Mr. Weigel,

As I began to read, I thought, 'Finally, someone's going to rip us a new one and get some fire going regarding reading the bible.' Then from the second paragraph onward, you went on to complain about the biblical text and how it's unreadable in all its translation-messiness. No wonder people won't go near the thing!

From where I'm standing, the real problems are 1) personal ignorance; folks simply don't want to read it (even if the catechism does state that ignorance of the biblical text is ignorance of Jesus), and 2) the liturgy feigns the appearance that we're 'reading the bible' during mass (so, why bother reading it at home?). Unfortunately, the contents for daily readings are so misappropriated from their context it sometimes hurts (e.g.: Luke 9:1a-c, 2-5b, 14).

An example of the first point (and indirectly the second): a gentlemen, with the best of intentions, I'm sure, asked about a reading that states, "Jesus wept." He wanted to know what it meant. (I wanted to slap the guy; but I didn't. I slapped my forehead instead.) And the answer? "I'm not really sure. That would be a good question for our priest." Wow. Utterly incredible. All he would have had to do was read the text for himself but he - via his question - showed no history of doing so. *That* is the problem.

It's conversations such as this that make being a catholic embarrassing. And no one seems to care.

Consider the following: the biblical text is primary; it must be read first before all of religious documents. The catechism cannot make sense to anyone without first reading the bible comprehensively; doctrine cannot be conceived nor understood without a thorough understanding of the text first; tradition cannot demarcate itself in the minds of Catholics (or anyone else) unless each of us knows the difference between biblical content and post-biblical interpretation; there's more, but you get the idea.

We have no one but ourselves to blame, in the end. On the one hand, we can throw the church under the bus for thinking it can be the necessary bible for those who don't read it; on the other, with the advent of such overwhelming availability of the text today, no one is without excuse for having not read the bible (and continue to study it): software, free bibles, iOS and Android widgets, etc., all one has to do is grab-n-go. No longer is the bible a calf-skinned, gold-lined, tassle-hangin' wunderbuch that will get you a free ticket to HR if you show up to work with it; it's now an innocuous 15kb on a cell phone.

"the beauty of God’s word ought to be one of its most attractive attributes."

The Koine of the NT is, for the most part, flat and pedestrian and the Apocalypse is thoroughly unidiomatic. St Paul's Greek is not unlike Dr Kissinger's English, correct, eloquent, but plainly not his mother tongue. I have no Hebrew, so I cannot comment on the OT, but it is worth recalling that St Jerome speaks of the Holy Spirit employing "humillimum genus loquendi" - the most basic (?) language.

Perhaps, for us, the Vulgate and the Authorised Version (KJV) have acquired a sort of patina of sanctity, which makes it difficult for us to assess their real literary merits. The Douay-Rheims bible is, frankly, barbaric and the version commonly in use was Challoner's 1749-1752 revision, clearly based on the AV, corrected to correspond with the Vulgate.

Exactly. I've never stopped using the RSV. I always advise it for my parishioners. The point is to have a common biblical vocabulary. Our babel of translations undermines and confuses this -- to say nothing of worship books that deliberately mistranslate scripture for ideological reasons.

Part of the beauty and power of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or Second Inaugural, is its roots in biblical imagery. What he said resonated with people because his words and phrases echoed what they read in their Bibles.

At one time, I was acquiring a variety of Bibles according to the last opinion of which one was "the best translation." I had at one time or another, the douay-rheims, the Jerusalem Bible, the NRSV, and the Life Application NIV Bible.

However, realizing I could only read one Bible at a time, I gave them away or otherwise passed them on to people who could better appreciate them or actually use them. I stick with the NAB I gave my mother for Christmas 20 years ago.

Yeah, it has its problems, but it also has built-in notes, pretty useful, sometimes suspect, and inconsistently provided. I realize the notes are not inspired, but they can be helpful. Any translation will have its ups and downs, as will any commentary.

Anyway. I need to first understand the whole story, then I can consider who best tells it.

The slowness of Catholics to abide in Jesus' word may have more to do with its perceived lack of authority than anything else, an authority that remains diminished to benefit that of the Catholic Church structure and tradition.

When rank-and-file Catholics discover something exciting and potentially life-changing in the Bible, they know they must run the gauntlet of the Magisterium and their local hierarchy before they can put it into their life's treasure chest, or at least take it out and display it for others to share and appreciate. They also realize that the Bible may at any time be outvoted 2-to-1 by the Pope and Tradition.

Common people have a fine nose for authority, and always have. That's why Jesus' teaching seemed so unusual:

"And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." --Matthew 7:28-29, RSV

One of my wife's and my greatest joys was to give an edition of The Daily Light on the Daily Path to a young Catholic couple. It contains daily readings solely of selected scriptures. They told us that they appreciated it immensely. It seemed to be a new experience for them, reading just the Bible. We were glad to provide it, without commentary or interpretation of our own, or undermining anything their Catholic teaching might provide.

As far as the Bible babel, the way Protestants I know and I negotiate it is to look at the way each translator board articulates its task in the Preface or Forward to the translation, and then see how much liberty they take with the text, and for what reasons.

For example, I welcomed the NIV in the late 1970s and again its revision in 1984 as fresh update to the NASB. But when the translation board seemed to be chasing market share in releasing the TNIV and running ads touting the unique way that the NIV could help shape their spiritual lives, I grew concerned (and even wrote them asking if they could put more effort to giving some people groups across the world their first translation of the Bible). In 2011, it came to a head when a completely new NIV revision was released. I noticed this difference in the Preface:

"In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being. The first concern of the translators...." - 1984

"In obedience to its mandate [to update the translation regularly], the committee has issued periodic updates to the NIV. An initial revision was released in 1984. A more thorough revision process was completed in 2005, resulting in the separately published TNIV. The updated NIV you now have in your hands builds on both the original NIV and the TNIV and represents the latest effort of the committee to articulate God’s unchanging Word in the way the original authors might have said it had they been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today. The first concern of the translators...." -2011

I then read about one woman on the NIV translation board who had exulted that she had finally defeated the opposition to gender-inclusive renderings. Finally, I see that even the word "male" in the original Greek had been neutered in James 1:22-24:

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like." - NIV 1984

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like." - NIV 2011

The male tendency to ignore his appearance despite whatever he may see in the mirror is nearly completely lost in the haste to avoid giving offense to our androgynous culture. That was all I needed to see of the NIV 2011; three strikes and it was out.

For someone without the time, resources or inclination to negotiate these shoals, the advice of ship's pilot George Wiegel to saturate one's mind with the text of the RSV is excellent.

Cliff -- Most Christians who have ever drawn breath have not had the opportunity for "private bible study". I know you're not saying all those people were unable to know God, or only able to do so in some way deficient to you and your leather-bound KJV, right?

Obviously, study of Sacred Scripture is important, and perhaps more incumbent on us who have the means and opportunity to do it.

But to say that it is essential to knowing God as a Christian or that one can't understand the basic doctrines of the faith without it is to disenfranchise a staggering majority of your forefathers in the faith, many of whom no doubt outstripped us both in faith, hope and charity.

All the best,

-- Matt Yonke

George Weigel says: ". . . Common English Bible, which renders Psalm 122:1, 'I was glad when they said unto me/Let us go to the Lord’s house,' as 'Let’s go to the Lord’s house.' "

To be fair, this is Psalm 122:1-2 from the Common English Bible:

I rejoiced with those who said to me,
“Let’s go to the Lord’s house!”
Now our feet are standing
in your gates, Jerusalem!

To the modern ear, I think "let's" is quite defensible considering that the speaker is rejoicing. How many people rejoice nowadays saying, "Let us"? And also let's not forget that the Psalms are meant to be sung. I think the lines from the CEB have a bit of the feel of a Spiritual. I have not spent much time with the CEB, but I own a copy, and what I have read I find quite respectable.

It is ironic that Catholics are now being urged to read the RSV when it was for so long verboten. My father was not Catholic, and he had a copy—this was in the 1950s—that my sister and I, as Catholics, dared not look at because it was a Protestant Bible. Clearly it was superior to the Douay–Rheims Bible, which we were stuck with at the time.

Mr. Weigel, you're echoing the words of Fr. Neuhaus in recommending the RSV as the best version for study and contemplation.

It's sad that our society is losing a common biblical vocabulary, but typical in our age of atomization. While individual study is important, the library in our pockets (smart phones) is not a substitute for the shared study and reflection that helps build communio.

Alas, adult faith formation in too many Catholic parishes is absent or so pedestrian that few want to engage. Why Catholic, on the otherhand, is pretty successul--maybe it will serve as a portal to Bible literacy for more Catholics.

