Since I was a child, I have been forced to read Cain's first words to God after being convicted of causing Abel's death, "My punishment is more than I can bear!" This is followed by a brief litany of perceived hardships Cain is going through: he is cast from God's presence, he will wonder the earth, he will be treated as a lowlife, and because he's been castout, he will be killed by others. Then, God reassures Cain that its not that bad, and that God will mark Cain, and any who kills him will be cursed.
I was fine with that rendering until recently. You see, my beloved mother purchased the Douay-Rheims/Clementine Vulgate side-by-side from Baronius Press. (For which, I am extremely thankful...I can't wait to read it to the kids when they are older.) I have been reading the Latin first, followed by the English (which surprisingly isn't as hard as I thought it'd be). While reading Genesis 4, I came across the same passage (duh, I mean, it is the same Bible): "And Cain said to the Lord: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. 14 Behold you do cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and from your face I shall be hid, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one therefore that finds me, shall kill me. 15 And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not so be: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold."
I've been thinking about that rendering for a few days. What a difference it makes! First, however, the NAB rendering isn't all that bad, from a logical standpoint. Cain realizes what his deed has cost him, and is afraid that his deed will lead to his own death at the hands of another. God, being ever merciful, reassures him that his worst fears will not come to fruition. From this story, we get the reassurance that our struggles will never be more than we can bear. In comparison, however, the contemporary rendering is lacking something: contrition for what he has done.
Consider these words: "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon!" Cain understands what he has done, he understands the gravity of his actions, which leads him to the say "and from your face I shall be hid." I may be reading too much into this, but this sounds more like contrition than "This is too much for me!", which sounds like whining. From where I sit, Cain isn't complaining; he is contemplating and verbally realizing what his actions mean: 1) his killing of his brother is so heinous he doesn't warrant pardon or redemption, and 2) the ultimate punishment: he will be hidden from God. His contrition, if that is indeed what it is, compels God to say, "No, I will not let anyone kill you as you wander the earth." Cain could very well be saying that he deserves death (for there is no pardon for his sin), and yet God assures him that is not the case, His Mercy and Grace supercede our sinful actions.
I'm no big fan of the NAB, but there is obviously an advantage to using the original (in this case Hebrew) rather than a translation of the original (which is what the Vulgate is) as a basis of your translation. However, I have special affinity to the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims/Challoner. This affinity is based on the fact that for centuries the Vulgate and its translation, the D-R/C, was the only version of Scripture around (and spawned Luther's translation into German and the KJV). That says something about the theological and moral certitude in the Vulgate and D-R/C.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Peter, the Pope, and Headship of the Church
I subscribe to John Martignoni's Bible Christian Society's Apologetics for the Masses newsletter. The current edition carries on a virtual debate concerning Peter as the first pope. I would like here to discuss some points that come up in that piece.
1) John and Thomas mention that the term Pope was not actually used in reference to the Bishop of Rome exclusively until about the 3rd or 4th Centuries. They don't mention why, and this is important. The term "pope" is derived from the Latin word for "father", much like the English term "papa". It was commonly used in the Early Church (East and West) to refer to the bishop of a diocese. In fact, Copts still use the term in reference to their chief bishops. Sometime in the late 3rd and early 4th Centuries, the Latin Church stopped using the term in reference to other bishops, and used it exclusively in reference to the Bishop of Rome. In fact, it is quite common in the writings of Eastern Christians to refer to the Bishop of Rome as the "Pope of Rome". For Christians in the West, the term "Pope" has certain connotation concerning headship and authority. That headship and authority existed far before the term "pope" began to refer to the holder of that headship and authority.
2) John fails to react to Thomas' statement that the Church began at Pentecost. Consider the actual text of Scripture as it recounts what happened that day: "They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. (D-R)" Three thousand were added...added to what? To the Church, of course. The Church existed before Pentecost, but similar to a child that matures in its mother's womb, the Church matured between its conception from the pierced side of Christ, and its "birth", or manifestation to the world. Why is this an important point when discussing Peter and his primacy? Because if the Church exists prior to its epiphany to the world at Pentecost, its structure existed prior to said birth. Prior to Pentecost, Peter was the leader of the Apostles. He called for Judas' replacement. He and he alone was commanded by the Lord to "feed my sheep", "feed my lambs" in John. He is recounted to have entered the tomb, and it was to him that the Lord appeared on Easter Sunday, after appearing to Mary. In all post-Crucifixion depictions of believers, Peter is mentioned with a leading role. With such an established structure, it only seems logical that once the Church is made manifest to the world, Peter is at its head.
