Recently in Patristics & Theology Category

This news is even older but maybe someone hasn't heard of it. The Vatican has ruled that the divine name is no longer to be heard in the liturgy, effectively nixing at least one popular song that (at least in its original form) uses the Y-word. Citing Jewish and first-century Christian practice, the Vatican said that the name is unpronounceable. "Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philogical order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context, nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated."

This is pretty funny because just the other day we were discussing the Tetragrammaton in bible study (we're in Exodus) and I was reflecting on my tendency to agree with the Jews that it should not be pronounced. I was thinking of asking the priest leading it what he thought but first I asked if a certain word in the text was the Tetragrammaton, not wishing to pronounce it. He said it was, and asked me to explain to the group what the Tetragrammaton was. I hesitated since I thought he was asking me to pronounce it, but he only wanted the letters. He then went on into uncomfortable detail about how to pronounce it, which answered my unasked question.

There is a danger in violating the commandment not to take the name of the Lord in vain when we bandy about the Divine Name, even if it is for ostensibly legitimate purposes. It should be treated with the utmost respect, just as the Ark of the Covenant was. So the easiest way to do this is simple to not pronounce it.

I listened to this show today on Catholic Answers Live by the author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Gary Michuta. (The author claims that it's the first book he's found on the subject in over one hundred years.)

The point of the program is that Catholics have larger canons than Protestants, and why. Gary got a call from an Eastern Christian (wasn't clear which type, though I suspect he was a Copt of one form or another) who pointed out that Eastern Christians have an even larger canon. I had to laugh at the call, both from a perspective of the thought of him getting a taste of his own medicine :-) and wanting to know how he'd handle it (having the same question myself).

His answer surprised me. He claimed that an argument can be made that the decree on the canon of the Council of Trent does not exclude other books! I suspect what he meant was that these books were not explicitly excluded. However I personally think they were implicitly excluded; what's the point in decreeing a canon if you don't mean to produce an exhaustive list of books? It's not a canon (which means "measuring rod") if it varies.

I think given that the Eastern churches (even just the Orthodox) don't have consistent canons, and have not to my knowledge infallibly defined their canons, they are the weak link, although it's hard to convince someone to exclude from Scripture texts they've been using in the liturgy for thousands of years. Well, ok, maybe around 1,500. But it's a (somewhat) appealing argument; there's a loophole such that we can accept the Eastern canons.

He made some interesting arguments in favor of the canon. One was a verse from Hebrews Hebrews 11:35, "Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection." Such a case does not exist in the protocanonical books. There is even a rare word that is used in both locations. He also refer to Matthew 27:43 where those mocking Jesus say "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' " This echoes Wisdom 2:18 which is a prophecy of the death of Jesus and says, "For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies."

(I should hasten to add though that it is a bad idea to argue either way based on what books are cited and which are not. Not all the protocanonical, or regular/common books, are cited by New Testament authors, so lack of such a citation is not ipso facto proof that a book is not canonical. Books that are not canonical, such as the Assumption of Moses and Enoch, are cited, so such a citation is not proof that a book is canonical, either. But it's fun to mess with their minds anyway. :-))

It sounds like an interesting book though, so I've ordered it. (I have so many unread books I generally avoid ordering books nowadays.) I'll report on it if I get around to reading it.

Is it morally acceptable to fantasize about torturing and executing spammers?

I think we should make a prohibition against spamming the Eleventh Commandment.

The next topic I've been discussing with my interlocutor is the topic of Mary. He naturally objected to the title of Mary as Mediatrix, and was concerned that Catholic devotion sometimes substituted Mary for God. (He had a plausible reason to believe this, citing some over-the-top devotional literature it was my duty to do damage control for.)

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists object to the title of Mary as Mediatrix (the feminine form of "mediator") because of 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". Ergo, there are no other mediators, Catholicism is heretical, case closed.

I pointed out that Mary's role in Catholicism is to bring us to Jesus. Note that it is not to bring us to the Father; that is Jesus's role only. This verse means that there is one mediator between God the Father and man. It doesn't preclude there being mediators between Jesus and men.

I invited him to consider the role of the evangelist. Is the role of the evangelist not to reconcile men to Jesus? Isn't he trying to bring them to Jesus? Doesn't he pray for them and intercede for them and answer their objections and explain how much God loves them? That's mediation. It doesn't compete with Jesus's unique mediation because the evangelist mediates with Jesus, and he mediates with the Father. So it is with Mary. Her role, like the evangelist's, is to bring people to Jesus. That's it. That's what "mediatrix" means.

