“Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?”
And the Lord replied,
“Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward
whom the master will put in charge of his servants
to distribute the food allowance at the proper time?
Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so.
Truly, I say to you, the master will put the servant
in charge of all his property.
But if that servant says to himself,
‘My master is delayed in coming,’
and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants,
to eat and drink and get drunk,
then that servant’s master will come
on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour
and will punish the servant severely
and assign him a place with the unfaithful.
That servant who knew his master’s will
but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will
shall be beaten severely;
and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will
but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating
shall be beaten only lightly.
Much will be required of the person entrusted with much,
and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”

It specifically mentions Peter as the one asking Jesus who He is talking about, the Apostles or the masses. Jesus then answers the question with a question, focusing on an individual who is the faithful and prudent steward who is put in charge of the other servants.

I've heard this bit a million times, and I never once noticed the connection to the papacy before. Maybe I'm out of line, but Christ is clearly referencing someone being in charge of everyone else. Let me also say that I find it interesting that the servants are first discussed as awaiting the Master's return from a wedding. Then, their job is mentioned as distributing a food allowance. This seems very Eucharistic to me, especially if we're talking about the Pope and the clergy subservient to him.

The parable gets sort of vague after that, as it isn't entirely certain if Jesus is talking about the steward or the servants distributing the food allowance or both. He winds up the discourse with a contrast between the servant who knew what the Master wanted and the servant who was ignorant, making it clear that the former will be in for a much worse punishment.

I'll interject here to say that I have seen this Scripture selection used to present the concept of purgatory.

On the main subject, Jesus gives His explanation for why the punishment will be worse for the servant who knew the Master's will. We can be pretty certain here that He's talking about the steward in charge as someone who fits that category.

Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

Popin', therefore, is decidedly not easy. Moreso than that, it bears the weight of enhanced accountability before God for whatever screw-ups the Supreme Pontiff might have a long the way. Think Spider-Man. "With great power comes great responsibility."

All the more reason to pray for the Pope and for all of God's other laboring servants.

On a side note, if anyone is familiar with any of the Fathers or Doctors who have taken this part of the Gospel in the papal way that I've mentioned, let me know. I'd like to see their thoughts. There's nothing in Haydock that mentions it.

St. Martha And Pope Benedict

Yesterday was the feast day of St. Martha. As such, we got the following reading from Luke 10, which really doesn't paint our saint of the day in a very flattering light:

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain town: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary. who, sitting also at the Lord's feet, heard his word. But Martha was busy about much serving. Who stood and said: Lord, hast thou no care that my sister hath left me alone to serve? Speak to her therefore, that she help me. And the Lord answering, said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful and art troubled about many things: But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.

I'm probably reaching a bit here, but this reminded me a great deal of what Pope Benedict has been talking about in the latest encyclical. Jesus comes to town. Martha immediately busies herself with taking care of the food and housework stuff (or something like that). Mary has chosen to contemplate and adore. Martha gets upset. Jesus straightens everything out.

The significant bit here is that Jesus indicates that what Mary has chosen is better. He didn't denigrate Martha's work. He just reminded her (and us) that there is a hierarchy of goods, and Mary's actions were farther up on the scale.

When we encounter Jesus in our daily lives, it is often in the context of His words at the Judgement:

For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink? Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee? And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Matthew 25

Clearly, it is good that we take care of their temporal needs. However, in light of Christ's words to Martha, aren't the supernatural needs of higher priority? In fact, just ignore the whole eternal fate of their souls issue for a moment. How can such people even partake of the best part like Mary unless they are first evangelized?

They can't. In fact, it seems to me that it would be a sin to deprive them of such an opportunity. Not evangelizing is to purposely stunt their development as a person because you are cutting them off from the best of things.

How is that not the message of Caritas in Veritate?

Signs

An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign,but no sign will be given itexcept the sign of Jonah the prophet.

Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. At the judgment, the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and there is something greater than Jonah here.

This is from Matthew 12. It was yesterday's Gospel. At least the Ninevites were repentant. As I see my country heading down this health care reform road with abortion being trumpeted as a universal right, I have to wonder how many nations will condemn us on The Last Day. We already kill our young. Several times, I've posted my musings as to how long it will take us to begin formally euthanizing our elderly. Newsflash folks- That's the most efficient cost containment mechanism you could come up with in any health care plan.