If one picks up an Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT (RSV), the translation is great and the copious annotations help tremendously. Recommend that Bible.

Weigel's knock on the Common English Bible translation is misleading - I thought he meant that the CEB altogether omitted the part about being glad or rejoicing. It wasn't until I saw David Nichol's comment that I realized the CEB translated that line as well.

"The slowness of Catholics to abide in Jesus' word may have more to do with its perceived lack of authority than anything else, an authority that remains diminished to benefit that of the Catholic Church structure and tradition.

When rank-and-file Catholics discover something exciting and potentially life-changing in the Bible, they know they must run the gauntlet of the Magisterium and their local hierarchy before they can put it into their life's treasure chest, or at least take it out and display it for others to share and appreciate. They also realize that the Bible may at any time be outvoted 2-to-1 by the Pope and Tradition."

Dean, it's been my experience that the more I read the Bible, the more the teaching of the Catholic Church makes sense. Many Protestants I've encountered have a difficult time denying papal authority, the real Presence in the Eucharist, and other Catholic teachings when the Bible when confronted by a Catholic that knows the Bible.

Do not forget that the Catholic Church encourages a more thorough immersion in God's word than is found in most (if not all) Protestant circles. It is patently false that the Church denigrates or discourages biblical literacy. Any Catholic that prays the Divine Office (downloadable in a few different App formats) spends up to five times a day with Scripture, reading multiple psalms and readings from Old and New Testaments each time. If one attends daily Mass, they will hear/read the entire Bible every three years, with many passages repeated several times in one year.

A few minor points:

1) The "Biblical ignorance" of Catholics is not entirely accurate, though it bears some truth. When you're talking about 1.1-1.3 billion people, many living in other countries without educational opportunity, a degree of ignorance is understandable.
2) Catholics who are "biblically ignorant", like many non-Catholics, are lazy, poorly educated, or fallen away (or all three).
3) Some call Catholics "ignorant" when what they really mean is "Catholics don't interpret this passage the way my church does, therefore they don't know their Bible."
4) God's word is so vast, and the Bible so complex, one can spend a lifetime of dedicated study and still be "ignorant" of many, many things. No matter who you are, to some degree you are "biblically ignorant". If you say you aren't, you're claiming to be perfect and should have no sin in you.
5) Temporal ignorance is to be expected and is fitting for a Word that is living and dynamic, and something meant to result in an eternal unfolding relationship.

The failure of the historical-critical method is a direct result of failure to catechize and of "scholars" to have foundations in systematic theology. The problem was not the translation-- the translations and commentaries are the result of unwillingness or inability to think outside the text, as though the NT text came before Christ and the Apostles...

I suggest the opposite to all Catholics or biblically illiterate Protestants. Start with a children's bible -- not a children's translation -- but a children's storybook bible about 20 pages long with colorful pictures and good storytelling. Make sure it covers Adam and Eve through Acts. Between that and the readings Catholics use at the Easter Vigil, I finally got a sense of what salvation history is really about.

Brian,

The two simpler translations I have found very helpful are the New International Reader's Version (NiRV) and the International Children's Bible (ICB). For freshness and a new look at the text, and for helping to clear away the thickets of more complex English vocabulary and syntax, they are incomparable. There is also The Picture Bible in graphic novel format, with origins back to an older Life of Christ paperback I won for memorizing verses as an elementary school kid with the Bible Memory Association. It has just enough narration to hold the narrative thread together.

For video, the Visual Bible's production of the Gospel of John is so excellent that I watch it over and over again, usually while exercising. It has captions if I want them, and uses the Good News Bible.

For audio, I've been intending to buy Charlton Heston's rendering of the KJV, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

@Artaban7 - "Dean, it's been my experience that the more I read the Bible, the more the teaching of the Catholic Church makes sense. Many Protestants I've encountered have a difficult time denying papal authority, the real Presence in the Eucharist, and other Catholic teachings when the Bible when confronted by a Catholic that knows the Bible.

Do not forget that the Catholic Church encourages a more thorough immersion in God's word than is found in most (if not all) Protestant circles. It is patently false that the Church denigrates or discourages biblical literacy. Any Catholic that prays the Divine Office (downloadable in a few different App formats) spends up to five times a day with Scripture, reading multiple psalms and readings from Old and New Testaments each time. If one attends daily Mass, they will hear/read the entire Bible every three years, with many passages repeated several times in one year. "

Great! This is a contest in which everyone wins. Sounds rather like spurring one another on to love and good deeds to me.

The RSV is better than some of its odious postmodern competitors, but I'm not sure it can really lay claim to "the beauty of God's word."

Look at its clunky rendering of 1 Corinthians 13:1:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

Ugh. This passage is a "noisy gong."

Compare with the Douay Rheims:

"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

With the exception of one word ("Though" for "If), the King James Version rendering is the same:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

"[S]ounding brass" renders the Vulgage's "aes sonas" literally. I alas have no Greek, but even if it is the case that the Vulgate here departs from the Greek (hence the vastly different reading pursued by the RSV translators), one thinks there are better adjectives out there than "noisy," which is better left to descriptions of dogs, restaurant kitchens, and nuclear reactors.

I'm a Catholic convert from a very southern and evangelical version of Methodism. I'm a little surprised to say this, but I agree with Brian LeCompte's suggestion that for some folks, a children's picture book Bible may be the best option -- at least as a start. I would have never said that as a Protestant. After all, most of the people in my old church could quote lengthy passages by heart. Five year olds could give you detailed retellings of every major story from the Old Testament, never omitting the nuances. But as a Catholic (received into the Church a few years ago), I've witnessed near-universal ignorance of the Bible. And it's not just among Sunday mass attendees. In my experience, those in leadership positions (especially parish lay leaders) are equally uninformed. I'm serious: Go to an RCIA program and casually drop the name Isaac into conversation, or talk about manna from heaven, or mention the conversion of Paul, or allude to what happened on the road to Emmaus, and you'll likely get blank stares. It's shameful. All of this is to say that even a child-like education on Bible Basics would go a long way toward helping American Catholics to grasp the essential outlines of salvation history. Those who are so inclined can then move from the milk to the meat.

Dean said: "One of my wife's and my greatest joys was to give an edition of The Daily Light on the Daily Path to a young Catholic couple. It contains daily readings solely of selected scriptures. They told us that they appreciated it immensely. It seemed to be a new experience for them, reading just the Bible. We were glad to provide it, without commentary or interpretation of our own, or undermining anything their Catholic teaching might provide."

Very nice of you, but the liturgical year contains daily readings, always a psalm and a combo of OT and NT readings. Available in any missal, or the subscription Magnificat, or at the USCCB website, or an app for the phone.

Then they would have been praying in harmony with the church over the whole world, which is awesome. And the readings are selected to go together, so I can re-read them over the years (three-year cycle) and still learn something every time.

I believe that the fact that there are many authorized bibles as being the cause of Catholic iliteracy is nothing more than a canard. Each translation brings its own values to the table and there will be continuous disagreement as to the best bible. The real problem is our educational (catechisis) approach. I believe we work upside down. That is, we tend to start with the catechism as the prime document and the scriptures as secondary. If we started with the bible first and used the catechism as a reference to assure the bible student doesn't drift off into bad theology or heresy, then catholics may actually have some context of which to place our Sunday or daily liturgical readings. The poor state of homiletics in the Catholic Church further exacerbates the problem of Bible illiteracy.

@Therese Z - "Very nice of you, but the liturgical year contains daily readings, always a psalm and a combo of OT and NT readings. Available in any missal, or the subscription Magnificat, or at the USCCB website, or an app for the phone."

I'll be sure to look these up, along with the Daily Office suggested in comments above. I've seen the Missals before, but I didn't realize they had a daily schedule. Thanks.

Good Afternoon,

Could other contributors to First Things enter opinions about biblical texts to refer to?
To qualify my position; Catholic, reader of Aquinas, lover of Navarre Bible.
I would also be happy to hear opinions of recommended Torah texts.

Cheers, Donk

When I became a Lutheran at the age of 21, I felt very intimidated because I did not know how to navigage around a Bible. Attending, often, daily Mass from age 7 onward taught me the Bible stories of the Lectionary. CCD classes reinforced the pereicopes. Quickly, I realized that my problem was not a lack of Biblical knowledge but simply the anatomy of the Holy Scriptures. Even after serving as a parish pastor for over 20 years, I still quote Scripture but without the citation because I still don't learn God's Word that way. I can quote large portions of the Scripture by memory (my preferred is the English Standard Version, just because it's what the LCMS sort of adopted as the translation of our Service Book) but often use a Concordance to locate a particular Bible story.