3) Thomas says that in Matthew 16, all of the Apostles were given the commission of Peter. This is patently false: when Christ says "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" the 'you' is singular, which infers that Christ is speaking to Peter alone, not the rest of the Apostles. Likewise, the power to open and shut is reserved to the keeper of the keys (cf Isaiah 22). This being said, in his response, John fails to reinforce the concept of the key-bearer, the second in command, the vizier, the regent, who ruled under the King, with the authority of the King and in the King's stead in the physical absense of the King. Peter fulfills this role when Christ bestowed upon him the Keys.
4) John argues that the first part of Acts is about Peter. This may be true on the surface, but I think that statement, or that assertion goes against what Luke is attempting to do in the second part of Acts. Luke contends in his prefaces to Acts and Luke that he is attempting to get Theophilus up to speed on what is going on, explaining to him the phenomenon that Theophilus has been experiencing. It seems likely to me that Theophilus has heard of Paul, and the Gospel, probably even ran into some Christian communities somewhere within the Empire. Luke, then is explaining what he has experienced. Obviously, Paul is a huge part in Christianity outside of Palestine and throughout the Empire, so it is likewise obvious that Luke will introduce Paul and his ministry. However, Luke must also explain where Paul gets his authority and where he fits in within the Church. If Luke is attempting to convert Theophilus, those points need explaining so Theophilus can trust Paul's message. So, where does Paul get his authority? From the Apostles that Christ commissioned. Who are these Apostles, and Who is Christ? That last question is answered in the Gospel of Luke, while the former is partially answered in Luke and the answer is finished in Acts. In Luke, we learn who the cast of characters is: chosen by Christ, and specially tasked with spreading the Gospel. In Acts, we see how these Apostles carry out their commission, and we see the authority given to them. God sent His Spirit on the Apostles and Mary at Pentecost, and those same Apostles, led by their spokesman Peter, proclaimed the Gospel loud and clear. Just as Christ was able to heal the sick who touched His cloak, so too did Peter's shadow heal the sick. The demons fled from the Apostles, just as they fled from Christ. The first part of Acts, then establishes the veracity and true power of the Apostles and Christ's Church. We see that much of what Christ was able to do (forgive sins, drive out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead) the Apostles, more specifically Peter, are able to do. Only after Paul has met with the Apostles, and they approve his message and mission. It is with their blessing and their authority that he is sent out. Thus, Paul, in a sense, speaks with the authority of the Apostles, upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost.
So there you have it: my four cents.
1) John and Thomas mention that the term Pope was not actually used in reference to the Bishop of Rome exclusively until about the 3rd or 4th Centuries. They don't mention why, and this is important. The term "pope" is derived from the Latin word for "father", much like the English term "papa". It was commonly used in the Early Church (East and West) to refer to the bishop of a diocese. In fact, Copts still use the term in reference to their chief bishops. Sometime in the late 3rd and early 4th Centuries, the Latin Church stopped using the term in reference to other bishops, and used it exclusively in reference to the Bishop of Rome. In fact, it is quite common in the writings of Eastern Christians to refer to the Bishop of Rome as the "Pope of Rome". For Christians in the West, the term "Pope" has certain connotation concerning headship and authority. That headship and authority existed far before the term "pope" began to refer to the holder of that headship and authority.
2) John fails to react to Thomas' statement that the Church began at Pentecost. Consider the actual text of Scripture as it recounts what happened that day: "They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. (D-R)" Three thousand were added...added to what? To the Church, of course. The Church existed before Pentecost, but similar to a child that matures in its mother's womb, the Church matured between its conception from the pierced side of Christ, and its "birth", or manifestation to the world. Why is this an important point when discussing Peter and his primacy? Because if the Church exists prior to its epiphany to the world at Pentecost, its structure existed prior to said birth. Prior to Pentecost, Peter was the leader of the Apostles. He called for Judas' replacement. He and he alone was commanded by the Lord to "feed my sheep", "feed my lambs" in John. He is recounted to have entered the tomb, and it was to him that the Lord appeared on Easter Sunday, after appearing to Mary. In all post-Crucifixion depictions of believers, Peter is mentioned with a leading role. With such an established structure, it only seems logical that once the Church is made manifest to the world, Peter is at its head.
3) Thomas says that in Matthew 16, all of the Apostles were given the commission of Peter. This is patently false: when Christ says "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" the 'you' is singular, which infers that Christ is speaking to Peter alone, not the rest of the Apostles. Likewise, the power to open and shut is reserved to the keeper of the keys (cf Isaiah 22). This being said, in his response, John fails to reinforce the concept of the key-bearer, the second in command, the vizier, the regent, who ruled under the King, with the authority of the King and in the King's stead in the physical absense of the King. Peter fulfills this role when Christ bestowed upon him the Keys.