How long before the dollars outweigh the lives? And with nary a shred of penitence, we'll smile and tell them it's for their own good. Our secular messiahs will give us no signs, except for the bread and circuses paid for with our bloodshed.

It's dreadful because it's true.

Let's Eliminate the Fire Code!

So, I'm teaching the Sermon on the Mount tomorrow in a humanities class. It's one of my favorite things to do, because it shows exactly how odd Christianity really is. My students have little knowledge of Christian teaching, and if they have any notion of who Jesus was, it is of an inoffensive, warm and fuzzy teacher, like Bill and Ted, telling us to be excellent to each other. He certainly would have supported gay marriage, as all cool people do, they may think.

Then we get to Matthew 5:27-30, which amplifies the prohibition of adultery to include even looking at a woman lustfully. Jesus, as he always does, takes the Mosaic law and makes it harder, much harder, encompassing the disposition of the heart as well as the external deeds. We must be perfect, after all! (v.48)

This passage usually gets a reaction. We live in an age of looking lustfully, perhaps the most lustful age that has ever been. One cannot even drive down the highway without being presented with advertisements festooned with nearly naked women. One cannot listen to sports radio without being invited to visit "gentlemen's" clubs. One cannot use the internet without, well, you know what's out there. The revenue from pornography exceeds that of the NFL, the NBA, and MLB combined. What could be more out of touch than Matt 5:28?

Let's be clear: the sexual appetites are very strong, as is to be expected, given their purpose of disposing us to procreation. They are not just another appetite. C.S. Lewis once observed that if hunger and sexual desire were the same sort of thing, there would be establishments where hungry men went to look at food, but not eat it, while the steak was stripped before their eyes. Clearly, it is something very powerful.

The current tendency to get rid of all societal rules concerning sexuality is like repealing the fire code. In previous centuries, catastrophic fires were common, often destroying whole cities. Yet they are not, now, because we have learned how to build in ways that make fires not break out. What if we got rid of all of those rules? It would lead to our destruction, or at least to lots of fires. The rules of society against sexual activity outside of marriage are like the fire code, and serve to prevent people from destroying their lives for the sake of sexual gratification. But we, we wise moderns, have decided to scrap the fire code, so to speak. We have decided to let the whole world burn.

Perhaps our ancestors were not oppressive, but wise.

Remember That Whole Synod Thing? The Ripples Are Still Going.

Thanks to Rorate Caeli for this bit.

If you'll recall, during the recent Synod on "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church" (translation: the Bible), I expressed some concerns about a couple of the propositions being knocked around, mostly because they seemed to be topics of discussion simply for the purpose of enhancing modernism.

It looks like the post-synodal study of its recommendations might be underway, only not with the CDF, as had originally been proposed. It's the Pontifical Bible Commission instead, albeit with Cardinal Levada presiding.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is due to celebrate its annual plenary meeting at the Vatican's "Domus Sanctae Marthae" from 20 to 24 April, under the presidency of Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fr. Klemens Stock S.J., pro-secretary general of the commission, will oversee and direct the work of the assembly.

This will be the first gathering of the Pontifical Biblical Commission since the partial renewal of its membership, in accordance with current norms. During the meeting attention will be given to a new study entitled "Inspiration and Truth of the Bible", the draft version of which has already been examined by the commission members.

I don't know what to think of this. The PBC is no longer a part of the Magisterium, which means that it could come out with some watered down tripe that would do nothing more than create a huge scandal and a chasm for genuine ecumenical efforts by implying that Scripture contains errors. On the other hand, I don't know much about who is on the PBC these days. We could get a great report back with all kinds of citations to the Fathers, ecumenical councils, popes, Doctors, etc. who support the inerrancy of Holy Writ.

Very intriguing. Oh, and for my prior shpiel on the inerrancy of Scripture, see here.

"The Church Should Respect and Give Voice to the Diversity of Opinions."

Folks have thrown this statement to me about 3 billion times since I started this blog. I think 2.9 billion of them have come in since I started talking about the ND/Obama stuff.

I was looking at the daily readings and was reminded of what our first Holy Father said on the subject of diversity of opinions.

Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away,and that the Lord may grant you times of refreshmentand send you the Christ already appointed for you, Jesus,whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restorationof which God spoke through the mouthof his holy prophets from of old. For Moses said:

A prophet like me will the Lord, your God, raise up for youfrom among your own kin;to him you shall listen in all that he may say to you. Everyone who does not listen to that prophetwill be cut off from the people.