Also, I'd like to offer a counterpoint to Dr. Weigel by noting that proportionally there are far more Roman Catholics involved in regular Scripture study than my own Evangelical Catholics are. And, "we"are the ones who brought the Bible to the language of the people! Getting my folks to Bible Classes is a constant source of frustration to me as their Pastor/priest.

I'd LOVE to lead a Bible class in a Roman Catholic parish in the Phoenix area and do a fair and balanced approach to the Word, as most of God's Word is interpreted the same by all Christians. Where we disagree....oh, there are some doozies there!
Any takers on my offer?

Spain's Bishops' pastoral instruction, “Theology and secularization in Spain, forty years after the end of Vatican Council II,” March 30, 2006, explains what had caused the secularization within the Church in Spain and the resulting widespread loss of faith. The document presents itself as a working model for the bishops of other nations. Modern Scripture scholarship is a major part of the problem, as is indicated in the following excerpts from the document:

19. In some instances the biblical texts are studied and interpreted as if these were nothing more than ancient texts. There is also the application of methods that systematically exclude the possibility of revelation, miracles, and intervention of God. Instead of integrating the contributions of history, philology, and other scholarly disciplines with the faith and the Church’s tradition, frequently the ecclesial interpretation itself is presented as the problem and considered as extraneous, if not opposed, to “scientific exegesis.”

25. The historical-critical method has been abused without a recognition of its limits, and this has gone so far as the assertion that the pre-existence of the divine person of Christ is a mere philosophical deformation of the biblical evidence. [...] The mission of Christ has been understood as a merely earthly event, if not political-revolutionary, thus denying his voluntary death on the cross for mankind.

@harry - Thanks for your comments on abuse of the historical-critical method, which contributed to destroying much of the Protestant Mainline. It's been my observation and that of others (e.g., Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible) that setting oneself up as a judge of scripture instead of vice versa never ends well, either for individuals or organizations.

Incidentally, the pivotal event in the lives of evangelists Billy Graham and Charles Templeton turned on this very point. Billy Graham chose to believe Scripture even when he couldn't fully understand it, or how it fit with science. He recounted how he knelt and prayed in the woods of a retreat center, committing himself to this path. Charles Templeton chose otherwise, and became an atheist. Here's a good summary: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/billy-graham-vs-charles-templeton-at-some-point-we-have-to-decide-to-believe/

Someone has said that humans always act in accordance with what they truly believe. I think this extends to one's treatment of Scripture. We always give God's word the prominence we truly, deep down, believe it deserves.

It is greatly to be encouraged that Catholics are returning to the Bible. And Cliff is to be supported in his efforts.
But his comments about the church bring to mind the fact that Rome has suppressed the Bible in its worship. Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D., has done extensive work to show that from Trent to Vatican II Rome eliminated over 99% of the Old Testament and 84% of the New Testament from its readings at the mass (with the exception of the Psalms which are read responsively). Post Vatican II those percentages increased from 3.5%-13.5% of the OT (depending if one is looking at the Lectionary for Feasts or Sundays and Weekdays) and to only 40%-71% for the New Testament (with the same qualifications).
More than that, Fr. Just has documented how the Magisterium has edited out passages that are deemed “theologically difficult”. For example, those proving Christ was one of several children.
The sum of it is that Catholics have a 500 year tradition of diminishing and censoring the Bible which is why this new development is to be so heartily applauded.
Unfortunately, the effects of this tradition can be seen in Matt Yonke’s assertion that a reliance on scripture alone was inimical to the early church and its use of Scripture as the sole source to establish doctrine. The Anglican scholar, J.N.D. Kelly’s work shows a rather differing opinion:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by the latter [Scripture at the time of the Fathers] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis…Indeed, all the instances of unwritten tradition lacking Scriptural support which the early theologians mention will be found to refer to matters of observance and practice…rather than doctrine as such…. (Early Christian Doctrines, 5th rev. ed.m 2008. Pp. 46-47)

The Scriptures were the foundation for the early church. And we are heartened that Mr. Weigel and friends have rediscovered them. May God be glorified!

Peace.

Hi, Dean,

“Scientific exegesis,” as was mentioned in the document, is at the very heart of the problem. Science's competence is in the study of the natural, not the supernatural. The Scriptures are an account of a supernatural being's interaction with natural beings. If one believes in God at all (which seems to me to be a necessary requirement for those who would present themselves as experts on the Scriptures) one will realize that God's part in this interaction will be, of course, supernatural. The part of humans in this interaction will be natural except, of course, where they are instruments used by God in His supernatural activity. With these obvious facts in mind, it is ridiculous to “systematically exclude the possibility of revelation, miracles, and intervention of God” in one's exegesis and expect to be taken seriously by Christians with any common sense at all.

Christ is the Lord of History. Everything that came to be did so through Him, God's Word. He holds the Universe in existence from instant to instant and always has. He does this according to His perfect Providence; He knows everything that has happened and everything that will come to be in the future, as those future events can come to be only through Him and only because He wills it. He is in complete control of history, except where He allows us to bring about events by the use of His gift to us of our free wills. And even then His perfect, omniscient Providence has already taken all our decisions into account.

As the Lord of History, He wrote salvation history by bringing about events, be they natural or supernatural. He does not need to inspire humans to make up fables with a moral to the story. That is not how the Word, the Lord of History, wrote salvation history. He wrote it by bringing events into being. We should expect to find that the “impossible” – impossible according what can happen strictly naturally – throughout salvation history, the “impossible” being God's part in this interaction between a supernatural being and natural beings. The Spirit inspired human authors to translate salvation history, the activity God's Word, His Son, into text for our sakes, but the Scriptures are first the living Word of God, His Son, for Whom all things are possible and Who is Truth itself.

Jerome's assertion is very true: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

This sentence in my previous post should have been:

We should expect to find the “impossible” – impossible according what can happen strictly naturally – throughout salvation history, the “impossible” being God's part in this interaction between a supernatural being and natural beings.

There was a "that" in it before that shouldn't have been.

"Kelly’s work shows a rather differing opinion:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by the latter [Scripture at the time of the Fathers] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis…Indeed, all the instances of unwritten tradition lacking Scriptural support which the early theologians mention will be found to refer to matters of observance and practice…rather than doctrine as such…. (Early Christian Doctrines, 5th rev. ed.m 2008. Pp. 46-47)"
Interesting. In order for a theological idea to gain traction it had to line up with Scripture. I wonder though, how did that work for the first 350+ years, given the fact that there was no authoritative New Testament? From what I've read and studied the reality is when the Church met to put its stamp of approval on an authoritative New Testament (God didn't hand down a table of contents), for any document or letter to be considered it had to meet up with established oral traditions passed down from the Apostles. How else could they have known it was worthy of consideration in the new cannon? So it seems to me you have it backwards for the first 350+ years.

Hi Bibbitt,

It’s interesting that Dr. Michael Kruger is addressing questions like yours in a series he is now doing. I encourage you to check it out at http://michaeljkruger.com. The series is entitled, “10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon”.

It’s not uncommon for some Roman Catholics to something like God didn’t hand down a “table of contents” but Dr. Kruger deals with that pretty elegantly. Kruger’s point is that given the Catholic’s penchant to deny the self-attesting nature of the Scripture itself, there is no warrant to support the belief that they would believe in a “table of contents” document should it exist. In other words, what would be the basis for believing the “table of contents” had one been given? Therefore that objection is really self defeating. Dr. Kruger concludes,

“In the end, therefore, the Roman Catholic objection is, to some extent, artificial. Such a ‘table of contents’ would never satisfy their concerns, even if it existed, because they have already determined, a priori, that no document could ever be self-attesting. “

That’s why it is so encouraging to see Mr. Weigel’s take on Catholic Bible reading. The Bible, as God’s Word, is not in need of any outside support. It is, as the Apostle Paul maintains, the “power of God for all that believe”> (Romans 1:16).
Peace.

Constantine:
Interesting. The Bible makes clear that Jesus founded a church, He didn't write anything in ink that we know of, nor did He commission any book. History and the writings of early Christians claim the same thing. So we know we had a church before we had the Bible. That early church was teaching before the books of the New Testament were even written. Yet you seem to place the Church under the Bible. That simply doesn't make sense to me. Jesus promised to lead the Church into all truth, not a book. And that book itself says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1st Timothy 3:15). Here's another interesting point: all the oldest Bibles contain the Catholic cannon, not the Protestant cannon. So if Scripture is self-attesting, why the difference?

