Month: April 2004

Scientists Find Moon Mineral!

How cool is this!

After years and years of hearing sci-fi shows and movies talk about substances “not found on this planet,” we’ve now discovered one!

Oh, sure, it’s not a strange nucleotide sequence that proves the existence of extraterrestial life. Nor is it some new element from the unexplored outer reaches of the periodic table. In fact, it’s made from two of the most common elements in the universe (iron and silicon), but–and this is the point–it isn’t made on earth.

The new substance is called Hapkeite, after the scientist who first theorized the extraterrestrial process that makes it, Bruce Hapke. As it happens, Hapke is still alive and got to say a big “I told you so!” (Actually, his words to the press were “I told them so.”)

Hapkeite is made by “space weathering” on the lunar surface, a chunk of which containing Hapkeite got blasted into space as a meteor, which fell to earth and became a meteorite.

Cool!

Now if we could just come up with some naquadah.

The Ancient Christian Commentary Series

A reader writes:

I have been thinking of getting the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" Edited by Thomas C. Oden

I trust your feed back. This commentary as you know is about $560.00 and is published by a Protestant Press.

Is this Commentary worth the money? Do you know any of the down falls? Do you recommend any other Commentary set that focus on the Patristic writings on Scripture? I have the Navarre Bible set. I am looking for another Scripture Commentary set for my studying.
 

The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture is a good series, and I can recommend it, though there are a few things one ought to know about it:

  1. It is based on the 39 volume Protestant set of early Church writings that is commonly available (including on the web for free). The advantage of the commentary set is that it has the material sorted by Scripture order, so it gathers together passages where the Church Fathers and other early writers are talking about a particular passage. This pre-sorted aspect of the set makes it much easier to find relevant passages on the book or passage you are studying, and it is the chief reason one would want to buy the series.
  2. The set has an older translation that is somewhat clunky in places, and it occasionally suffers from Protestant translator bias. These, however, are minor problems.
  3. More significant is the fact that the set is limited by the 39-volume translation it is based on. This set did not include translations of some writings that would help round-out the picture of the early Church Fathers’ views (e.g., Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians was not translated, though it is key to getting a balanced picture of early Christian interpretation of Romans and Galatians). On occasion, the editors of the 39-volume set appear to have deliberately excluded certain works because they were too Catholic. Still, this is a sin of omission in the work, and the set is still useful.
  4. The upshot is that the set is a good one and I can recommend it, but it requires that you use some critical thinking skills when you read and that you keep in mind that there can be (and sometimes are) important things that you are not seeing because of the limitations of the original translation.

For those who are interested in sampling the series, I should also note that it is available in individual volumes, as at this link. Buying an individual volume or two will let you get a sense of the series as a whole before you decide to punk down the money for the whole thing.

Afraid that at the moment I don’t have another patristic-oriented series to recommend. (I have heard of others, but haven’t had the chance to examine their volumes.) If you’re looking for a good general commentary, I can recommend Word Biblical Commentary. It is much more in-depth than the Navarre Bible. Though it is by a Protestant publisher, is the best commentary of its kind out there at present (and available in individual volumes at the link provided). Fr. Pacwa and I recommend it.

Noah's Ark?

Every few years a story like this one appears in the press about Evangelicals who think they’ve found Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Believe me, I’d love for this one to pan out. I’d love to see the gents in question get together a competent expedition, get the necessary permissions, go to the site, and bring back solid proof of Noah’s Ark.

But I’m not holding my breath.

We don’t have, and never have had, any guarantee that Noah’s Ark or identifiable pieces of it have survived the ages. In fact, if I were Noah, one of the first things I would do after emerging from the Ark–before even planting a vineyard–would be to dismantle the Ark for building materials. In a world with four men, no chainsaws, and no lumberyards, the Ark could be too valuable for its raw materials to simply leave in one piece for future generations.

All the guys the article talks about really have (at best) is some satellite images showing some kind of wooden structures on the mountain (and there is even dispute about whether the location described by Genesis corresponds to the modern Mt. Ararat). Who is to say at this point that they won’t go up there and find the ruins of a few huts that are clearly post-diluvian. In fact, if they find anything, that’s probably what they’re going to find.

While I wish them well, the gents’ getting all this advance publicity worries me. If they fail (as they are likely to), it can embarrass the Christian cause. The worst of all worlds would be for them to go up, retrieve some wood that they loudly proclaim to be proof of Noah’s Ark, only to have the "proof" fall apart under laboratory examination.

Let’s pray that doesn’t happen.

Noah’s Ark?

Every few years a story like this one appears in the press about Evangelicals who think they’ve found Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Believe me, I’d love for this one to pan out. I’d love to see the gents in question get together a competent expedition, get the necessary permissions, go to the site, and bring back solid proof of Noah’s Ark.

But I’m not holding my breath.