Acts 3:19-23

There is one Truth. Diversity from the Truth gets you cut off. It's that simple.

He Preached to Those Spirits That Were in Prison

1 Peter 3:19

If you ever wondered what Christ was doing for the three days, this is the major Biblical passage letting us know.

However, there is a very old book called the Gospel of Nicodemus that gives a more robust account. It's not inspired or anything, but its portrayal of Jesus's descent is pretty wonderful:

And while all the saints were rejoicing, behold Satan the prince and chief of death said unto Hell: Make thyself ready to receive Jesus who boasteth himself that he is the Son of God, whereas he is a man that feareth death, and sayeth: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. And he hath been much mine enemy, doing me great hurt, and many that I had made blind, lame, dumb, leprous, and possessed he hath healed with a word: and some whom I have brought unto thee dead, them hath he taken away from thee. . .

But when all the multitude of the saints heard it, they spake with a voice of rebuking unto Hell: Open thy gates, that the King of glory may come in. And David cried out, saying: Did I not when I was alive upon earth, foretell unto you: Let them give thanks unto the Lord, even his mercies and his wonders unto the children of men; who hath broken the gates of brass and smitten the bars of iron in sunder? he hath taken them out of the way of their iniquity. And thereafter in like manner Esaias said: Did not I when I was alive upon earth foretell unto you: The dead shall arise, and they that are in the tombs shall rise again, and they that are in the earth shall rejoice, for the dew which cometh of the Lord is their healing? And again I said: O death, where is thy sting? O Hell, where is thy victory?

When they heard that of Esaias, all the saints said unto Hell: Open thy gates: now shalt thou be overcome and weak and without strength. And there came a great voice as of thunder, saying: Remove, O princes, your gates, and be ye lift up ye doors of hell, and the King of glory shall come in. And when Hell saw that they so cried out twice, he said, as if he knew it not: Who is the King of glory? And David answered Hell and said: The words of this cry do I know, for by his spirit I prophesied the same; and now I say unto thee that which I said before: The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle, he is the King of glory. And: The Lord looked down from heaven that he might hear the groanings of them that are in fetters and deliver the children of them that have been slain. And now, O thou most foul and stinking Hell, open thy gates, that the King of glory may come in. And as David spake thus unto Hell, the Lord of majesty appeared in the form of a man and lightened the eternal darkness and brake the bonds that could not be loosed: and the succour of his everlasting might visited us that sat in the deep darkness of our transgressions and in the shadow of death of our sins.

And the Lord stretching forth his hand, said: Come unto me, all ye my saints which bear mine image and my likeness. Ye that by the tree and the devil and death were condemned, behold now the devil and death condemned by the tree. And forthwith all the saints were gathered in one under the hand of the Lord. And the Lord holding the right hand of Adam, said unto him: Peace be unto thee with all thy children that are my righteous ones. But Adam, casting himself at the knees of the Lord entreated him with tears and beseechings, and said with a loud voice: I will magnify thee, O Lord, for thou hast set me up and not made my foes to triumph over me: O Lord my God I cried unto thee and thou hast healed me; Lord, thou hast brought my soul out of hell, thou hast delivered me from them that go down to the pit. Sing praises unto the Lord all ye saints of his, and give thanks unto him for the remembrance of his holiness. For there is wrath in his indignation and life is in his good pleasure. In like manner all the saints of God kneeled and cast themselves at the feet of the Lord, saying with one accord: Thou art come, O redeemer of the world: that which thou didst foretell by the law and by thy prophets, that hast thou accomplished in deed. Thou hast redeemed the living by thy cross, and by the death of the cross thou hast come down unto us, that thou mightest save us out of hell and death through thy majesty. O Lord, like as thou hast set the name of thy glory in the heavens and set up thy cross for a token of redemption upon the earth, so, Lord, set thou up the sign of the victory of thy cross in hell, that death may have no more dominion.

And the Lord stretched forth his hand and made the sign of the cross over Adam and over all his saints, and he took the right hand of Adam and went up out of hell, and all the saints followed him. Then did holy David cry aloud and say: Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath done marvelous things. His right hand hath wrought salvation for him and his holy arm. The Lord hath made known his saving health, before the face of all nations hath he revealed his righteousness. And the whole multitude of the saints answered, saying: Such honour have all his saints. Amen, Alleluia.

Yesterday's Gospel

This will probably sound stupid, but that's what I'm best at, so why suppress such a talent?