Mind you, I should point out that I fell in love with the Bible during my years away from the Church and in an Evangelical church. Something for which I will be eternally grateful. While there I came to see that the Church is herself at fault for Catholics not reading the Book. I know folks who went to Catholic schools way back in the day who were discouraged from reading it. And those who weren't discouraged from reading it certainly weren't encouraged to read it. And now, like the author says, we have so many versions that we are losing our common Biblical Tongue. Oh well, the Church now strongly encourages reading it and that's a very good thing.

People don't read their Bibles - because the writing is just too difficult. "The Bible was written by a poet," someone famously said. And like a poem, nearly every sentence in the RSV New Testament, has at least two or three different readings/meanings.

But this doesn't mean that we should hope for a simpler Bible. Our Bibles are complex, in order to try to convey the fuller complexity of God and truth. Which is beyond our all-too-simple human concepts. A simpler Bible, would just oversimplify God and truth, after all.

And so we're stuck with it, more or less, it would seem.

Constantine writes,

"More than that, Fr. Just has documented how the Magisterium has edited out passages that are deemed “theologically difficult”. For example, those proving Christ was one of several children."

Absolute rubbish! Rubbish that is with regards to interpreting other blood children of Mary exist within an orthodox reading of the biblical text.

Further, I suspect you've misquoted this Fr. Just and I'm tempted to contact him via email to ask for a direct response to your comments. Mind revealing from which website you have copied and pasted these accusations?

The Church has never removed scripture from worship, and especially not to the magnitude you've implied here. It's saddening when those who vilify their first brothers in Christ, Catholics, turn to creating such stories as a way of rebuilding walls. I guess the truthful dialogue of ecumenism can create fear amongst the few still spreading that "old-tyme" fear gospel.

Catholics must endure to remind themselves we, Christians, are not a peoples of the book. Jesus is not a something but a somebody hence sola scriptura is not our custom nor our tradition. More correctly we approach the bible within the historical and theological context. The bible and the Church are never a card game where one suit trumps another (Dean - "that the Bible may at any time be outvoted 2-to-1 by the Pope and Tradition" oy-vey) but as a both/and promise of God's authority and love for us.


For a biblical/historical explanation of the Brethren of the Lord see - http://www.catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

side note: Dean bless your heart but quit it with the canards, again I say to you, the Christian bible is a Catholic book it is not outvoted by popes or Tradition and as I'm sure you know reading the bible is not the same as interpreting.

One of the most powerful tools in the Catholic tool belt is knowing we don't have to recreate the wheel. I suggest reading Chesterton On Conversion as he talks of the perception of the man in the street. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONVERSI.TXT

In closing, Swenson acknowledges that scholarly treatments of the Bible can often feel threatening to one’s faith. She addresses these fears by reminding readers that the Bible’s meaning has not diminished despite millennia of study. Ultimately, she argues, we have more to gain than to lose by considering alternative interpretations of the Bible. She assures us that, “Understanding how and why people hear different things makes a fruitful discussion about biblical perspectives possible.” In a country founded on democratic ideals and saturated by Protestant culture, such a discussion is long overdue.

"More than that, Fr. Just has documented how the Magisterium has edited out passages that are deemed “theologically difficult”. For example, those proving Christ was one of several children."

Helvidius upset Christians with his private interpretation of the Scriptures that went against the traditional interpretation preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church for over 3 1/2 centuries. He claimed Mary had more children who were the "brothers of Jesus" mentioned in the New Testament. Orthodox Christians wanted Jerome to respond to this new idea. In his *The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary* Jerome explains that at first he was reluctant to even respond to Helvidius because to do so might lend credibility to Helvidius' claims. He was very caustic in his response, as Helvidius' claims were as offensive to Jerome as they were to everybody else.

He demolishes Helvidius' ideas using the Scriptures. That settled that, it seems, for another 12 centuries, at which time Christians who were disconnected from the traditional interpretation of the Scriptures began making the same mistakes Helvidius had made.

The Fathers, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised the Church, considered the Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament a type that was fulfilled in the New Covenant in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. Assume that Joseph, by the grace of God, realizes this and then recalls what happened to Uzza:

"And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God."
-- 1 Chronicles 13:10

It becomes very easy to understand why Mary did not continue to have children. Joseph simply did the best he could to take *real* good care of the spouse of the Holy Spirit, the Ark of the New Covenant, with far more reverence and respect than was ever shown for the Old Covenant Ark.

Hi Bibbitt,
Your comments simply underscore my earlier comments about the Roman church’s censoring of the Old Testament. God certainly did author a book. Please refer to Jeremiah 30:2 as but one example. And Jesus affirmed every pen stroke of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-21). So you have the work of God the Father in commanding the writing of Scripture, God the Son in affirming such writing and God the Holy Spirit in carrying it out.

As far as the precedence of the Bible over the Church one only has to read the words of Paul: “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)

Calvin sums it beautifully this way:

“if the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist…For if the Christian church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained an sanctioned antecedently to the church, since, but for this, the church herself never could have existed.” (Institutes I.7.2)


And yes, the church may very well be the “pillar and foundation” but God’s word is the ground upon which that foundation is laid.


God’s household is built on the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles which we now have only in writing. Therefore, according to the Apostle Paul, the bible precedes the church.


And you ask another interesting question about the “oldest Bibles” containing the Catholic canon. I assume what you mean by that is the Septuagint, or Greek OT in combination with the NT. If I’ve got that wrong, please let me know. If that is the case, then again then we can look to the words of Jesus. In Luke 11:50-51 Jesus gives us an indication that the OT canon was the Palestinian, or Hebrew variety. His use of the A-Z metaphor (Abel to Zechariah) indicates a peculiarity in the Palestinian canon not found in the Greek. I’m good with Jesus’s choice.

I renew my excitement at Mr. Weigel's admonition. May we all return to the Scriptures!

Thank you, Bibbitt. I enjoy your sincerity and tone and I wish you every good blessing from Him who is able to grant them.

Peace.

Hi Andy,

Here’s a direct quote from Fr. Just’s website: http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/

Verses of John's Gospel that never appear in the Lectionary for Mass:
• 2:12; 4:1-4; 5:4; 6:70-71; 7:3-9, 11-24, 31-36; 8:43-50; 10:19-21; 11:57; 12:17-19, 34-43; 13:33b; 14:31b; 15:22-25; 16:4b; 20:10
• These can be broken down into three categories, according to the most probable reason why they were omitted:
A. verses that were not originally in the Gospel, according to recent textual criticism: 5:4
B. verses that serve mainly as geographical & temporal transitions: 2:12; 4:1-4; 14:31b; 20:10
C. passages that were considered theological or pastorally difficult, esp. due to their harsh polemic against "the Jews": 6:70-71; 7:3-9, 11-24, 31-36; 8:43-50; 10:19-21; 11:57; 12:17-19, 34-43; 13:33b; 15:22-25; 16:4b; possibly also 4:1-4 and 14:31b, already listed above;



Now notice that the very first verse cited here is John 2:12, “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” Catholics have been deliberately misled by the Magisterium.


My case stands. The Catholic Church has censored the Bible for more than 500 years. I’d encourage you to read his website. It is very good. If I’ve misquoted Fr. Just, I would like to know it and I will apologize publicly if found guilty. But I don’t think I have.

You write, “The Church has never removed scripture from worship, and especially not to the magnitude you've implied here.”


Take a look at Fr. Just’s materials. I think you will see differently.


And I’m sorry to hear that you aren’t “people of the book”. Please read my response to Bibbitt above about what the Apostle Paul had to say about that. God’s church is indeed built upon the Book, according to Paul who was taught by Christ.


I hope these findings bring you peace.

Andy, the effect of something may be quite different from its intention. The teachers of the Law in Jesus' day were intending to interpret the text correctly, but Jesus told them straight up that the effect of deferring to their tradition in doing so was nullifying (his word) the word of God. That's what I am warning against; it's not a canard simply because I hold Tradition and the Pope to be in the same class of fallible persons, however godly they may be, as the Teachers of the Law in Jesus' day. Erroneous interpretation from any source other than Scripture is a real risk, either for Protestants or Catholics, one mitigated by following the noble Bereans' example in Acts, "search[ing] the Scriptures daily to see whether these things [Paul's teachings] were so." My assertion here does not equal spreading a false or unfounded report or story, a fabricated report, or a groundless rumor or belief.

About the word "outvoted," I'm also not saying that an actual blind vote is held of the three; it's a figure of speech. The effect of being nullified by erroneous interpretation and being outvoted seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, and the similarity should be too close for comfort; that's why I used the word. It apparently had its intended effect.