4) John argues that the first part of Acts is about Peter. This may be true on the surface, but I think that statement, or that assertion goes against what Luke is attempting to do in the second part of Acts. Luke contends in his prefaces to Acts and Luke that he is attempting to get Theophilus up to speed on what is going on, explaining to him the phenomenon that Theophilus has been experiencing. It seems likely to me that Theophilus has heard of Paul, and the Gospel, probably even ran into some Christian communities somewhere within the Empire. Luke, then is explaining what he has experienced. Obviously, Paul is a huge part in Christianity outside of Palestine and throughout the Empire, so it is likewise obvious that Luke will introduce Paul and his ministry. However, Luke must also explain where Paul gets his authority and where he fits in within the Church. If Luke is attempting to convert Theophilus, those points need explaining so Theophilus can trust Paul's message. So, where does Paul get his authority? From the Apostles that Christ commissioned. Who are these Apostles, and Who is Christ? That last question is answered in the Gospel of Luke, while the former is partially answered in Luke and the answer is finished in Acts. In Luke, we learn who the cast of characters is: chosen by Christ, and specially tasked with spreading the Gospel. In Acts, we see how these Apostles carry out their commission, and we see the authority given to them. God sent His Spirit on the Apostles and Mary at Pentecost, and those same Apostles, led by their spokesman Peter, proclaimed the Gospel loud and clear. Just as Christ was able to heal the sick who touched His cloak, so too did Peter's shadow heal the sick. The demons fled from the Apostles, just as they fled from Christ. The first part of Acts, then establishes the veracity and true power of the Apostles and Christ's Church. We see that much of what Christ was able to do (forgive sins, drive out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead) the Apostles, more specifically Peter, are able to do. Only after Paul has met with the Apostles, and they approve his message and mission. It is with their blessing and their authority that he is sent out. Thus, Paul, in a sense, speaks with the authority of the Apostles, upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost.
So there you have it: my four cents.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Dr. Gosnell: the Logical End to Abortion
I've been following the story of "Dr." Gossnell in Philadelphia for the past week. It is hard to write anything after reading the grand jury's statement. I am just numb. Women being mutilated and murdered. Cracking jokes about the size of a baby before grotesquely stabbing him with scissors and severing his spinal cord (and not even saying "fetus" but "baby"--he knew he was taking an innocent human life and didn't care). Severing feet of those innocent people he's slaughtered and keeping them around for "research". And state departments knowing this is going on and doing nothing. How can your heart not bleed? How can you not be enraged?
The NYT and other news outlets have tried to call this behavior an anomaly, not related to abortion. Sadly, this is the logical end to abortion. This is what happens we allow ourselves to see other human beings as sub-human. Consider the picture below, of an African-American slave. By all accounts, Southerners had dehumanized the slaves they controlled to make their treatment of them seem "moral" Apologists for slavery called "Negros" inferior to whites, while "biologists" claimed that biologically, they were less than human. Some even claimed that treatment such as evidenced below, was for their own good, because they weren't capable of making decisions on their own.
Consider also, this picture:
The NYT and other news outlets have tried to call this behavior an anomaly, not related to abortion. Sadly, this is the logical end to abortion. This is what happens we allow ourselves to see other human beings as sub-human. Consider the picture below, of an African-American slave. By all accounts, Southerners had dehumanized the slaves they controlled to make their treatment of them seem "moral" Apologists for slavery called "Negros" inferior to whites, while "biologists" claimed that biologically, they were less than human. Some even claimed that treatment such as evidenced below, was for their own good, because they weren't capable of making decisions on their own.
Consider also, this picture:If a reference to the Shoah or Holocaust seems out-of-place when discussing abortion, it shouldn't. The only way that such atrocities against humanity are able to happen are when we denigrate and dehumanize other humans as not human. Hitler and his National Socialists were clear that Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Catholics, Poles, and communists were somehow less than human. This attitude allowed them to treat those in captivity the same way some American slave owners treated their slaves: with inhuman brutality.
By most accounts, the genocide of the Shoah and the Rwandan genocide and the enslavement of Africans by Europeans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries are extreme low points in human history. How can we have any faith in humanity after these incidents? The example of dr. Gosnell and abortion as a whole are clearly reflected in these examples.