Anyways, I was thinking of yesterday's Gospel on my way in to work today, specifically the following bits:

They came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.Unable to get near Jesus because of the crowd,they opened up the roof above him.After they had broken through,they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic,"Child, your sins are forgiven."


It's from Mark 2, by the way.

I was thinking first about the bit where Jesus works the miracle not because of the paralytic's faith, but apparently because of his buddies' faith. Note the comment that He saw "THEIR faith."

So I'm thinking about that, and it occurred to me that they lowered this guy down from the ceiling. It was the faith of those above that got him healed. I wondered if this was some sort of hinting at the communion of saints in heaven helping us folks down here. It's a bit attenuated, I know, but an old priest of mine used to say, "Scripture has no coincidences." I tend to read the Bible with that in mind.

One other thing that kicked this idea off. If you're in habitual sin, your will tends to be completely broken when it comes to stopping it. This is something that gets referred to by a lot of names: killing the conscience, blinding the moral sense, hardening the heart, etc. You are, in effect, paralyzed. This, I think, is clearly implicated by the passage. The actual grace needed to bump you to repentance ultimately does come from God, but it is often through the prayers of the saints that one is delivered to His mercy. Ask any mother who has had long conversations with St. Monica about a wayward child.

Just rambling here. Move along . . .

And thanks to Karl for letting me know how he puts the cool label things on posts.

Musings on Today's Readings

The first reading was the bit from Genesis where Cain kills Abel. I'm probably a very bad person for this, but I can never read that bit of Scripture without thinking of Nino Brown in New Jack City.

The Gospel, however, was short and sweet and a bit unnerving. It's Mark 8:11-13.

The Pharisees came forward and began to argue with Jesus,seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.He sighed from the depth of his spirit and said,"Why does this generation seek a sign? Amen, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation."Then he left them, got into the boat again,and went off to the other shore.

I read this, and I couldn't help but think of the multitudes of people who are asking God for signs these days. They range from your average Pentecostal type, who thinks that they get signs every time they look around, all the way to your atheists, who mock God by asking for signs and then rejoice when they don't get them. These kinds of behaviors both creep me out.

Given the way things are going these days, I'm pretty fearful of the next signs that we get. I'm not the kind of guy who goes around proclaiming that the end is nigh, but you can't help but see some of the world's madness and not at least consider the possibilities. And folks, I got some bad news. The end is not going to be all that pleasant.

There is no rapture. If the end comes, we're going to be sitting right in the middle of it, so stow your cowardly notions of missing out on all the persecution right now.

It made me feel better that I'm not the only one who had this in mind. If you check a Haydock Commentary, there is a quote from Theophylactus that nutshells the whole thing nicely:

Jesus Christ did not consent to the petition they made him, because there will be another time for signs and wonders, viz. his second coming, when the powers of heaven shall be moved, and the moon refuse her light. This his first coming is not to terrify man, but to instruct and store his mind with lessons of humility, and every other virtue.

You want signs? Be careful what you ask for.

The Bible Actually Supports Gay Marriage

Who knew! Certainly not anyone who has bothered to read it. Luckily, though, Lisa Miller over at Newsweek is willing to set all of us idiots straight. Make sure you pay special attention to how she completely blows off Paul's "tough" rhetoric contra homosexuality by appealing to a "modern scholar."


I keep saying it because it's true. It's looking more like 1984 every day. Pretty soon, we'll be reading articles about how 2+2=5.

Post-Synodal Shenanigans

Just because the Synod is over, don’t think that there aren’t still problems with it. What we’re getting now are the propositions being forwarded to the Holy Father for review. My biggest concern, mentioned here in a previous post, was the treatment of Dei Verbum 11. The Instrumentum Laboris took what seemed to be a heretical view of this passage. The post-Synodal proposition isn’t much better. Prop 12 reads:

Inspiration and truth of the Bible

The Synod proposes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts of inspiration and truth of the Bible, as well as their reciprocal relationship, in order to understand better the teaching of "Dei Verbum" 11. In particular, it is necessary to highlight the originality of the Catholic biblical hermeneutics in this field.

The CDF needs to comment? Why? Is there a reason why the unanimous consent of the Fathers, multiple ecumenical councils, and four popes from the last century alone aren’t good enough? I’m having difficulty seeing this as anything other than modernists trying to get their foot in the door. So far, I’ll admit to being ok with the big items Levada has come out with during his tenure. It would be awesome if his response was to censure the morons who continue to try and make this some sort of issue.