As to the text of Mary having other children, coincidentally I just read that passage last night in Mark's gospel. If mother means mother in that text, why don't (or at least couldn't) the words brothers and sisters mean brothers and sisters? You don't suggest that these Greek words (adelphoi and adelphai) and their Aramaic equivalents were never used for blood siblings through their mother, or supposed blood siblings through their mother, do you?

The other uses of the word adelphos in Mark's gospel are split. In Mark 6:18, Herod Antipas' parents were Herod the Great and Malthace, while Herod Phillip's parents were Herod the Great and Mariamne. Thus they shared a father, but not a mother. So far, so good. However, in Mark 12:19, it would be a massive stretch to assume that in the Sadducees' hypothetical "gotcha" story, each of the seven brothers had to have a different mother, while each of the seven brothers later ended up with the same wife. Besides these Greek words, Mark, of all the gospel writers, certainly understood Aramaic and was aware of its value to his readers. If an issue as important as establishing that Jesus had no blood siblings through his mother turned on the Aramaic words, he would surely have mentioned it.

So, if early church writings or Tradition give witness that these words do not or cannot mean blood brothers or sisters through their mother, that's certainly powerful evidence that I need to weigh carefully and honestly. But if other evidence from outside Tradition or the Pope's teaching, such as the context of Mark's gospel, shows that these words were also used in that day to mean blood brothers or sisters through their mother, well, then you should weigh that evidence just as carefully, without predetermining your outcome. If you align with the interpretation of Tradition or the Pope in every case like this, because they are Tradition or the Pope; or if you hold that no one is allowed to interpret the Bible (reading, acting and teaching, as did Ezra) without first checking and aligning with Tradition or the Pope, or their authorized representatives; well, I refer you to my first paragraph above.

God bless you too. I'm writing in good faith, and I believe you are too.

For many years priests at many parishes would celebrate 6:00 am daily mass, and those daily readings with commentary (homily) in fact was responsible for a biblical education that many Protestants would envy. But priests mostly don't want to get up that early anymore, and do not want to encourage parishioners to attend daily mass; they view other activities as more important. One priest who celebrated Mass every morning at 6:00 was in his 80s and forced to retire, which ended 6:00 am Mass. I always thought that the other 5 priests at that parish were embarrassed by the old saintly priest's devotion. I do know that a week after arriving at the retirement home he died peacefully in his sleep.

Andy,

P.S., not to put too fine a point on it, in Matthew 20, the mother of James and John asks Jesus to elevate "these two sons of mine," which results in the other ten disciples being indignant toward these two "brothers" (adelphoi). Mark also states that they are both the sons of Zebedee. They have the same mother, the same father, and are called "brothers" in the text. Why is it such a large leap to make a good-faith interpretation that the simplest reading of the text is that Jesus had blood brothers through both his mother and father? I realize this is a sensitive issue, but the point still needs to be made.

Your statement, "Absolute rubbish! Rubbish that is with regards to interpreting other blood children of Mary exist within an orthodox reading of the biblical text" seems way over the top, and is not consistent with at least the use of the word "adelphos" in the Greek New Testament.

harry,

Thanks for your comment. I had not heard the teaching of Jerome and others stating that Mary was a fulfillment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant. It's strange, then, that Mary is nowhere mentioned or alluded to in the New Testament beyond the Gospels and Acts, even though the Old Covenant and its fulfillment are mentioned several times in the epistles, especially and in great detail in the Letter to the Hebrews. In that letter, the substitution of the resurrected Jesus in heaven for the Old Covenant is explicitly stated several times, including this passage:

"For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, 'If even a beast touched the mountain, it will be stoned.' And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, 'I am full of fear and trembling.' But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel." -Hebrews 12:18-24 (NASB)

If Mary indeed was fulfillment of the type of the Old Covenant and its Ark, then the letter to the Hebrews, and especially this passage, would have been the place to mention it. Whatever other worthy things Jerome may have done, I can see no other conclusion but that his contribution here amounts to eisegesis, not exegesis--reading into the text what is not there, rather than unpacking what is already there. Indeed, isn't that what the Hebrews and Galatians were doing, adding stuff to the simple gospel, which they found insufficient for one reason or another? In doing so, they triggered some of the most extensive sets of warnings given in the New Testament, ones that we should all re-read.

"It's strange, then, that Mary is nowhere mentioned or alluded to in the New Testament beyond the Gospels and Acts" - please add "except for Galatians 4:4, where our connection to God as sons is stated as being from his Spirit given into our hearts."

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father.' So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir." - Galatians 4:4-7 (NIV1984)

Hi, Dean,

Quickly: I am not sure Jerome ever discussed Mary as the New Covenant fulfillment of the Ark of the Old Covenant. He might have; I'll check that out. I was thinking of Methodius in particular, who addresses this very explicitly. I think Hippolytus does too, but not as extensively.

More later.

It is always good to get your thoughts on things.

God bless!

Dean,

on Mary's perpetual virginity, did you take the time to review the source I provided to others in my previous post on the Brethren of the Lord? And you are aware the fathers of the Protestant reform Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and John Wesley all professed in Mary's eternal virginity I hope.

Don't you think it odd these pillars of the revolt, who today are still held in high regard for their reforming ways, known for bringing to light the doctrines of sola scriptura, sola fide, sola grace etc, etc. amongst those of the Protestant tradition should still interpret from the ancient languages of bible within their "enlightened" position a reality of the scripture upholding Mary's eternal virginity?

As far as being "way over the top", not a chance Dean. When examining the various text with an openness to God's grace, an enthusiasm for the ancient biblical language and a truthful analysis of translation and transliteration occurring at the hands of scribes you also can arrived at a less impoverished point of view.

Again, read the reference I have already provide as a starting point for any future discussion/debate on, Who are these brothers of Jesus?

Next, in reading from your post,

"but Jesus told them straight up that the effect of deferring to their tradition in doing so was nullifying (his word) the word of God."

I thought I should clarify this tradition is not the same as Holy Tradition.

For the record Catholicism instructs Holy Tradition (oral) and Holy Writ (written) both form what you label as the word of God. "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"

and I hope you've noticed from certain non-Catholic biblical translations when publishers have wanted to downplay the allow-ability of Tradition as Godly revelation they deliberately substitute the word "teaching" when clearly the ancient language translates into the English as tradition.

Finally you've once again referenced the Bereans for support and I'm total confounded as to why you should do so. Contrary to what you think you know they did not profess a sola scriptura system as their final authority on matters of faith. Read the verse more closely and undoubtedly you still have not revisited my last respond to you here - http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/04/catholic-because-im-a-sinner

Peace of Christ

Constantine,

hopefully this will be brief since I am still reviewing your latest response and finding it hard tracking down the exact page you've taken your statistics from.

The link you've provided takes me to a menu page only but one thing is already clear from reviewing several pages of your incriminating source, the Church has not, "censored the Bible for more than 500 years". Nor has the Church removed scripture from worship which of course was your original charge.

Something which should also be considered by you and others of the Protestant "Reformed" tradition before condemning what you see as opposition is,...

Christian worship celebration as practiced by Catholics has never primarily been a bible study as bible study can and is conducted on alternative days of the week within local parish (congregational) setting and/or at the diocese level with specialized teaching. Further, there is no impediment to Catholics conducting bible study within their own home. Obviously the key is each individual whether they be Catholic or non-Catholic exhibit an interest for learning.

Back to proper Christian worship

From start to finish the Christian Mass is of course our greatest prayer to God. We join in celebrating our God of which the second person of the Holy Trinity Jesus Christ is central least we forget "do this in remembrance of me".

In other words, biblical study is all fine and nice for self-improvement and knowledge but actual worship of God is above and beyond any individual edification. Catholics actually practice the First Christian worship of God and question is do you?

Oh by the way you have clearly misunderstood me when I professed Christians(Catholics) are not a peoples of the book. I have already made clear elsewhere the Christian bible is de facto a Catholic book. But more to the point I was expressing that unlike the Jews who are a peoples of the book awaiting a messiah, Christians already look to the known messiah who is more than a mere book. That is why it is written he is the living Word least we fall into bibliolatry. Therefore, to say we are not a peoples of the book is proper and accurate as we have entered into the new covenant which is more glorious then old guided by the living Word, Jesus Christ.

