Propositions 11-15

68 thoughts on “Propositions 11-15”

1. Vocations begin in the home. A priest can ecourage a vocation, but as with education in general, the parents are the primary source.
   So all of you parents out there….start fostering!

2. In regards to proposition 13, I would welcome an earlier age for confirmation. At my parish, they are using Life Teen as the basis for catechesis – or rather the Youth Ministry director who runs Life Teen also is in charge of the confirmation program. It has become so bad that I had to take my daughter out of the program. Now she will have to wait until she is at least 18 and join an adult confirmation class. There are no other options within my parish (I asked.)
   At least with an earlier age, this nonsense would be eliminated.

3. They definitely need to do something with proposition #13. I was 11 when my mom went through RCIA and I wanted to be confirmed so badly and was so disappointed when our priest informed me that we were in a diocese (Anchorage) where the confirmation age was 14. Then we moved a few months later and I was in a diocese (Louisville) where the confirmation age was 12, so I was confirmed with my 6th grade class at my Catholic elementary school.
   However, the archbishop alternated each year between our school and another school for confirmation (we were remote parishes so he’d go to our school/parish one year and the other one the next, even though the two parishes in question were about 10 miles apart and probably could have been visited by the bishop in the same year without too much trouble), so when my sister (3 years later) and my brother (5 years later) were in the 6th grade, the bishop was visiting the other school, so neither of them got confirmed until they were 14 (the only way they could have gotten confirmed on time would have been if my parents had sent them to CCD at the other parish during the year in question, because the confirmation class was part of the school curriculum and it wasn’t offered at our school in the off years).

4. Brian-
   We have the same siuation in our parish, and it is frustrating. The Diocese sees it as an opportunity for the remedial instruction of a captive audience, so kids are required to attend “sacramental prep” classes for TWO YEARS. They are very strict on attendance. And (new this year) PARENTS are required to attend several classes now, as well. If they miss a couple of classes, the child will not be confirmed. That is BUNK!
   The reason I find it frustrating is that it is wrong to hold out the sacrament of Confirmation in a carrot-and-stick approach to get kids to go to religion classes. It has nothing to do with the sacrament. Any decently prepared lay person could prepare teens for Confirmation in a month.
   There. Thanks for listening. I’m better now…

5. Jimmy,
   And what exactly is wrong with altar girls other than they cannot become priests yet? Hopefully you do not suffer from the “Dolly Parton” syndrome.

6. Amen Barbara. I’ve been standing on that soapbox for years. In general as Catholics, we all want more priests but most of us don’t want to “sacrifice” our own children to the “difficult lifestyle”.
   Also, Jimmy you state: “The problem here (at least in this country) is that in light of the recent priestly sexual abuse scandal parents in many places are frequently going to want to MINIMIZE CONTACT between their sons and parish priests. The less time priests get to spend with boys, the less they can encourage them to consider becoming priests.”
   Another hearty amen there! In fact, a big part of me believes the biggest scandal of the priestly abuses is that it has had the impact you’ve stated.

7. Dear Realist,
   A female may never become a priest. No matter what Ted kennedy, Starhawk, Matthew Fox, or any other Radical Feminist wants (ie the bumper sticker “Ordain Women or Stop Baptising Them!”)
   “Only a baptized man (viri) validly receives sacred ordination.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1577
   “No one has the right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1578
   “The reason that women can’t be priests is because men can’t have babies!” -Father Emmanuel, Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church
   The last quote is my favorite because even if it were possible to create an artifical uterus and implant it into a man it wouldn’t change the essence of the maleness of the man or his DNA. It would be artificial and an abomination. Just like those women who like to play dress up and get “ordained” on a riverboat.

8. And what exactly is wrong with altar girls other than they cannot become priests yet?
   They cannot become priests at all. So “you can’t just tell altar servers that they need to consider a vocation to the priesthood because MANY of the altar servers are INCAPABLE of becoming priests.” Simple.
   There’s nothing wrong with altar girls. They just shouldn’t be told to consider priestly vocations because they can’t have priestly vocations.

