"A Church which only makes use of 'utility music' has fallen for what is, in fact, useless and becomes useless herself. For her mission is a far higher one. As the Old Testament speaks of the Temple, the Church is to be the place of 'glory' and, as such, too, the place where mankind's cry of distress is brought to the ear of God. The Church must not settle down with what is merely comfortable and serviceable at the parish level; she must arouse the voice of the cosmos itself, making it too glorious, beautiful, habitable and beloved."
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in Feast of Faith.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The Beautiful Is Essential To Theology
"A theologian who does not love art, poetry, music, and nature can be dangerous. Blindness and deafness toward the beautiful are not incidental: they necessarily are reflected in his theology"
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report.
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
A Little History Lesson....
Did you know that the first translation of the King James Version that came out in 1611 included the Deuterocanonical books?
Well, they did.
Did you also know that the Deuterocanonical books have always been a part of the Catholic canon and that they are included in the Septuagint, which is what Jesus and His Apostles quote from in the New Testament?
Yup, it's true.
And here's the kicker....guess what version of the Bible the King James Version was largely based upon?
The Douay-Rheims Bible! A Catholic translation that was translated from the Latin Vulgate into English in the years 1582 and 1609.
Those are the facts. Check 'em out for yourself!
Well, they did.
Did you also know that the Deuterocanonical books have always been a part of the Catholic canon and that they are included in the Septuagint, which is what Jesus and His Apostles quote from in the New Testament?
Yup, it's true.
And here's the kicker....guess what version of the Bible the King James Version was largely based upon?
The Douay-Rheims Bible! A Catholic translation that was translated from the Latin Vulgate into English in the years 1582 and 1609.
Those are the facts. Check 'em out for yourself!
Come On Home
The Traditional Anglican Communion seems to be moving closer to reunification with Rome! Let us continue to pray for them and for all Christians to be one.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Honor Your Bishop!
"Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop, you are allowed neither to baptize nor to hold an agape celebration. Whatever he approves is fine in God's sight so that all that is done may be legitimized and certain. It is reasonable to start being sensible again and, while there is still time, to repent and come back to God. It is good to honor God and the bishop. The one who honors the bishop will be honored by God. The one who does something and hides it from the bishop serves the Devil."
-St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans.
-St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans.
What Really Happened At The Council Of Nicaea
Here's a hint: It involves St. Nick, Arius, and a Smackdown!
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
What Would Tertullian Say To The Sola Scriptura Crowd?
Sola Scriptura Man: I go by the Bible alone. I am my own authority in interpreting the Bible also!
Tertullian: "By what authority, pray? Prove it. If you are a prophet, predict something. If you are an apostle, preach in public. If you are an apostolic man, agree with the Apostles. If you are an ordinary Christian, believe what has been handed down. If you are none of the above, then, with good reason I say: Drop dead! For you are already dead, you who are no Christian, not accepting the faith that makes us Christians....What was handed down was true as it was handed down by those commissioned to do so. Thus, by rejecting what was handed down, you have rejected the truth. You had no right to do that."
Tertullian: "By what authority, pray? Prove it. If you are a prophet, predict something. If you are an apostle, preach in public. If you are an apostolic man, agree with the Apostles. If you are an ordinary Christian, believe what has been handed down. If you are none of the above, then, with good reason I say: Drop dead! For you are already dead, you who are no Christian, not accepting the faith that makes us Christians....What was handed down was true as it was handed down by those commissioned to do so. Thus, by rejecting what was handed down, you have rejected the truth. You had no right to do that."
Monday, September 03, 2007
The Bishop: Source of Unity
"Keep yourselves from harmful plants which Jesus Christ does not raise because they were not planted by the Father. WHat I found among you was not schism but a sort of weeding out process. All those who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop. All those who repent and come back to the unity of the Church, these will also be God's that they may live according to Jesus Christ. 'Do not be deceived,' brothers, if anyone promotes schism, 'he will have no part in the Kingdom of God.' (1 Cor 6:8-10) If anyone follows an alien faith, he is not in agreement with the Passion of Christ. Be very careful to participate in a single Eucharist: for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and a single cup by which we are united in his blood, a single altar and a single bishop with the presbyters and deacons, my fellow servants. Whatever you do, do it God's way."
-St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians.
-St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians.
Support For Pauline Authorship Of Hebrews
In the Greek East the near unanimous consensus concerning the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews was that it was written by St. Paul. It is significant to note also that Clement of Alexandria not only held Pauline authorship, but even stated that the stylistic differences between this epistle and Paul’s others was due to Luke translating the letter from the original Hebrew to Greek. In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History we have this account:
“The Epistle to the Hebrews he (Clement) attributes to Paul, but says that it was written for Hebrews in their own language, and then accurately translated by Luke and published for Greek readers. Hence, in the Greek version of this epistle we find the same stylistic color as in the Acts. The usual opening---‘Paul, an apostle’--- was omitted, with good reason. As Clement says:
‘In writing to Hebrews already prejudiced against him and suspicious of him, he was far too sensible to put them off at the start by naming himself….Now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, the Lord, the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews; so through modesty Paul, knowing that he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not describe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, first because he so reverenced the Lord, and secondly because he was going outside his province in writing to the Hebrews too, when he was an ambassador and apostle of the Gentiles.’”