First, we start with a dehumanizing attitude. To the Germans, Hutus and Tutsis, and Americans, the "other" is somehow less than human. They are burdens to society, to personal well-being. They are incapable of "rational thought". They are "untermenchen", "niggers", "fetuses": not completely human. The pictures show the result of this attitude. While these pictures are disturbing enough, the dissection of a pre-born baby is too much to stomach, to repulsive. However, to abortion-supporters, these are "babies", but fetuses, or blobs of tissue, or to atheist monster PZ Meyers: meat.
Second, we have government compliance. We know that it was the government that sponsored and encouraged Shoah and the Rwandan genocide. They provided the impetus and infrastructure, they provided the means and manpower...it was the populace who stood idly by. With slavery, government allowed, made it legal, and provided the legal infrastucture to protect the "peculiar institution". In most of the Industrial world, abortion is protected by law, a supposed "right". As witnessed in Pennsylvania and most any state where Planned Parenthood has presence, the government not only turns a blind eye to the goings on, but they provide money to support the murders. In addition, much like the press in Germany, Rwnada, and the antebellum South, not only turns a blind eye to atrocities (like the NYT on Gosnell), but works to garner support for the actions.
Gosnell isn't an aberration. He is the logical conclusion. His callousness toward all human life save his own is the logical end to a pro-abortion mindset. He, like George Tiller and other abortionists, have inhumanly distanced themselves from humanity so as to provide their "service". Like the "hero" in Camus' Stranger who kills a man in cold blood and feels no remorse, thus it is with the pro-abortionist. Is it any surprise that such creature will care about a clean clinic, about following civil law when he has abrogated Natural and Divine Law?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Save the Liturgy, Save the World: A Reaction to Rockin Apologist
Catholic Apologist at RockinApologist is a friend of mine, so I follow his stuff. Most recently, he posted on a Pepsi commercial contest. Being a smart fellow (with one glaring exception: his belief that James White is brilliant), it is not uncommon for him to make some good points. I would like to reflect on his post for a bit...bear with me.
1) According to CA, the commercial in question has some guy dressed like a priest. Seeing as Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Lutherans all like to (at least occasionally) play dress-up, its hard to actually distinguish between a Catholic and liturgical Protestant. While Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians have women ministers, men still dominate that position, so even that is not really a give away. Anglicanism has so many disparate parts, at least according to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, that even those parishes with traditional trappings (beautiful Gothic church, statues, traditional worship, etc) can have weird theological beliefs which would allow them to subsitute Pepsi and chips for wine and bread. I share CA's opinion that as far as anti-Catholic ads go, this is very, very tame.
2) CA mentions that rather than gimmicks, we teach the Word of God. I have a better idea: how about we become unabashedly Catholic? What is so wrong with abstaining from meat on Fridays (yes, I know that the Church lifted that, provided that you substitute some other penance on Fridays, but we are talking identity, here)? Why don't Catholic schools have off on Holy Days of Obligation (or half-days to allow for the kids to go to Mass, which they may not do on their own)? Why don't we do Eucharistic processions or such? Its one thing to preach something, but we need to put those things into practice. While service to the poor is good, even atheists do that...we need to put our money where our mouth is.
3) The main way to recapture a Catholic Identity is to recapture our sense of truly Catholic worship. We are not Protestant. We revere the Eucharist because we believe it is Truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus. How about we act that way? End the conga-line processions for Holy Communion. End the practice of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (I mean, do we really need to speed up Communion time, a time when we get to bond with Our Lord in a truly intimate and close way? Shouldn't we all have time to reflect on what we are about to partake in and what we have just partaken in?). Recapture a sense of the Sacred during liturgical events. The translation that is being implemented in Advent 2011 (replacing the paraphrase we've been using for the last 40 years) will help a great deal, but Latin would be better. Why? ITS NOT NORMAL!! You know there is a problem when my non-Catholic mother wishes to hear Mass again in Latin, like when she visited her friends growing up. You knew you entered into something different, extraordinary when you went to Holy Mass, celebrated in Latin. You may not have known exactly what was going on, but you could, at the least, know it was special (hey, no one speaks Latin in conversation anymore, right?). This is why the Orthodox retain Greek (and some Latin) and why many Anglicans continue to use heirarchic English for their services. While we are at it, get rid of the plain, trendy, and cheap liturgical vestments. There is a great deal to be said for hand-crafted, high-quality, intricately detailed vestments for Holy Mass. Priests: you are standing in for the True High Priest...at least look the part!!! Get rid of carpet in the Sanctuary, and re-install the Communion Rail (you don't have to use it, but it at least gives the impression that the Sanctuary is a special place). Get rid of the "Eucharistic table" and reinstall a true Altar of Sacrifice that actually looks the part. Perhaps the single best thing that can be done to reclaim Catholic worship is to recapture that millenia old practice of celebrating Holy Mass ad orientam...in the same direction as the people.