Prop 25 from the Synod isn’t much better:

Need for two levels in exegetical research

The biblical hermeneutic proposed in "Dei Verbum," 12, continues to be of great present importance and efficacy, which envisages two different and correlative methodological levels.

The first level corresponds, in fact, to the so-called historical-critical methods that, in modern and contemporary research, often was used with fruitfulness and that entered the Catholic field, above all with the encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" of the servant of God Pius XII. This method is necessary by the very nature of the history of salvation, which is not mythology, but a true history with its apex in the incarnation of the Word, divine and eternal, who comes to dwell in men's time (cf. John 1:14). The Bible and the history of salvation, therefore, also call for study with the methods of serious historical research.

The second methodological level necessary for a correct interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, corresponds to the nature, also divine, of human biblical words. The Second Vatican Council justly recalls that the Bible must be interpreted with the help of the same Holy Spirit who guided its writing.

Biblical hermeneutic cannot be considered carried out if -- along with the historical study of the texts -- it does not also seek its theological dimension in an adequate manner. "Dei Verbum" identifies and presents the three decisive references to arrive at the divine dimension and, therefore, to the theological meaning of the sacred Scriptures. It is a question of the content and the unity of the whole of Scripture, of the living tradition of the whole Church and, finally, of attention to the analogy of the faith. "Only where the two methodological levels are observed, the historical-critical and the theological, can one speak of a theological exegesis, an exegesis adequate to this book" (Benedict XVI, Oct. 14, 2008).

The historical-critical method is “necessary.” It actually says that. How amazing that the Church was able to do without it for 1900 years or so. I’ll be frank. If I may borrow a line from my colleague Karl, the historical-critical method is largely for sucks. Sure, it has some value, as Pope Benedict points out in his Jesus of Nazareth book. It’s primary use, though, is to serve as a lever for heretics to shoehorn naturalist a naturalist reading of Scripture into Church forums. This is where we get this popular attempt to separate the “historical Jesus” from the “Christ of Faith.” I guess the proposition tries to clarify its point here in an orthodox way, but that doesn’t change the fact that the beginning premise is ludicrous.

You can read all the propositions over on Zenit.

Somebody Actually Agrees With Us

Boniface over at Unam Sanctam has produced some great elaboration on the Instrumentum Laboris that was used for the Synod. If you have been wondering what I meant about "fluff" being the primary substance of the interventions, check out his posts here and here. Subjectivity covered in warm modernistic gooiness with no crunchy center is probably the best nutshell version. He does a great job of breaking down various points of the whole document.

I would especially suggest hitting the parts about the Old Testament and why they are "difficult." There's a reason why kids always seem to prefer OT stories to NT ones. They make a lot more sense. Really. You don't have to explain David and Goliath to a child. Parables need explaining. Epistles need elucidation. Acts gets a pass. Anyways, the point is that even the high-minded allegory guys like Origen weren't so blithe about dismissing the historicity of Scripture.

Just showing that Karl and I aren't crazy when we write this stuff.

"Everything the Bible says really happened never happened."

That's the way the students used to characterize the religion classes at the highschool where I used to teach. That's the message that they got from the current way of teaching the bible. Perhaps this is evidence of a flawed approach.

My comrade Throwback has been covering the synod in Rome on the scriptures, and I commend him for his work examining the inerrancy of the Word of God. I think that's important to emphasize. It is The Word of God.

We tend to look for the minimum, the barest little bit that we have to accept. This occurs in the response of Catholics to the teaching of the Church as well as in our reading of Scripture. Is this teaching infallible? Do I really have to believe it? We take a similar approach to scripture: do I have to love my enemies? Do I have to give up lust? Did Jesus really mean that it's near impossible for the rich to get to heaven? We tend to minimize the bible down to small, easily digestible parts that don't conflict with our world view.

It's very convenient, but it is not at all the way that a believer reads a revealed text. The bible is believed to be, in its entirety, the inspired word of God. There isn't any error in it. There may be stories that are more story than history, but there isn't the slightest bit of error, by which I mean that the whole thing, down to the most repugnant descriptions of leprous scabs in Leviticus, is in the book because the Holy Spirit wanted it there.

The believer, confident in the inspiration of the text, then can find meaning in any passage. In a post on my other blog, I wrote about St. John Chrysostom, who takes as the topic for an hour-long, brilliant sermon the text of St. Paul "Take a little wine for your stomach's sake." He does it on purpose, to show just how the believer can see meaning in even the supposedly silly or inconsequential parts.