The opinion that St. Paul wrote his epistle in Hebrew and it was later translated into Greek by Luke became the traditional opinion of the medieval Western Church, as apparent by St. Thomas’ commentary on the epistle.
The defense of Pauline authorship came to the West with both St. Jerome and St. Augustine. In 397 at the Council of Carthage, the Epistle to the Hebrews was canonically recognized as one of Paul’s letters.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews, offers his commentary on why Paul left his name of the letter:
“Paul did not write as to unbelievers who had acquired an implacable hatred against him but to believers who have shared all things that it is necessary to share. He writes not to those who are simple in their faith but to those who are demonstrating in their works the solidity of their faith and the keenness of their virtue, as the contents of the epistle show. Consequently, the epistle must have been delivered to them as one of Paul’s epistles, for if this were not the case the things written would not benefit them. Again, in addition to these consideration the things written at the end of the epistle prove what I am stating: ‘I appeal to you, brethren’ he says, ‘bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly.’ But to whom did he write, ‘I appeal to you’ if those things were not the reason the letter was sent to them? Then he adds, ‘You should understand that our brother Timothy has been released with whom I shall see you if he comes soon.’ Clearly you see that Timothy was the one who has delivered the epistle Paul wrote, with whom Paul clearly promises also to see them, if Timothy returns. What then is the reason for Paul not appending his name? It is evident and very clear. Both Barnabas and Paul divided the preaching task with the disciples of the blessed Peter. [This was] not so that the former could teach some doctrines and the latter others---for there is one goal---but so that Paul and Barnabas might lead to faith some from the Gentiles while Peter and his disciples would lead some from the Jews to faith, deeming this division more expedient because at that time there was still a powerful rivalry due to the custom of the Jews (based on their law) who did not permit themselves to consort with Gentiles. Then some of the apostles had dealings with the Gentiles, while others with the circumcised. But those who had come to faith in all probability deemed the teachers and apostles to be shared by both communities. Thus, when Paul wrote to the Gentiles, he in all likelihood commands them as their apostle, but when he writes to the Hebrews, he does not.”
Also, in the prologue of the Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Severian of Gabala not only explains why Paul left off his name, but matter of factly states that it was originally written in Hebrew:
“The heretics say that this epistle is not Paul’s, and they offer as their first proof of this that his name is not superscribed as in the other epistles. Second, his vocabulary is different, that is, it is foreign to Paul’s customary word choice and usage. One must know, however, that Paul was hated by the Jews on the grounds that he was teaching apostasy from the law, and having been endangered for this reason in Jerusalem and having scarcely escaped, he was sent to Rome. Therefore, writing something useful to the Hebrews, he does not append his name, so that they might not lose any advantage they could have derived from the letter because of their hatred against him. And he writes to them in the tongue of the Hebrews, which was also translated by one of his disciples---by Luke or more likely by Clement who is mentioned. For this reason the vocabulary is different. And this has been investigated by previous generations, and Eusebius of Pamphilus, a historian of those things in preceding and contemporary generations, made mention of the investigation, and it still seemed to our fathers, the predecessors of the bishops, that the epistle was Paul’s.”
Another big clue to Pauline authorship is that St. Paul ends the epistle to the Hebrews with a form of “Grace be with you”, just as he does in all of his other letters! Theodoret of Cyr confirms:
“He appended the usual conclusion, invoking on them a share in grace. As for us, let us sing the praises of the giver of old laws and new. And let us pray to receive grace from him so that by observing the divine laws we may attain the promised goods, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom with the Father and the all-holy Spirit be glory, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.”
Thus, following the received Tradition I hold that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew and it was later translated by St. Luke into Greek and the reason St. Paul left his name off was due to jurisdictional purposes and because the Jews were out to kill Paul and would not have read anything with his name attached. Yet, I do recognize the difficulty with the tradition that the epistle was originally written in Hebrew as mentioned by Taylor Marshall:
“…it is highly unlikely that it was originally written in Hebrew because the OT quotations in Hebrews are from the Septuagint and must be so since the argument in the first few chapters depends on the Septuagintal reading of a certain Psalm..”
I am hesitant to take an approach of a hermeneutics of suspicion concerning the tradition on this matter. I feel that the support among the Fathers is wide enough and they were closer to the time of the epistle’s original writing. Also, the support of Eastern Greek authors for the Hebrew as the original language seems to be significant. Hence there must be a way, in light of the tradition, to reconcile this difficulty. That will have to be the fruit or further research.
