PODCAST 018 Medjugorje Special

Here’s an episode of the Jimmy Akin podcast in which I cover the subject of Medjugorje.

You can use the player and download link at the bottom of this post to listen.

This post also contains links to useful resources on the Medjugorje question.

To subscribe to the podcast, you can . . .

Subscribe_with_itunes
CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

 

SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 018 (10/29/11)

* VINCE FROM ST. CHARLES, IL, ASKS ABOUT MEDJUGORJE.

1978 CDF Norms:
http://d-rium.blogspot.com/p/normae-s-congregationis.html

Diocese of Mostar statements:
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?menuID=98

Međugorje: Secrets, Messages, Vocations, Prayers, Confessions, Commissions
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=101

2006 Homily:
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=71

Background on the “Herzegovinian Affair”:
http://medjugorjedocuments.blogspot.com/2010/11/1975-decree-romanis-pontificibus.html

2006 News Report:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604177.htm

2009 Homily:
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=366

2010 Summary of developments:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/new_medjugorje_commission/

2010 Commission Announcement:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/holy_see_confirms_formation_of_medjugorje_commission/

English translation of interview with Archbishop Amato regarding the Norms:
http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2010/03/medjugorje-comm.html

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION?
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?
Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com

www.jimmyakinpodcast.com

Today’s Music: Ave Maria (JewelBeat.Com)
Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin

JimmyAkinWeb600-3

The Weekly Benedict (Oct. 29, 2011)

Pope-benedict-3Here are this week's items for The Weekly Benedict:

MESSAGE: Message on the occasion of World Food Day 2011 (October 17, 2011)

HOMILY: 23 October 2011: Canonization of the Blesseds: Guido Maria Conforti, Luigi Guanella, Bonifacia Rodríguez De Castro

ANGELUS: Angelus, 23 October 2011

AUDIENCE: 26 October 2011, Prayer in preparation of the Meeting in Assisi 

VOYAGE DOCUMENT: Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace": Address of the Holy Father (Assisi, 27 October 2011)

VOYAGE DOCUMENT: Farewell address by the Holy Father (Saint Francis Square, 27 October 2011) (NOTE: The first paragraph of this is left in Italian, in an apparent mistake)

SPEECH: To the delegations taking part in the meeting for peace in Assisi (October 28, 2011) 

Are Levites Needed to Validate Scripture?

SeptuagintA reader writes:

My father came to me about the Septuagint and how it is not proper. I know the history of it but he stated something I never heard. He said that the Levites were not there when it was put together and  that null and voids it automatically since God had prescribed them as keepers of scripture. I can't find anything on this. Can you help?

I'm not sure what your father is thinking of. It may be Malachi 2:7, which says:

For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

This is a reference to the general teaching function of the priests under the Old Covenant. It expresses what they should do–be good teachers of God's word–but not what they always did. In fact, Malachi's oracle from God then goes on to berate the priests of his day for not teaching properly.

If this is the passage your father is thinking of, it doesn't do the work he seems to think it does. It's a general statement about the teaching responsibilities of Old Testament priests and does not say that they are needed to validate particular Bible translations, like the Septuagint (which, for those who may not know, is a Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures that was very popular in the ancient world, particularly among Jews who lived outside of the Holy Land and who spoke Greek).

Also, who says that there weren't Levites involved when the Septuagint was put together? According to the traditional account of its origin, the Torah portion of it was translated by a group of seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish elders (which is why it's called the Septuagint, from the word for "seventy") who may well have included Levites.

And then there was Josephus, the Jewish historian who was himself a priest, who quoted from the Septuagint, implying some form of approval of it, at least personally.

Or your father may be thinking of a different verse, or he may not have any particular verse in mind and may simply be operating on the premise that because God gave the Levites a special religious role in Israel, and since the Scriptures are religious documents, the Levites must give their consent for a Scripture translation to be valid.

If Levites were needed to validate Scripture translations (and note that Malachi speaks not of Levites but of priests, who were just one extended family within the tribe of Levi) then all of us English-speakers are in trouble because, as far as I know, no English translations have been validated by Levites, so all of our Bibles must be "null and void."