We don’t have, and never have had, any guarantee that Noah’s Ark or identifiable pieces of it have survived the ages. In fact, if I were Noah, one of the first things I would do after emerging from the Ark–before even planting a vineyard–would be to dismantle the Ark for building materials. In a world with four men, no chainsaws, and no lumberyards, the Ark could be too valuable for its raw materials to simply leave in one piece for future generations.

All the guys the article talks about really have (at best) is some satellite images showing some kind of wooden structures on the mountain (and there is even dispute about whether the location described by Genesis corresponds to the modern Mt. Ararat). Who is to say at this point that they won’t go up there and find the ruins of a few huts that are clearly post-diluvian. In fact, if they find anything, that’s probably what they’re going to find.

While I wish them well, the gents’ getting all this advance publicity worries me. If they fail (as they are likely to), it can embarrass the Christian cause. The worst of all worlds would be for them to go up, retrieve some wood that they loudly proclaim to be proof of Noah’s Ark, only to have the "proof" fall apart under laboratory examination.

Let’s pray that doesn’t happen.

Petros vs. Petra

A correspondent writes:

"I”ve read the article [on catholic.com] on Peter the Rock and have a few questions.  You make a distinction between Attic and Koine Greek and state that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and because of this there is no difference in the meaning of petros vs. petra.  Is this the only passage in the New Testament for which this applies?  I was speaking of this to a colleague of mine who has studied Greek, although not extensively, and she informed me that the explanation for the difference is due to the placement of the word within the sentence.  Since Greek is a reflexive language, the meaning stays the same even though the form is changed.  Is this correct?  Also, to which resource would one go to substantiate the claim regarding the Attic vs. Koine Greek as applied to the Bible?"

Greek is an inflected (not "reflexive") language, which means that the forms of nouns change based on the function a word is performing in a sentence. When this happens, the base meaning of the word remains the same. The inflection communicates information about how the word is being used grammatically but not what it means.

In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection. Petros and petra are two different words in Greek. They are similar because they are cognates (just as "president" and "presider" are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and petra is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

The point the article is making is that in Attic Greek there was a slight difference in meaning between the two, but in Koine Greek (the dialect of the New Testament) they were synonyms. A place to look this up is D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew 16 in the Expositors Bible Commentary. He makes this point very well, and he is a highly-respected Evangelical Bible scholar.

Getting Confirmation About Confirmation

A correspondent writes:

I came into the Church as a convert at the Easter Vigil in 2002. I found out last night that my Confirmation sponsor was never himself Confirmed. While he has a certificate of baptism that has the word "Catholic"; on it, the church at which he was baptized was probably not in full communion with Rome, and so there is some question about whether my sponsor was even Catholic. Does this affect the validity of my own Confirmation?

My sponsor also told me that the priest, who is also the diocesan canon lawyer, told him that the validity of my Confirmation is not affected. However, while I have trusted my sponsor implicitly in the past, the fact that he failed to tell me that he might not be eligible to be my sponsor because he was not Confirmed himself has really shook me up.

I sympathize with your situation. However, your priest is correct that your sponsor’s lack of qualifications do not affect the validity of your confirmation. Here’s what the Code of Canon Law says:

Insofar as possible, there is to be a sponsor for the person to be confirmed; the sponsor is to take care that the confirmed person behaves as a true witness of Christ and faithfully fulfills the obligations inherent in this sacrament [Can. 892].

Note that the canon says "Insofar as possible, there is to be a sponsor." Thus even the complete absence of a sponsor does not affect the validity of a confirmation. The presence of a sponsor simply is not required for the sacrament to be valid.

Hope this sets your mind at rest!

First Thoughts on the New Liturgical Abuse Document

I’m taking my lunch hour now, so I have a few moments to write. Here are some notes on the new document on liturgical abuses:

  1. The title of the document is Redemptionis Sacramentum (for once, the Vatican gives a document a title of manageable length!). It is online in English here and in Latin here (the English translation occasionally needs to be clarified by consulting the Latin original). You can also read Cardinal Arinze’s presentation of the document here.
  2. The document is loooong, but it is easier to read than most Vatican documents. Most of it consists of short, numbered paragraphs that deal with particular liturgical abuses.
  3. I’m going to begin immediately processing the document for a special report that Catholic Answers will publish. This special report will be prepared on an expedited basis and will be available very soon (I’ll let you know when). It will contain quotes from the document, along with supporting documentation from other sources, set in a framework that makes the whole thing easier to understand.
  4. The document is good. It does not break a lot of new ground (that was not its purpose) but it reaffirms many prior points of liturgical law, clarifies some additional things, and in general reinforces traditional liturgical sensibilities.
  5. Of particular note are the following:
  • The document contains a system for classifying liturgical abuses according to their severity and gives numerous specific examples. This is a first. The Holy See has not to date created as detailed a system for ranking liturgical abuses as the one this document contains. The fact it gives so many specific examples is especially helpful since it counters the tendency of some to say, "Well, technically that’s not allowed by the rules, but I don’t think it’s that serious."
  • The document is very aggressive regarding the local bishop’s responsibility to clean up liturgical abuses in their own dioceses. There is a section toward the end that is quite strong (for the Vatican) in saying that bishops must correct these abuses speedily and be willing to punish the malefactors if they don’t comply.
  • The document ends with a section that basically invites the faithful to complain about liturgical abuses (in a polite, respectful way, of course).
  • As if the previous two points wouldn’t sufficiently set the cat among the pigeons, the document also contains a passage that suggests that those who have been appointed as extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion should refuse to serve in situations where their use is not warranted.
  • In a similarly eye-opening vein, the document suggests that, in order to keep Sunday celebrations in the absence of a priest distinct from Mass, serious thought should be given to the question of whether Communion should even be offered at such celebrations. (Implication: It may be more advantageous to not have Communion services when a priest is unavailable in order to keep alive an authentic hunger for the Eucharist and for Mass in the people.)
  • The document also deals with lots of the standard themes that the Vatican has been hammering for a while (e.g., no lay person is ever allowed to preach the homily at Mass or read the Gospel), but these acquire new teeth with with disciplinary elements the document contains.

One specific question I’ve already had from a reader:

I would love your commentary on section 112 dealing with when Latin can be used. Aren’t all celebrations of the Mass scheduled in the US by ecclesiastical authorities supposed to be doen in English? How does this help?

Here’s what section 112 states:

Mass is celebrated either in Latin or in another language, provided that liturgical texts are used which have been approved according to the norm of law. Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.

Section 112 helps because it clarifies that priests are permitted to celebrate the Mass in Latin (meaning the current rite of Mass, not the prior, Tridentine rite, which is a separate question) except in particular circumstances. Those circumstances are where "the ecclesiastical authorities" (for practical purposes that means the local bishop in most circumstances) schedule a Mass in a particular language. For example, a bishop could say, "Fr. Jones, I want you to make sure that one of your Sunday Masses is in Spanish for the benefit of your Spanish-speaking congregants" or "I want you to schedule at least one Mass daily in English for your English-speaking congregants." But he could not say "Fr. Jones, I want you to schedule all your Masses in English to the exclusion of Latin." Thus, a parish can add a Latin Mass if it wants, and it doesn’t have to be reserved as a "private Mass" for the priest or any special group.

At least, that’s the way section 112 reads. We’ll have to see if the Holy See is willing to stick up for what it said. (If Cardinal Arinze has anything to say about it, it will. He has real backbone on liturgical matters.)

Reporter Displays Microscopic Understanding of Own Topic

As I was saying, reporters frequently have next to no understanding of what they’re writing about. This article on nanotechnology by CNN reporter Marsha Walton is a great example. I won’t bore you by pointing out all the problems it has, but consider this section:

Noisy atoms found

Physicists studying nanotech made another serendipitous find: They discovered that atoms make noise.

Atoms are moved from one location to another with a special type of electric current known as a tunneling current. Monitoring the sound of that manipulation reveals a sort of "cry of protest" from the atom.

"That jumping back and forth, between its preferred place and where we are really forcing it to be, turns out to make this noise," Celotta said.

The idea that atoms make protest noises like calves being prodded during a round up is interesting, but it isn’t the literal truth. Remember: We’re talking about the motion of an individual atom, folks, and sound does not exist on that level. Sound is "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing" (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary). One atom by itself cannot make a sound because it is not a medium. Only a bunch of atoms together (like a collection of air molecules) can be a medium.

I suspect that the physicists the reporter was talking to were trying to simply things for her and use the term "noise" metaphorically, referring perhaps to an energy emission from the atom as it is jostled out of place by tunneling current. That emission could be monitored by sensitive equipment, but it isn’t sound in the literal sense. The reporter, apparently not knowing enough to separate metaphor from reality, passed it off to her readers as the literal truth. One more for the "reporter doesn’t understand the subject of the report" file.

I do have to admit that I liked one bit of the story, in which a scientist said:

"Early on, the scanning tunneling microscope was more used like an archeologist’s tool, where you were seeing things for the first time. "It was like Galileo looking up at the stars, but you were looking inward and saying, ‘Boy is that neat; I never imagined that would happen,’ " Celotta said.

"And now we are getting more like mankind tends to be, rearranging it the way we want it," he added.

Cool. I support rearranging things the way we want them. That’s what humans do. Atoms should be pushed out of their comfortable positions and rounded up into configurations that are useful to humans.

Keep movin’, movin’, movin’
Though they’re disapprovin’
Keep them dogies movin’
Rawhide!
Don’t try to understand ’em
Just rope, throw, and brand ’em
Soon we’ll be living high and wide.
My hearts calculatin’
My true love will be waitin’,
Be waitin’ at the end of my ride.
Rawhide!