“The Epistle to the Hebrews he (Clement) attributes to Paul, but says that it was written for Hebrews in their own language, and then accurately translated by Luke and published for Greek readers. Hence, in the Greek version of this epistle we find the same stylistic color as in the Acts. The usual opening---‘Paul, an apostle’--- was omitted, with good reason. As Clement says:
‘In writing to Hebrews already prejudiced against him and suspicious of him, he was far too sensible to put them off at the start by naming himself….Now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, the Lord, the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews; so through modesty Paul, knowing that he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not describe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, first because he so reverenced the Lord, and secondly because he was going outside his province in writing to the Hebrews too, when he was an ambassador and apostle of the Gentiles.’”
The opinion that St. Paul wrote his epistle in Hebrew and it was later translated into Greek by Luke became the traditional opinion of the medieval Western Church, as apparent by St. Thomas’ commentary on the epistle.
The defense of Pauline authorship came to the West with both St. Jerome and St. Augustine. In 397 at the Council of Carthage, the Epistle to the Hebrews was canonically recognized as one of Paul’s letters.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews, offers his commentary on why Paul left his name of the letter:
“Paul did not write as to unbelievers who had acquired an implacable hatred against him but to believers who have shared all things that it is necessary to share. He writes not to those who are simple in their faith but to those who are demonstrating in their works the solidity of their faith and the keenness of their virtue, as the contents of the epistle show. Consequently, the epistle must have been delivered to them as one of Paul’s epistles, for if this were not the case the things written would not benefit them. Again, in addition to these consideration the things written at the end of the epistle prove what I am stating: ‘I appeal to you, brethren’ he says, ‘bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly.’ But to whom did he write, ‘I appeal to you’ if those things were not the reason the letter was sent to them? Then he adds, ‘You should understand that our brother Timothy has been released with whom I shall see you if he comes soon.’ Clearly you see that Timothy was the one who has delivered the epistle Paul wrote, with whom Paul clearly promises also to see them, if Timothy returns. What then is the reason for Paul not appending his name? It is evident and very clear. Both Barnabas and Paul divided the preaching task with the disciples of the blessed Peter. [This was] not so that the former could teach some doctrines and the latter others---for there is one goal---but so that Paul and Barnabas might lead to faith some from the Gentiles while Peter and his disciples would lead some from the Jews to faith, deeming this division more expedient because at that time there was still a powerful rivalry due to the custom of the Jews (based on their law) who did not permit themselves to consort with Gentiles. Then some of the apostles had dealings with the Gentiles, while others with the circumcised. But those who had come to faith in all probability deemed the teachers and apostles to be shared by both communities. Thus, when Paul wrote to the Gentiles, he in all likelihood commands them as their apostle, but when he writes to the Hebrews, he does not.”
Also, in the prologue of the Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Severian of Gabala not only explains why Paul left off his name, but matter of factly states that it was originally written in Hebrew:
“The heretics say that this epistle is not Paul’s, and they offer as their first proof of this that his name is not superscribed as in the other epistles. Second, his vocabulary is different, that is, it is foreign to Paul’s customary word choice and usage. One must know, however, that Paul was hated by the Jews on the grounds that he was teaching apostasy from the law, and having been endangered for this reason in Jerusalem and having scarcely escaped, he was sent to Rome. Therefore, writing something useful to the Hebrews, he does not append his name, so that they might not lose any advantage they could have derived from the letter because of their hatred against him. And he writes to them in the tongue of the Hebrews, which was also translated by one of his disciples---by Luke or more likely by Clement who is mentioned. For this reason the vocabulary is different. And this has been investigated by previous generations, and Eusebius of Pamphilus, a historian of those things in preceding and contemporary generations, made mention of the investigation, and it still seemed to our fathers, the predecessors of the bishops, that the epistle was Paul’s.”
Another big clue to Pauline authorship is that St. Paul ends the epistle to the Hebrews with a form of “Grace be with you”, just as he does in all of his other letters! Theodoret of Cyr confirms:
“He appended the usual conclusion, invoking on them a share in grace. As for us, let us sing the praises of the giver of old laws and new. And let us pray to receive grace from him so that by observing the divine laws we may attain the promised goods, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom with the Father and the all-holy Spirit be glory, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.”
Thus, following the received Tradition I hold that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew and it was later translated by St. Luke into Greek and the reason St. Paul left his name off was due to jurisdictional purposes and because the Jews were out to kill Paul and would not have read anything with his name attached. Yet, I do recognize the difficulty with the tradition that the epistle was originally written in Hebrew as mentioned by Taylor Marshall:
“…it is highly unlikely that it was originally written in Hebrew because the OT quotations in Hebrews are from the Septuagint and must be so since the argument in the first few chapters depends on the Septuagintal reading of a certain Psalm..”
I am hesitant to take an approach of a hermeneutics of suspicion concerning the tradition on this matter. I feel that the support among the Fathers is wide enough and they were closer to the time of the epistle’s original writing. Also, the support of Eastern Greek authors for the Hebrew as the original language seems to be significant. Hence there must be a way, in light of the tradition, to reconcile this difficulty. That will have to be the fruit or further research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)