I suspect, though, that your father isn't primarily concerned about a particular translation of Scripture (although he might be). Rather, I suspect that he's concerned about the canon that a particular Scripture tradition represents, and here we have a substantive disagreement between Protestant Christians and the rest of the Christian world, for the historically ancient branches of Christianity all recognize (with a few exceptions here and there) the canonicity of certain books that were commonly found in editions of the Septuagint but that are not found in the modern Protestant Old Testament.

The trouble is, what particular groups of non-Christian Jewish people thought regarding which books are canonical cannot be the definitive criterion of what belongs in the Christian Bible.

Why?

Well, for one thing, non-Christian Jews did not accept the canonicity of any of the New Testament books. Neither non-Christian Levites nor non-Christian Jewish priests accepted these. In fact, they rejected and condemned them. So if one is a Christian, one must be prepared to look to the Christian community for the final determination of what belongs in its Bible.

And the early Christians were quite clear in affirming the canonicity of the books found in the Septuagint but not in modern Protestant Bibles.

You can read more about that in my book The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to Early Christian Teaching.

Just how early did the Christian community accept the use of the Septuagint?

This early: It's the standard version of the Old Testament that the New Testament authors quote from. The vast majority of the time that the inspired authors of the New Testament quote from the Old Testament, it's the Septuagint they're quoting from.

And they do so without issuing any warnings about which books of the Septuagint can be used. In fact, they allude to some of these books (e.g., Hebrews 11:35 is a direct allusion to 2 Maccabees 7; you won't find anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament where people are tortured and refuse release in order to obtain a better resurrection, but that's exactly what you find in 2 Maccabees 7).

So, although I'm not sure exactly what your father's claim is, I hope this provides useful information for dialogue between viewpoints.

Just 2 Days Left! (I Can Still Save You $100 Or More!)

Eurodam-sm Here's the deal: Catholic Answers is currently planning it cruise for May 11-21 of next year.

It's going to go all kinds of interesting places: Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. There will be a pre-event in Rome, and the trip itself will feature a visit to Fatima.

Now the money part: If you register for the cruise by October 28, I can save you $100 per person. (So if you take two people, I can save you $200; three people, $300; etc.)

Just put the super-secret code “Jimmy” in the “Special Request and Notes” section of your online application.

This exciting, faith-building experience would be a nice Christmas gift for you and your spouse, others in your family, or just yourself!

But remember, there's a time limit on this one, so register by October 28th so I can get you the discount!

More info here: www.CatholicAnswersCruise.com

Just How “Major” Was Monday’s Finance Document?

Curia

There was a lot of buzz leading up to the the note on world financial matters released by the Holy See on Monday.

One of the first references I saw to it was in a story with a headline something like “Major Vatican Document to Be Released Monday.” I clicked on the story and saw that the document in question was to be released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. My eyebrows immediately went up, and I began pondering the sense in which the term “major” was being used.

I suspect that the person who wrote the headline was using the term in its ordinary sense, which would signify a document of great importance relative to others issued by the Holy See, on some kind of absolute or general scale. You know, the way a papal encyclical is a major document.

But I suspect that the person who wrote the headline was under a misimpression, because the document was not major in this way.

“Major” is a relative term, and while it might be accurate to say that the document was “major” by the lights of the PCJP, it was not major in the overall Vatican sweep of things. The mere fact that it’s being issued by the PCJP tells you that much.

That’s no slight to the PCJP. It is a dicastery (department) of the Holy See, with its own proper work and role. It’s just not a venue the pope uses to issue major documents, when “major” is read in terms of the Vatican as a whole.

Because of the controversial nature of the document, it attracted a great deal of comment in the press, with some loving and some loathing it. Others loved certain aspects of the document and loathed others. And there was a great deal of discussion regarding what kind of authority the document has.