We do have to be careful in Catholicism to not exalt Mary above Jesus or God the Father. We have to realize that her role is to bring us to Jesus. It certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't pray the Rosary, or be devoted to Mary, but we must never think of her as a destination or as a substitute for God or Jesus. "To Jesus through Mary", as they say.

I recently got involved in a discussion with a Fundamentalist who is trying to convert me. One of the topics that has come up is the Sacrifice of the Mass, which gives Fundamentalists and Evangelicals the willies. It gave me the willies too, in my Evangelical-detour days. The claim is that we are "re-sacrificing" Jesus, as if his one sacrifice was not sufficient. This is deeply offensive to them (as well it should be). I did much study on it. It required more study than it should have (meaning, the answer should have been articulated more clearly by the church) but I came up with an amazing answer. It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ, but a making present of the one sacrifice of Christ.

The Synod in Constantinople (Jan. 1156-May 1157) said:

"Today's sacrifice is like that offered once by the Once-begotten Incarnate Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is one and the same sacrifice."

The Council of Trent wrote: "In the sacrifice of the mass, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and its saving power is applied."

The Legion of Mary Handbook (1985 edition, p. 135) put it quite eloquently: "The Cross was not worth more than the Mass, because the two are but one and the selfsame Sacrifice, time and space being pushed aside by the hand of Omnipotence."

You see, Christ was our Passover sacrifice. This is a reference to Exodus, where the Jews had to sacrifice and eat a lamb to protect them from the final plague, the death of the firstborn. Jesus is the Lamb of God, like the lamb of Exodus, who takes away the sins of the world and protects us from the angel of death. Now, the Jews in the Passover had to sacrifice a lamb, which was a type (as in image) of Jesus. But they also had to eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb. Likewise, we, too, must eat of the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb of God in order to be saved from the angel of death. The Eucharist is the means by which the flesh of that one sacrifice is communicated to us for us to partake and so be saved.

No Jew in Exodus thought it sufficient to say "I claim the blood of this lamb over my sins." No — they had to eat the flesh of the lamb. So it is with us. The sacrifice of the lamb corresponds to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, while the consumption of the lamb corresponds with the Eucharist. If you look at it this way, it becomes clear that the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary, made present.

So when someone charges the Catholic Church with "re-sacrificing" Jesus in the Mass, now you can set them straight.

If you really want to freak them out, ask them about Malachi 1:11:

"For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts.

See, this can only be fulfilled in the Eucharist, since Jewish sacrifices are only offered in Jerusalem and the offering is made by Gentiles (literally, "the nations"). This verse was applied to the Eucharistic sacrifice by the Didache around 90 A.D. This and other early Christian documents consistently referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice.

Now this has gone from a topic that gives me the willies to one of my favorite topics!

Reader Tom writes in:

Another work published by the publishing branch of Opus Dei is finally finished in its English-language edition--The Navarre Bible: A Latin-English text (the Neo-Vulgate and the Revised Standard Version/Catholic Edition) with commentary by members of the theology faculty of the Opus Dei-sponsored University of Navarre in Spain.

The "standard" or unabridged edition of the New Testament is available in 12 separate booklets. A single-volume "compact" or abridged (commentary not text) edition is also available as well as a "reader's" or intermediate edition in several volumes, cumulating several of the standrd edition booklets in each volume with some abridgment of the commentary.

Here is a description of Mark Shea's upcoming book on Mary. It proves to be a book that is right on target. "The book presents clear, concise, and highly-readable explanations of virtually all Marian things ranging from the earliest stirrings of Marian devotion to the proclamation of the Assumption in 1950." All done in a style to soothe wary Evangelicals (and appeal to misguided Catholics) in only the way Mark can (if you've read This Is My Body, you'll know what I mean).

This is the most excellent article I've ever read in a secular newspaper about the Church's recent teachings on women in the church. It is a must-read!

Revival in Latin!

I took two years of Latin in high school — mastered it more than any other language I studied. Great for SATs. I took it because I wanted to study the Bible in its original language. (Ah, the naievete of youth.) I can still remember "Gallia es omnes divisa in partes tres, quae incolunt ..."

(Thanks, Amy!)