9. By the way, great posts, Jimmy!
   Very valuable insights for us lay dudes and dude-ettes.

10. Something is wrong when the pristhood is denied to 95% of the membership. And we wonder where all the leaders/speakers have gone? Maybe we of the 95% should stop our contributions. That would change the “scribble” theology of celibacy and disrepect for women real quick like.
    I see many of the followers of Abraham and Moses, ordain female rabbis. http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_women_rabbis.htm
    “There have been female ordained Rabbis since the early 70’s. Rabbi Sally Priesand was the first Jewish woman to be ordained a Rabbi, and she was ordained by the Reform Movement.
    Since then, all branches of Judaism, except the Orthodox, have found one way or another within the pattern of Jewish law, to ordain women as Rabbis and Cantors.
    It is my humble opinion – and not mine alone – that within 10-15 years there will be women ordained rabbis by the Orthodox branch of Judaism – even if are not called “women rabbis.”
    Best Wishes,
    Rabbi Barry Dov Lerner”

11. Thanks, Tim J.
    Realist: I have no idea what “Dolly Parton syndrome” is.
    I’m alluding to the fact that the sacrament of holy orders is validly received by a baptized man only, nothing else, and that altar servers are traditionally an important source of vocations.

12. Dear Rabbi,
    Your first paragraph from 10:56 AM reminded me of this passage from Numbers: “Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up…against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, ‘You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every oone of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?'” -Numbers 16:1, 2-3
    “And would you seek the priesthood also? therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together…”
    -Numbers 16:11
    As it was stated before no on has the RIGHT to the priesthood.
    PS What happened to Korah et al? Read Numbers 16:31-35 or watch “The Ten Commandments” for what happens to Edward G. Robinson

13. Realist-
    Current practices within Reformed or Orthodox Judaism don’t have any bearing on practices in the Catholic Church.
    I remember well writing an essay for a World Religions class when I was a young college dude. This may shock some of you, but as a young college dude I was not very enthusiastic about organized religion. I remember writing that, in my opinion, if the Catholic Church did not make some big doctrinal changes (guess what those might be!) and come more into line with modern thinking, it’s membership would shrink to the point of irrelevance.
    Isn’t it funny how you can FEEL so right and be exactly 180 degrees wrong? Every day, those thoughts of mine are shown to be completely the opposite of the truth; the more the Church preserves her traditions, the faster she grows. I have never been happier to be proved wrong.
    What irritates some people about the Catholic Church is that she is not “blown about by every wind of doctrine”. Happily, that is also what great throngs of people seem to be looking for in the modern age.
    Those who are waiting for women priests, gay marriage or approval of birth control and abortion – don’t hold your breath!

14. “# 1599- In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men.”
    But not the service of women?
    Nice addition of the word “normally”. The “out” for allowing married Anglican priests and Lutheran ministers to become priests?? I wonder if the older catechisms had the word “normally” in Paragraph 1599.
    From #1577: “The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
    Herself?
    Jesus chose men because in the first century CE/AD, women were not chosen for leadership roles. This is the 21st century and obviously times have changed. Considering the “performance” of our all-male bishops and cardinals in the past 50 years, our Church needs to change with the times.

15. Something is wrong when the pristhood is denied to 95% of the membership.
    Why? If the whole body is an ear, where would be the seeing?

16. Dear Realist,
    You stated that “…our Church needs to change with the times.” Correct me if I’m wrong, you signed you post at 10:56 AM as Rabbi Berry Dov Lerner. If you are a Rabbi, I would assume, that means you are Jewish. If you are Jewish that means you believe, again correct me if I’m wrong, that Jesus is not God and not the Messiah. If that is true the Catholic Church cannot be your Church because She has always believed and taught these doctrimes since AD 33.
    If my posts seem harsh, I apologize. “For the zeal of Thy House has consumed me.” Psalms 69:9

17. Realist: In the Greek and Egyptian religions, they had priestesses (women priests). Jesus actually did something radical when he chose only men to be the leaders.(You know, times change!)
    “service of men”, in this instance, the Church is refering to mankind (everyone).
    “herself”. The Catholic Church has other names for herself, such as the Bride of Christ. Since the Church is called the Bride of Christ, and brides are female, then the church has a feminine aspect to Her. (kinda like how ships always have female names).
    “performance”. the actions and the apathy of a few does not fault the entire institution.