George Weigel stated:

The truth of the matter is that “the Vatican” — whether that phrase is intended to mean the Pope, the Holy See, the Church’s teaching authority, or the Church’s central structures of governance — called for precisely nothing in this document. The document is a “Note” from a rather small office in the Roman Curia. The document’s specific recommendations do not necessarily reflect the settled views of the senior authorities of the Holy See; indeed, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the press spokesman for the Vatican, was noticeably circumspect in his comments on the document and its weight. As indeed he ought to have been. The document doesn’t speak for the Pope, it doesn’t speak for “the Vatican,” and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote:

I can say this: Thanks be to God this “white paper” doesn’t form part of the Holy Father’s Ordinary Magisterium.

Every once in a while the Holy See’s smaller offices, Pontifical Councils and so forth, have to put out a paper to justify their budgets and remind everyone that they take up valuable space. These documents, which do not form part of the Holy Father’s Magisterium, can deal with critical issues like how to be a safe driver. The dicasteries keep busy by hosting seminars on how to play sport and so forth.

Mark Brumley states:

Even though Catholics are not obliged to accept the policy proposals of this “note,” many Catholics will nevertheless want to hear what the council says, and others are likely to be influenced by it, even though it does not represent “the Vatican’s position” (contrary to what some media accounts and some leftwing Catholics would lead you to believe).

Each of these gentlemen is correct in the assertion that the document does not represent the Church’s teaching authority or magisterium—at least the document as a whole does not. (It does contain quotations from other documents which do carry magisterial authority, and those passages carry the same authority as they had in their original context.)

This is stuff that people who make a close study of the Holy See and the way it operates are aware of, but the secular media doesn’t pay close enough attention to know, and they regularly misrepresent things. Because the media doesn’t know how to process these things, they haven’t done a good job informing the general public about them, and so the ordinary person gets misleading headlines like “Pope Calls for World Bank” or things like that.

So how do we know that gentlemen like Weigel, Zuhlsdorf and Brumley are correct?

What I’d like to do here is offer a few brief thoughts on the subject. First, in this post, let’s deal with the question of how “major” the document is or—per Weigel and Zuhlsdorf—what the status of the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace is. In a second post, we’ll look at the question of whether documents like this represent the Magisterium of the Church.

First, let’s talk about the Roman Curia—the set of “dicasteries” or departments that includes the PCJP (the picture above is Pope Benedict addressing the Curia in 2009). The basic document governing the Curia is an apostolic constitution issued by John Paul II in 1988 called Pastor Bonus (Latin, “Good Shepherd”). This document provided the overall legal and organizational framework within which the Curia works today (though Pope Benedict has modified it a bit). According to the document:

Art. 1 — The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. It thus strengthens the unity of the faith and the communion of the people of God and promotes the mission proper to the Church in the world.

It then explains the concept of a dicastery and an institute more closely:

Art. 2 — § 1. By the word “dicasteries” are understood the Secretariat of State, Congregations, Tribunals, Councils and Offices, namely the Apostolic Camera, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, and the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. . . .

§ 3. Among the institutes of the Roman Curia are the Prefecture of the Papal Household and the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

Another thing that Article 2 of Pastor Bonus explains is that:

§ 2. The dicasteries are juridically equal among themselves.

This means that they have an equality before the law, though it does not mean that they are all equal in duties or influence. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law notes:

While the dicasteries are technically juridically equal, they are not equal in importance or power. Normally no dicastery has any power over another; each responds directly to the pope regarding its activity (p. 479; on cc. 360-361).

The commentary then, in further passages, remarks on some of the differences in the influence and power of different dicasteries, noting that the Secretariat of State plays a central role and is especially close to the pope, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has an especially influential role among the congregations, etc.

In practice, it is not difficult to determine the relative influence of particular departments. They are, in fact, listed in Pastor Bonus itself in terms of their relative importance. Notice that Article 2 lists the Secretariat of State first, then the Congregations, then Tribunals, then Councils, and then Offices. This is the same order that you find if you go to the Roman Curia’s page on the Vatican web site. You’ll see exactly the same list of categories, in the same order (and further expanded and extended to include additional bodies).