Hi, Dean,

On Mary as a the fulfillment of the type of the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant:

“At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the 'ark overlaid with pure gold,' with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the 'ark' made manifest.”
– Hippolytus, On Daniel, 2nd Fragment

“And the posts of the door, says the prophet, moved at the voice of him that cried, by which is signified the veil of the temple drawn before the ark of the covenant, which typified you, that the truth might be laid open to me, and also that I might be taught, by the types and figures which went before, to approach with reverence and trembling to do honor to the sacred mystery which is connected with you; and that by means of this prior shadow-painting of the law I might be restrained from boldly and irreverently contemplating with fixed gaze Him who, in His incomprehensibility, is seated far above all.



“For if to the ark, which was the image and type of your sanctity, such honour was paid of God that to no one but to the priestly order only was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it, the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen, what, and what sort of veneration is due to you from us who are of creation the least, to you who art indeed a queen; to you, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver; to you, the heaven that contains Him who can be contained of none?”
– Methodius, Oration on Simeon and Anna

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars”
– Rev 11:19,12:1

On the necessity of Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant, being pre-sanctified (Immaculately conceived), just as the Ark had to be before the sacred items it was to contain could be placed within it:

And thou shalt make the holy oil of unction, an ointment compounded after the art of the perfumer, And therewith thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the testimony, and the ark of the testament ...
-- Exodus 30:25-26

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others; For there is no blemish in you, nor any stain upon your Mother.
– St. Ephraim, The Nisibene Hyms

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.
– St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace

It is apparent Mary has no need of purification or sanctification: See Judges 13. The mother of Samson receives special instructions regarding her behavior before Samson is conceived. She must be made pure and remain pure. She and her husband also receive special instructions regarding how they should raise Samson. Note the similarity between this account and that of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1. Elizabeth, too, is barren. They, too, receive special instructions from an angel. They are told how to raise John the Baptist. Zechariah is a priest and is already doing what is needed for the purification of himself and Elizabeth. Now, note further on in Luke 1 that Mary doesn't receive any instructions on how to make herself clean. She is already completely pure, being immaculately conceived. Possessing the wisdom that comes with being "full of grace," she doesn't need any instructions on how to raise Jesus. She is only told what His name will be. Uniquely, the Angel Gabriel pays homage to Mary.

Mary was and still is the pre-sanctified, living Ark of the New Covenant seen in the temple of God as a Woman clothed with the Sun.

hi harry,

Thanks for your comment.

I respectfully say that you (and those before you) are building a great building on a teeny (and shaky) foundation, one that doesn't fit as I see it. Yes, the text says she gave birth to a male child, which would apply uniquely to Mary as an individual, but the rest of the passage describes other things that don't fit the scenario you've described (child caught unto God and his throne, earth swallowing the river, etc.). Note that it also states that she had other offspring (v. 17). The nation of Israel, which God used to bring the Messiah into the world, seems a better fit for the whole passage.

Other scriptures support this view, such as Galatians 4, which explicitly states that our mother is the New Jerusalem, a figure continued into Revelation 21.

"Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

"For it is written,

“REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.”

"And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.

"But what does the Scripture say?

'CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON,
FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR
WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.'

"So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

harry, I've written on the question of the sinlessness of Mary in these pages and it stirred up a lot of response, so I won't repeat that here. But that Catholic doctrine seems built on inferences to assumptions connected proof-texts, all while ignoring other passages that speak differently to the same topic (for example, taking only Rev. 12:1-3a and apparently not integrating the rest of the chapter and the book, lack of integrating Gal 4, etc.). Shoring up the whole structure is the assertion that all of this must be inerrant because of the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead you (presumably the church, not just the 12 apostles) into all truth.

That interpretive assertion about infallibility itself neglects counterexamples in Scripture, such as Peter falling into error and being reproved by Paul, and what Paul told the elders at Ephesus, namely that "even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30 NIV84). Similarly, several of the seven churches were warned that they would be removed from their place for unfaithfulness, for example this for the church at Ephesus, the most prominent of the seven: "Repent and do the things you did at first. if you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place." (Rev 2:5 NIV84)

This sort of recursive interpretative structure-building that your comment illustrates, starting with a narrow foundation and building further and further out with each added piece while bypassing lateral reinforcement is, in my view, not that different from what the Pharisees were doing and even the numerology of Harold Camping. To them, and him, what they built was entirely self-consistent until it all collapsed.

On this we'll have to agree to disagree. Take care, and talk to you again soon.

harry,

Re. Mary needing/not needing purification, what about this:

"When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, 'Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord'), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: 'a pair of doves or two young pigeons.' ” Luke 2:22-23 (NIV1984)

The second of these quotations (doves/pigeons) from the Leviticus is as follows:

"The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites: "A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

‘ "When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

' "These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean. " ’ ” (Leviticus 12:1-8)

Hi, Dean,

I had the good fortune to visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Manhattan at a time when they had an exhibit of artifacts from the Early Church on display. Symbols of Mary and/or her image were on many of them. It was evident that the veneration of Mary is as old as Christianity itself. Christians have always loved her. What the Holy Spirit inspired her to prophecy has, of course, come about, "All generations shall call me blessed." (It was also evident from the ancient utensils that were used in the Christian liturgy that were on display -- chalices, censors and so on -- that the Church has always had a Eucharistic liturgy as well.)

Revelation 12 applies both to Mary and to the Church, Some parts of it seem as though they can refer only to Mary, others only to the Church, and others to both. This is as it should be. What is the Church? It is the Body of Christ. From whom did Christ take His flesh? From Mary, His mother. The Church consists of the members of a Body received from Mary. She, as Revelation 12 points out, is the mother of all Christians.

Justin and Irenaeus speak of Mary undoing what happened to humanity because of our first mother, Eve. She is the new Eve, as Christ is the new Adam.

For whatever it is worth: The Immaculate Conception makes perfect sense to me. The first Adam was brought forth immaculate from dirt itself. The first Eve was brought forth from the flesh of the first Adam without a natural mother. The reverse must happen to undo the effects of sin: The New Eve, Mary, was brought forth immaculate from the “dirt” of original sin itself. The New Adam, Christ, was brought forth from the immaculate flesh of the New Eve without a natural father.

The Church Fathers, from the earliest times, speak of Mary doing the reverse of what Eve did, the “knot” tied by Eve being untied by Mary. God's creation of humanity was in an uncorrupted, sin-free environment, bringing about an immaculate humanity – yet He began with “dirt.” That was, I believe, a type of God's eventual restoration of humanity, which was a reversal of what had happened previously and began with God bringing about another immaculate human being, the New Eve, from the “dirt” of original sin, and another immaculate Adam, the New Adam, from her flesh without a natural father.

The Ark of the New Covenant had to be immaculate, just as did the Ark of the Old Covenant.

"What about this ..."

Mary and Jesus both did what was required by the old "law," which was still in effect (except where Christ blatantly disobeyed it to make a point which involved its fulfillment). They were good, observant Jews. Jesus insisted on being baptized by John, which certainly wasn't necessary. The Fathers point out that Jesus was sanctifying the water of Baptism for our benefit, not being baptized for His benefit. That Mary followed the precepts of the "law" in no way indicates it was neccessary, just as Christ being baptized wasn't "necessary."

harry, thanks again for your replies. As always, they are very informative and helpful in my understanding of your understanding and that of those sources you cite, which are typically outside my reading material.

Don't forget that in the case of Jesus' baptism, there was an explicit disclaimer about the necessity of Jesus' baptism, while in the case of Mary, what you explain is supplied only by extra-Biblical sources. And if Mary were individually the new Eve, why isn't that stated explicitly in the Bible's text? I can't go there with only extra-Biblical sources.

So, we don't agree, but I can agree to disagree, and in the context of the love of Christ that we are to have for one another, of our prayers for unity.

Hi, Dean,

What was to become the New Testament at one time consisted entirely of "extra-Biblical sources." The Catholic Church, by the authority Christ bestowed upon it and with the infallibility of the Spirit Christ promised would be within it forever, after converting much of the known world without having an official "New Testament," officially determined that a handful of many, many available works were indeed "Biblical sources." Maybe the determinations of those with the authority bestowed upon them by Christ and with the infallibility of the Spirit Christ promised would be with them forever ought be given more consideration than those of others, as St. VIncent of Lerins pointed out a thousand years before those who condemned the very idea of the papacy, ironically, all decided to assume that role themselves. Vincent insisted we must not interpret the Scriptures contrary to the consistent interpretation of the Church, which, as was pointed out earlier, is, according to the Scriptures, the pillar and foundation of the truth. It is easy to understand why VIncent has this view, as every heretical schism that had afflicted the Church up to then had been based on private interpretation of the Scriptures.

Hi Andy,

You're right. Not only I did miss your additions on the earlier article, but somehow I missed your one above too. Not for the lack of looking for them, though. On the weekends comments stack up and it's easier to miss them, and after a few days I make the rounds less frequently on older posts.