18. Realist, Jesus had the most perfect human being who ever lived very close at hand, His Blessed Mother. He could have made her a priest too, along with the Apostles. Heck, He could have made her Pope. But He didn’t. Maybe you should go argue with Him about it. 🙂
    And please don’t fall back to the lines about the social constructs of 1st century Palestine. Our Lord was not contstrained by mere social constructs– just His speaking to the woman at the well demonstrates that one. He freely and deliberately established an all-male priesthood.

19. I don’t think Realist was claiming to be a rabbi. That’s part of a quotation from the page he links, which was written by a rabbi.

20. I think pushing Confirmation into an even earlier age than it is currently practiced would be a bad idea.
    I’m not a Catholic (yet), but don’t you all already have a problem with catechesis? Peter Kreeft, prof at Boston College, says 9 out of 10 of his Catholic students don’t even know that salvation is by grace through faith, not by “being nice” or “trying hard”.
    Why confirm these kids at an age when they are even more unlikely to understand what the heck is going on? It is hard as it is to get junior high and high school kids to think about the deeper issues of life, let alone kids even younger.
    It seems to me that the rite of Confirmation, done in the teen years, is the perfect way to evangelize all your cradle Catholics. It is the perfect opportunity to say, “Look, we’ve brought you to Jesus all your life. But now you must choose Him for yourself.” Otherwise, you risk the kids just ‘doing church’ until they don’t have to anymore. Or worse, they ‘do church’ all their lives without ever really making it personal, something more than ritual.

21. Thanks for the correction Jimmy. Realist definitely needs to read my post about the rebellion of Korah et al. For the third time, NO ONE has the RIGHT to be ordained.

22. Prop #15 is interesting. Right now, as a homeschooler, we are also teaching catechesis to our children. Our new parish (we have recently moved) doesn’t like it one bit. They are practically demanding that we send one of our children to their first Communion class. Even the priest isn’t thrilled with us teaching him at home. I believe that it’s the parents’ responsibility to educate their children in all matters of the faith first and foremost.
    So I have been noticing the children coming into Mass from R.E. classes and it looks like they have mastered coloring and decorating pumpkins really well while my child has been learning the 10 Commandments, many prayers and understanding what it means to receive our Lord in the Eucharist. I hope no one raises a big fuss about our refusal to send him to such banal classes.
    Such is the life of a homeschooler. Get ready, Jimmy because your kids have to behave better than everyone else (because you can’t blame the school like others do) and they have to know their stuff. I am sure that my son will be grilled about his readiness when the other kiddos will sail by with their colored pictures and pumpkins.

23. +J.M.J+
    >>> Maybe we of the 95% should stop our contributions.
    Count me out of that protest; not all of us Catholic women want priestesses.
    >>>Herself?
    Yep, the Church is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:21-31) and our Mother (Galatians 4:26). She is feminine in relation to Christ the Bridegroom. The priest represents Christ the Bridegroom, thus the priest must be male. Priests are often said to be “married to the Church,” so Catholic priestesses would be simply unacceptable.
    >>>Jesus chose men because in the first century CE/AD, women were not chosen for leadership roles.
    On the contrary, Jesus was not afraid to challenge the social conventions of His time, particularly regarding women. Yet He still did not ordain women. Also, as Andrew points out, the Gentiles had pagan priestesses, so they would not have found Christian priestesses objectionable. The “Jesus was just limited by His times” argument is very problematic.
    In Jesu et Maria,