What Bible Translation Do You Use?

We have several Bibles in the Throwback house, but the one we mostly use is a Douay-Rheims with Haydock commentary.

What say you?

NAB? NIV? KJV?

Regarding Inerrancy

Given the question below and some emails I've gotten, it seemed like I should follow up all this inerrancy talk with a few bits on what inerrancy means. In a nutshell, it means that the Biblical text is free from errors. And you say, "Thanks, Throwback. Now if you're done being an a-hole, maybe you could really answer the question."

The problem is that it's tough to go at from there. There are no errors. The Church has admitted that theoretically you could have some problems due to, say, copyist/translator problems over the centuries. After all, we don't have the original hagiographs in hand. This is one good benefit in not being sola scriptura-ists. Many of us have heard the saying (whether in seriousness or in jest), "If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me." The differing translations these days illustrate that we have to be careful where we go for our Scripture.

On a side note, while we don't have the original hagiographs, the Church has declared that, for example, St. Jerome's Vulgate translation, is free from any erroroneous teaching.

Anyways, with regards to Scripture, davfaltond brings up the point that how do we explain away all the alleged contradictions in the Bible if we say there are no errors. This is actually something that the Church has been dealing with for its entire history. One of the first major heretics, a jerk named Marcion, basically built his whole theology around what he felt were the inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments. Keep in mind that, through all this, the same Fathers and Doctors of the Church were reading the same Scriptures as us and having no problem declaring them to be without error.

So how to reconcile these alleged contradictions/errors? If you google the subject, you'll come up with several lists by folks who do exactly that. I'm going to link this one from Phil Porvaznik's site since I know that he's Catholic. It's clear then that it's possible to explain these items. Much of this is by not thinking, for example, that the Scriptures are written for chronology, rather than to prove a point (ie- Christ driving the money-changers from the Temple towards the end of the Synoptics but at the beginning of John). Another point is to recall that there are different senses in which Scripture can be read.

Consider the words of the Catechism:

According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses.

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

What gets lost in all this is that last bit in the portion on the literal sense. All other senses are based on the literal sense. The quote there, by the way, is from Aquinas. You can read his main treatment of the topic here. What people are starting to tend towards is a reading of Scripture that is almost completely allegorical or whatever to the utter exclusion of the literal sense and the idea that (gasp!) this stuff may have actually happened. This is usually from folks entirely devoted to the historical-critical method and is tackled in a major way by Pope Benedict in his Jesus of Nazareth book.

For example, if you asked enough Catholics about the homily they heard about the feeding of the 5000, you will inevitably come across someone who was unfortunate enough to be told that there wasn't anything supernatural going on. What "really" happened was that a bunch of people had brought food with them and Christ's "miracle" was in convincing them to share that food with others. Why must this be the meaning? Because nobody is silly enough to think that Jesus really could perform supernatural miracles. This same bankrupt reasoning is also used to deny everything from the Virgin Birth to the Resurrection.

On the flip side, take a look at the Canticle of Canticles. Are we bound by faith to think that Solomon was sitting around taking dictation from a real man and woman in writing this? Of course not. Are we bound to believe in a literal seven days Creation? No. Frankly, we should thank God that He was willing to describe the event of Creation in terms that we can understand, given that it would be impossible for us to comprehend the formation of reality ex nihilo.

Start with the literal sense, then work your way up. Recall what St. Pius X described as the attitude of the Modernist heretics:

To hear them (the Modernists) descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Domenici Gregis

Comments here are wide open, folks, so feel free to fire away.

Two thoughts on the day's readings

The first is from Amos:

You alone have I favored, more than all the families of the earth;Therefore I will punish youfor all your crimes.

Looking at the Church these days, one wonders about the modern applicability of these words for the New Israel.

Then there's this bit from Matthew:

As Jesus got into a boat, his disciples followed him.Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea,so that the boat was being swamped by waves;but he was asleep.

They came and woke him, saying,“Lord, save us! We are perishing!”He said to them, “Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?”

Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea,and there was great calm.The men were amazed and said, “What sort of man is this,whom even the winds and the sea obey?”

Just as He brought order from the chaos of the waters (reminiscent of Genesis 1 I realized for the first time today), let us pray that He will bring order out of the chaos facing the Church.