4) CA asks why churches don't just hop on board with the whole Gospel message and abondon the world. A 19th century author (either Mark Twain or GK Chesterton...I think it was Chesterton) said, "Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and never tried." Churches who employ gimmicks lack true faith in Christ. Christ resisted temptation to abandon His mission for what the world had to offer. He was offered material gain (food), adulation (by not dying as he fell from the temple spire), and power. All these would have undermined His mission to redeem mankind. Our leaders have succumbed to the temptations Christ resisted not only because they are sinful, but because, deep down, they trust the world over Christ. Rather than look to Christ, who resisted great temptation (I mean, He knew the death He had to suffer, yet He went through with it anyway...), they look to the "promises" of the world.
1) According to CA, the commercial in question has some guy dressed like a priest. Seeing as Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Lutherans all like to (at least occasionally) play dress-up, its hard to actually distinguish between a Catholic and liturgical Protestant. While Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians have women ministers, men still dominate that position, so even that is not really a give away. Anglicanism has so many disparate parts, at least according to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, that even those parishes with traditional trappings (beautiful Gothic church, statues, traditional worship, etc) can have weird theological beliefs which would allow them to subsitute Pepsi and chips for wine and bread. I share CA's opinion that as far as anti-Catholic ads go, this is very, very tame.
2) CA mentions that rather than gimmicks, we teach the Word of God. I have a better idea: how about we become unabashedly Catholic? What is so wrong with abstaining from meat on Fridays (yes, I know that the Church lifted that, provided that you substitute some other penance on Fridays, but we are talking identity, here)? Why don't Catholic schools have off on Holy Days of Obligation (or half-days to allow for the kids to go to Mass, which they may not do on their own)? Why don't we do Eucharistic processions or such? Its one thing to preach something, but we need to put those things into practice. While service to the poor is good, even atheists do that...we need to put our money where our mouth is.
3) The main way to recapture a Catholic Identity is to recapture our sense of truly Catholic worship. We are not Protestant. We revere the Eucharist because we believe it is Truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus. How about we act that way? End the conga-line processions for Holy Communion. End the practice of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (I mean, do we really need to speed up Communion time, a time when we get to bond with Our Lord in a truly intimate and close way? Shouldn't we all have time to reflect on what we are about to partake in and what we have just partaken in?). Recapture a sense of the Sacred during liturgical events. The translation that is being implemented in Advent 2011 (replacing the paraphrase we've been using for the last 40 years) will help a great deal, but Latin would be better. Why? ITS NOT NORMAL!! You know there is a problem when my non-Catholic mother wishes to hear Mass again in Latin, like when she visited her friends growing up. You knew you entered into something different, extraordinary when you went to Holy Mass, celebrated in Latin. You may not have known exactly what was going on, but you could, at the least, know it was special (hey, no one speaks Latin in conversation anymore, right?). This is why the Orthodox retain Greek (and some Latin) and why many Anglicans continue to use heirarchic English for their services. While we are at it, get rid of the plain, trendy, and cheap liturgical vestments. There is a great deal to be said for hand-crafted, high-quality, intricately detailed vestments for Holy Mass. Priests: you are standing in for the True High Priest...at least look the part!!! Get rid of carpet in the Sanctuary, and re-install the Communion Rail (you don't have to use it, but it at least gives the impression that the Sanctuary is a special place). Get rid of the "Eucharistic table" and reinstall a true Altar of Sacrifice that actually looks the part. Perhaps the single best thing that can be done to reclaim Catholic worship is to recapture that millenia old practice of celebrating Holy Mass ad orientam...in the same direction as the people.
4) CA asks why churches don't just hop on board with the whole Gospel message and abondon the world. A 19th century author (either Mark Twain or GK Chesterton...I think it was Chesterton) said, "Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and never tried." Churches who employ gimmicks lack true faith in Christ. Christ resisted temptation to abandon His mission for what the world had to offer. He was offered material gain (food), adulation (by not dying as he fell from the temple spire), and power. All these would have undermined His mission to redeem mankind. Our leaders have succumbed to the temptations Christ resisted not only because they are sinful, but because, deep down, they trust the world over Christ. Rather than look to Christ, who resisted great temptation (I mean, He knew the death He had to suffer, yet He went through with it anyway...), they look to the "promises" of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)