I did take a look at your reference at http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/not-by-scripture-alone. While supporting the existence of apostolic teaching given orally and not in writing, I found it unpersuasive regarding the Bereans. They checked the scriptures they had to see if Paul's new teaching about the fulfillment of those scriptures was so. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

I also read a similar reference at http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/not-by-scripture-alone that deal with this issue. What I appreciate about this reference is its willingness to compare one scripture against another. That's speaking my language, so to speak, and that approach makes more sense than others that merely reference fathers of the church who are said to be doubtlessly guided infallibly in their tradition. Its treatment of

I appreciate your additions to my reading list, and that some of the reformers supported the tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary is new to me. However, they were fallible too, as Luther's diatribes against the Jews and Calvin's use of deadly force for purposes of religious compliance demonstrate. That in itself doesn't invalidate the tradition, of course; it just points out that they could have been wrong there too.

The conceptual separation between "tradition" and "Sacred Tradition" is also unpersuasive to me. It seems you're saying, well, it's infallible tradition, except when it's not. Furthermore, the defects of the Jewish oral law versus the zero defects of the Jewish written law (scriptures), as articulated by Jesus, are uncomfortably close to what you describe as the working bodies of Catholic-recognized truth, all without internalizing any of the examples of dangers and errors that befell the Jews and their oral traditions.

I'm sure that none of what we've discussed up to this point is novel, but it is necessary for each new generation to ride the entire land, from one end of it to the other, to be able to know its inheritance. Thanks for participating as we do this together. Even if there is a fence we end up mending here and there instead of taking it down--since we can't yet reconcile the deed with what we see in front of us--we're still neighbors and relations. And we look forward to the time when the range will all be free again.

God bless, Dean

Hi Andy,

I’m sorry you’re having difficulty. I’ve always been able to access Fr. Just’s page without difficulty.

In order to make the point clearer, you may want to go here: http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm. That is the page with Fr. Just’s statistics.

Just to reiterate: the Pre-Vatican II Missal for Vigils and Feasts used only 1% of the Old Testament (exclusive of the Psalms as I noted earlier.) The current Lectionary for Sundays and Major Feasts uses only 3.7% of the Old Testament. And the current Lectionary for Sundays and Weekdays uses only 13.5%.


Apparently you don’t like the use of the word “censor” but what would you call a book that eliminates 99% of the Old Testament?


I continue to be encouraged by Mr. Weigel’s thesis. It will help you find out what the true, “first Christian worship” really was. As a help, patristics scholar Robert Louis Wilken notes:


“In contrast to modern theological writings in which the Bible is cited in support of theological ideas, and hence usually relegated to the footnotes, in the early church the words of the Bible were the linguistic skeleton for the exposition of ideas. Even in the writings of the most philosophical of early Christian thinkers their thoughts are expressed in the language of the Bible, seldom above it. The liturgy provided a kind of grammar of Christian speech, a key to how the words of the Bible are to be used.” (The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God, Yale University Press, 2003. P. 43)

The first Christian worship was, then, instruction on the Bible. It was not some other activity that merely included the Bible.


That is why the Apostle Paul wrote, “Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Let me know what you find on Fr. Just’s site, Andy.

Peace.

Oops--my third para. above (10:56 am) should have read as follows:

I also read a similar reference at http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm that deals with this issue. What I appreciate about this reference is its willingness to compare one scripture against another. That's speaking my language, so to speak, and that approach makes more sense than others that merely reference fathers of the church who are said to be doubtlessly guided infallibly in their tradition. Its treatment of the Greek word "adelphos" using a reference familiar to me, for example, was helpful in rounding out that issue in my mind, namely that the word can be used, and was used, for several different relationships. It's confirmation that the interpretation will have to be wider than that word use alone.

Hi Harry,

When did Jerome become an infallible source? The modern Roman Catholic has only to consider that Jerome considered the unborn to be “at no time fully human” to realize that he shouldn’t be taken at face value. And the three criteria that Jerome used in the letter you cite would require Joseph and Mary’s marriage to be a sham, the New Testament to be mistranslated and the church to prefer virginity over marriage which is not an apostolic notion, at all.


But here’s the question, Harry. If Rome is so confident that Jerome “demolished” his opponent, then why excise those passages? What were they worried about? Why not leave them in and offer Jerome’s explanation to anyone who would have a question? It just doesn’t make any sense.


But that is why I continue to be so excited about Mr. Weigel’s push. Because when Roman Catholics return to the Bible, God will be glorified in it.


“Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.” Deuteronomy 4:2.

Peace.

Constantine,

"The first Christian worship was, then, instruction on the Bible. It was not some other activity that merely included the Bible... That is why the Apostle Paul wrote, “Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6)."

Not so fast. Read the phrase following the proof text to see what it is to which St. Paul is referring.

The whole passage is an exhortation to avoid pride, arrogance and favoritism, having nothing to do with an all-encompassing standard of authority of sola scriptura.

I think we should define how godly worship was practiced from early Christian sources before proceeding further down what constitutes a valid Christian lectionary.

Clearly we have vastly different opinions as I would not relegate prayer to "some other activity" nor would a vast number of non-Catholics.

Christian liturgical worship is prayer and although you might wish to claim this as not fully developed circa 30-60ad, that argumentation is completely different from your current position wherein you assert communal worship belonging solely to the realm of biblical study.

artistic reference: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Csf_tOSuvqg/ShqnBubCMFI/AAAAAAAAAos/09iS9cIepIA/s400/Prayer,+catacomb.jpg

Hi, Constantine,

Jerome never was an infallible source and nobody is claiming that he was one. In the case of Helvidius' novel ideas, Jerome confirmed the traditional belief that the Holy Spirit, according to the promise of Christ, had already brought about in the Church.

Where, exactly, did Jerome say that the child in the womb was "“at no time fully human”. I can't believe he meant by that, that it was OK to take the life of the child. I would like to see the context in which that remark was made.

"And the three criteria that Jerome used in the letter you cite would require Joseph and Mary’s marriage to be a sham, the New Testament to be mistranslated and the church to prefer virginity over marriage which is not an apostolic notion, at all."

I will let readers examine Jerome's work on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary themselves and decide whether your assessment of it is objective and unbiased.

"But here’s the question, Harry. If Rome is so confident that Jerome “demolished” his opponent, then why excise those passages? What were they worried about? Why not leave them in and offer Jerome’s explanation to anyone who would have a question? It just doesn’t make any sense."

You will have to provide the details of all that before you can be taken seriously.

Thanks,
Harry

I was re-reading Galatians and Hebrews, particularly the passages of warning against unbelief, and these verses stood out to me:

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." - Heb 4:9-13

I then thought of Moses, Aaron and Miriam in chapter 12 of Numbers, a book often referred to in Hebrews. Consider the similarity in this passage from this chapter to Heb 4:12 and 13:

Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the Tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When both of them stepped forward, he said, “Listen to my words:

“When a prophet of the Lord is among you,
I reveal myself to him in visions,
I speak to him in dreams.
But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

We've talked of types and anti-types. It seems to me that the parallel, if not a type, of the word of God, and of Jesus himself (cf. Heb 3) is Moses, while the parallels of the Pope and Tradition (even Sacred Tradition) are Aaron and Miriam, respectively.

All three were chosen and gifted by God, and both were instrumental in giving life and safety to Moses, the youngest and the one who came last. However, after God poured out his Spirit on the seventy elders--reminisicent of Pentecost--Aaron and Miriam overstepped their bounds and challenged Moses' authority, saying,

"Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Hasn't he also spoken through us?" (Num 12:2)

The text goes on to say that God heard, and applied discipline to both of them.

Note also the name of Moses' sister: Miriam (Mary). I'm *not* saying that the characters or choices of Miriam and Mary are parallel, only that the place that Tradition puts Mary is similar to the place that Miriam chose for herself.

Hi again, Constantine,

You wrote regarding the verses that, according to Fr. Just, never appear in the readings at Mass :

"Now notice that the very first verse cited here is John 2:12, “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” Catholics have been deliberately misled by the Magisterium."

The readings for July 24th, 2012 will include:

While Jesus was speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you."
-- Matthew 12:46-47

I think I said July 12 when I meant July 24 for the date the reading mentioning the brothers of Jesus would be used at Mass. I can't tell because my post hasn't appeared yet. ;o)

Hi, Dean,

"It seems to me that the parallel, if not a type, of the word of God, and of Jesus himself (cf. Heb 3) is Moses, while the parallels of the Pope and Tradition (even Sacred Tradition) are Aaron and Miriam, respectively."