This is the basic power structure within the Curia. While all departments may be juridically equal, those dicasteries that are higher up in the hierarchy have more influence in practical terms and those which are lower have less. The Secretariat of State has the most influence, followed by the Congregations. These include the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has the most influence of all congregations (which is why it’s listed first in every such list; it doesn’t come in this order alphabetically in Latin; the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Congregation for Clerics, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would all come before it alphabetically in Latin), then other dicasteries with portfolios sufficiently weighty to be given the status of Congregation. Afterwards there are the Tribunals, and then we get to the Councils, one of which is the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. And it’s not at the top of the Council list. It’s the fourth one down in another non-(Latin-)alphabetical list of Councils that gives at least something of an idea of the relative influence of each Council.

As the commentary quoted above notes, these departments do not normally exercise power over each other. For the most part, they function in dependently based on their own particular missions. There are, however, exceptions. The Secretariat of State plays a coordinating role among the dicasteries to some extent. When a question of doctrine is in dispute, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gets called in. The Signatura (one of the Tribunals) may be called upon to settle certain disputes between dicasteries about which one is competent in a particular area. And the pope himself can always intervene and make other provisions. But the general level of authority is indicated by the hierarchy given in Pastor Bonus, and Councils are not at the top of it.

This is why Weigel refers to the latter as a “rather small office” in the Curia and why Zuhlsdorf refers to it as one of the Curia’s “smaller offices.” This isn’t true just in terms of staff size. It’s true in terms of their relative level of authority.

It’s also why I raised my eyebrows at the claim that a “major” document would be released by the PCJP. As a Council, it occupies a place (and not the first place) on the fourth tier of dicasteries, and it’s not the kind of department that is used to issue “major” documents in terms of the overall sweep of things at the Vatican. A given document may be major compared to documents the Justice and Peace council normally issues, but under ordinary circumstances they won’t be major compared to documents issued, say, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments—or the pope himself.

If one wants to accurately assess the import of a particular document, an important part of that assessment will be the nature of the one issuing the document.

That still doesn’t get us to the question of whether the document represents the teaching authority or Magisterium of the Church, though, so let’s talk about that next time.

Only 4 Days Left! (But I Can Still Save You $100 Or More!)

Eurodam-sm Here's the deal: Catholic Answers is currently planning it cruise for May 11-21 of next year.

It's going to go all kinds of interesting places: Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. There will be a pre-event in Rome, and the trip itself will feature a visit to Fatima.

Now the money part: If you register for the cruise by October 28, I can save you $100 per person. (So if you take two people, I can save you $200; three people, $300; etc.)

Just put the super-secret code “Jimmy” in the “Special Request and Notes” section of your online application.

This exciting, faith-building experience would be a nice Christmas gift for you and your spouse, others in your family, or just yourself!

But remember, there's a time limit on this one, so register by October 28th so I can get you the discount!

More info here: www.CatholicAnswersCruise.com

PODCAST 017 Is Women’s Ordination a Heresy?

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

Subscribe_with_itunes
CLICK HERE! 

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at jimmyakinpodcast.com.

 

SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 017 (10/22/11) 

* BEN ASKS ABOUT WOMEN’S ORDINATION AND HERESY

Canons relating to the Church’s Magisterium, including the definition of heresy: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Who must make the profession of faith: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2R.HTM

Text of the profession of faith: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm

Doctrinal commentary on the profession of faith: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION?

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?

Call me at 512-222-3389!

jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com

www.jimmyakinpodcast.com

Today’s Music: Cover Me (JewelBeat.Com)

Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin

JimmyAkinWeb600-3

 

 

The Weekly Benedict: 4th Week of Oct., 2011

Pope-benedict-2Here are the initial entries for The Weekly Benedict:

AUDIENCE: 5 October 2011, Psalm 23

SPEECH: To the Prefects of Italy (October 14, 2011)

SPEECH: To participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization (October 15, 2011)

ANGELUS: Angelus, 16 October 2011

HOMILY: 16 October 2011: Holy Mass for the New Evangelization

SPEECH: To a delegation of the Syro-Malabar Church (October 17, 2011)

SPEECH: Inauguration of the Domus Australia - the Australian Pilgrimage Centre in Via Cernaia (Rome, 19 October 2011)

SPEECH: To the Bishops of the Episcopal Conference of Australia on their ad Limina visit (October 20, 2011)