Which, I assume you mean, makes the Pope and tradition subordinate to the Scriptures.

Catholic teaching, if it is not drawn from what the Scriptures say explicitly, can be extrapolated from it. So can thousand of other versions of Christianity which contradict the Catholic interpretation and each other.

Let's say I am having a house built, and I give all the contractors a copy of the blueprint and tell them I will be back in a few months to see how they are doing. When I return not much has been done and the contractors are feuding with each other. Each tells me they have been held up by some other contractor who refuses do work which is obvious, according to the blueprint, must be done before he can do what he needs to do.

Obviously, an authority is needed. Would it make sense to tell each of the contractors that they are the final authority on the interpretation of the blueprint? As I have said previously, everyone having authority is exactly the same as having no authority at all. There must be only one contractor whose decisions are final. So it is with the Scriptures. Common sense dictates that there must be only one final authority in interpreting them.

We are supposed to be building the Kingdom of God, to the extent that is possible given our fallen natures, here on Earth (utopia only comes with Jesus returning). The construction of that "house" has been stalled because too many "contractors" are claiming their interpretation of the "blueprint" is authoritative. This is in opposition to the Scriptures themselves, which make clear that God puts somebody in charge and stands by them.

hi harry,

"We are supposed to be building the Kingdom of God...."

Are we? Please read Hebrews 3 again.

"[T]he Scriptures themselves ... make clear that God puts somebody in charge and stands by them."

Do they, as a single, central, hierarchical, worldwide human authority? Please read John 17 again.

The emphasis here is on unity, not on authority or hierarchy. Unity is obtained by every person in God's house, or every part of Christ's body, together waiting on God in prayer, fasting and obedience to his word. We are to obey our leaders and submit to them, as scripture says; that provides order. But it does not, and cannot, provide unity.

The best examples of church unity I've ever seen or heard of have uniformly made critical decisions this way: by the leaders, beginning with the greatest, getting on their knees in prayer and the word, and not getting up until they are of one mind and heart. If they are not unified and God has not spoken through his word to them, they do not move forward.

It is so easy to let the concept of "unity of command" permeate through any human organization, resulting in a hierarchy. It's completely logical, as are your comments about it. But in the case of the church, Jesus himself, through his Holy Spirit, has chosen to exercise personal command. Our role is not to serve as human links in his chain of command, but to do whatever it takes to let him establish unity among us.

Ironically, this takes me back to Matthew 20:20-28 (NIV84):

"Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 'What is it you want?' he asked. She said, 'Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.'

" 'You don’t know what you are asking,' Jesus said to them. 'Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?' 'We can,' they answered. Jesus said to them, 'You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.'

"When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.' "

Whoever "solves" the authority problem in the way you describe creates even larger problems, namely short-circuiting the hard work of finding and seeking Christian unity, setting aside a difficult divine procedure with a more sensible human one, creating temptations for those in authority (e.g., "prince of the church"), and interfering with the work of the Holy Spirit.

Whoever, that is, except for Jesus himself.

My pastor once told me a phrase that I treasure: "I am not the Messiah." Only Jesus himself can make his body function; there is no substitute for the head. Furthermore, the head does not delegate its neural commands to any other part of the body, but instead controls them all directly. Directly, that is, unless the leprosy of sin, pride and human "solutions" kill the neurons that connect each body part directly to the head.

So with respect to his body, the church, Jesus does not "put somebody in charge and stand by them." He is in charge as the head, and he himself nourishes and cherishes it. He directs each part to serve the others, one cell at a time.

Hello, Dean,

I don't quite see how Hebrews 3 establishes that bringing about the "kingdom of God" is not, to some extent, an earthly endeavor.

“Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest.” (Heb 3:1)

Christ was indeed our "apostle," or "one who was sent" to us by the Father, to *Earth*, where He would teach us to pray to the Father that His kingdom would come by His will being done on *Earth* as it is in Heaven.

“He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house.” (Heb 3:2)

Moses is here referred to as one who was faithful in all God's house here on *Earth*.

“But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.” (Heb 3:6)

This was addressed to those who were His "house" who were still here on *Earth*. "If indeed we ..." There are other conditions listed in Hebrews 3 besides maintaining our confidence and hope which we must meet to remain a part of God's house. We must not take part in a rebellion as did those whose hearts were hardened, who "heard and rebelled." . These "perished in the wilderness." There can be no rebellion if there is not an authority to rebel against.

The Earthly aspect of God's kingdom is indicated many places in the Gospels.

It is close at hand. (Mt 3:2, 4:17, 10:7) The poor is spirit already possess it. (Mt 5:3, Lk 6:20) It belongs also to those who are persecuted for righeousness sake. (Mt 5:10) If we set our hearts on God's kingdom first, all our other *earthly* needs will be added to us as well God's kingdom. (Mt 6:33, Lk 12:31-32) God's kingdom is being taken by violence here on *Earth*. (Mt 11:12, Lk 16:16) God's kingdom will be taken from those who bear no fruit here on *Earth* and will be given to those who will. (Mt 21:43)

An *earthly* authority was established and given the very keys to kingdom of heaven. (Mt 16:19) Christ even told them "He who hears you hears me." (Lk 10:16) So, as the Holy Spirit says: Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion. (Heb 3:7-8)

Dean,

"But in the case of the church, Jesus himself, through his Holy Spirit, has chosen to exercise personal command. Our role is not to serve as human links in his chain of command, but to do whatever it takes to let him establish unity among us. "

there is so much I wish to respond to but it is very late and so I will ask several questions and provide several biblical reference for your consideration,

Q. you realize Catholicism teaches in Christ as the head of his Church?
Q2. and you natural admit to Jesus being in the line of Davidic kings yes?

“And it shall come to pass in that day that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah. And I will clothe him with thy robe and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house. Isaiah 22:20-23

compare with,

And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” , Matthew16:18-19

Q3 do you agree kings have stewards?

Q4 but are you also saying is it in an impossibility for God to allow others to share in his authority or in the case of those as the Church triumphant (those with him now) to share any other gift including his divine nature?

But that ye may know that the SON OF MAN hath power on earth to forgive sins,”— (then said He to the one sick with palsy) “Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thine house.” And he arose and departed to his house.
But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, WHO HAD GIVEN SUCH POWER UNTO MEN. Matthew9:2-8

or

So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, THEY ARE FORGIVEN THEM; if you retain the sins of any, THEY ARE RETAINED.” John20-21-23

or

By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. 2Peter4

~~~~~~~
Dean, here is the problem I'm having with your organizational structure which I don't see as godly inspired or commanded and as Harry has rightly pointed out, "if everyone has authority, nobody has authority"

I believe you fail to discern,... in not having what you label a single, central, hierarchical, worldwide human authority, you have a multitude of such. Instead of one papal office you have, in a sense, in your understanding, millions of papal offices. Protestantism created in it's petri dish a structure which does not return us to any pristine Church. On the contrary it moves further and further away from it. If everyone with a bible can be his own pope how are we to have unity? The vast numbers of denominations within Protestantism attests to it's own confusion and division. (yes I include all those who go by the title "non-denominational")

Final question, where exactly do you look to for an example of change that is not Godly instituted? What I mean to say, where exactly, biblical, do you find God initiating the Protestant Reformation? I know this isn't a very fair question as the canon had already been closed by the 16th century but surely you see where I'm going. This type of change for it to be valid would require, and to use your own words, "Jesus himself" who has chosen to exercise personal command. In past biblical examples of such magnitude it was always God who made himself present in our here and now for a restructuring, of his nation, Church, teaching authority, not simply any human with a bible in hand.

Hi Andy (@5.14.2012 | 2:44pm)

Please re-read 1 Corinthians 4. Paul is instructing the Corinthians how they should resolve an apparent conflict they have between Paul and Apollos. That’s pretty serious stuff. In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul tells the church that neither he nor Apollos “is anything”. Well, if that’s true, what is the standard by which they can decide? And that is why Paul instructs God’s people to ‘not go beyond what is written.” If there is a question between authorities, then the only infallible authority is to be God’s word.

@ Harry (5/14)

Hi Harry, the Jerome quote I mentioned comes to mind from the work of the Roman Catholic scholar, John T. Noonan. Dr. Noonan wrote a book about the history of contraception wherein he cites Jerome. I’ll look up the exact citation if you like.

And thanks for looking up the readings for July 24th (or 12th )!
I suspect that you took that information from a post-Vatican II lectionary. Fr. Just is very careful to draw a distinction between the pre- and post-V2 works. After V2, Rome added many of the readings back in.

Peace.