24. “It seems to me that the rite of Confirmation, done in the teen years, is the perfect way to evangelize all your cradle Catholics. It is the perfect opportunity to say, “Look, we’ve brought you to Jesus all your life. But now you must choose Him for yourself.”
    I am very sympathetic to those desiring to catechize young people, but that has nothing to do with the sacrament of Confirmation.
    I actually taught Confirmation classes at one time and, being a fairly new Catholic, I said the same things about the sacrament being about “choosing Christ for yourself” and “becoming an adult in the faith”… only I was wrong, and it ain’t.
    Confirmation is the completion of Baptismal grace, and equips us , through the Holy Spirit, for a life of faith by bestowing on us spiritual gifts appropriate to our vocation.
    Confirmation is not a coming-of-age celebration or the Catholic equivalent to the Bar(or Bat-)-Mitzvah, as I used to think.
    While I would LOVE for everyone who receives the sacraments to be well-catechized, it is not necessary for Confirmation. Tying catechesis to Confirmation is artificial.
    Catechesis is more properly connected to reception of the Eucharist, because we must be taught to fully realize Who we are receiving in the Blessed Sacrament. That is something that must not be done in ignorance.
    Besides, from what I have seen of the quality of the catechesis in many programs for teens, they might be better off on their own. It pains me to say that, but I don’t think it is too harsh. Catechesis is still WILDLY uneven from one parish or diocese to another.
    Parents, BE the primary educators of your children, and don’t abdicate this duty to others.

25. I agree with Tim J. My mom was confirmed when she was 7 and knows nothing of the Catholic Faith, the Bishop was making his rounds then and who knew when he’d be back. One question is that the Eastern Churches give 3 sacraments at infancy: Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist (a drop or 2 of the Precious Blood.) Has the discussion been made as to whether or not the Latin Rite will go in that direction as well?

26. The Church is not a democracy. I am a woman who believes in equal treatment of the sexes in most things. But, I see acceptance of the all male priesthood as a matter of obedience to the Church. I think of Jesus assuming a position of service and washing the feet of the Apostles at the last supper, and teaching us about the virtue of humility. The first shall be last and the last first.
    There are many doctrines of the church that are not easy to accept in this modern age, and one of the hardest virtues to learn is humility.
    And, I agree with those who have commented that Jesus was not constrained by the social convention of the time. He was criticized by the Pharisees for having dealings with tax collectors and prostitutes. Many of his most ardent followers were women. Although I don’t thoroughly understand why the Apostles were all men, it is clear that Jesus had his reasons, and I will accept it at that.
    Besides the priesthood is not the only avenue of service in the church, there are many ways for women to serve, and really that’s what the priesthood is supposed to be about — service.

27. Priestly celibacy is required only in the Latin rite. In the Byzantine Rite (which is in full communion with the Pope in Rome), married men are ordained to the clergy. There is nothing wrong with that. The Roman Rite should recognize that celibacy is not a matter of faith, eliminate the requirement, and thereby broaden the cross-section of men available for the priesthood. There is no amount of “explanation” to the “faithful” that can make priestly celibacy logical or acceptable.

28. Rosemarie,
    What you noted about priests being “married” to the Church, can also be said about Sisters/Nuns. They are also sometimes called “brides” of Jesus. And there are many Sisters who would make great priests.
    With respect to women becoming priests see http://www.womenpriests.org/index.asp for a view held by many theologians.

29. Trish,
    Remember also that a woman washed Jesus’ feet. See 192+. Woman with Ointment: (1a) Mark 14:3-9 = Matt 26:6-13, (2a) Luke 7:36-50, (1b/2b) John 12:1-8, (3) Ign. Eph. 17:2. And note that Crossan gives this event an historical positive. Ditto with the washing of feet after the Last Supper.
    “Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
    45
    You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.
    46
    You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.
    47
    So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love.”

30. Dear Realist,
    Do you claim to be a Catholic?

31. John-
    Do you find celibacy illogical?
    Tell it to St. Paul!

32. Dr. Eric,
    Most assuredly I am Catholic but with a very liberal take on events that occurred 2000 years ago. You might say I have been “Crossanized”.
    The Franciscan Sisters, Brothers and Priests (K-12) taught me to think outside the box.
    I got tired of waiting for the Second Coming. 🙂

33. Another example of modern Catholic education.
    Tragic.

34. Dear Realist,
    I read Crossan’s work with appreciation–he is a fine stylist and more sophisticated than many of his colleages in the biblical guild–but what he proposes is not Christianity.
    The box you are thinking outside of is Catholicism. 🙂

35. Tim J,
    Some of the items listed below are standard theological teachings at major Catholic universities: (Do I accept them? Not necessarily but the teachings do show why so many Catholics like myself, are not sure who to believe anymore.)
    The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
    > Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology
    > (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
    > and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question” Why are we
    > not happy?” may have risen. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for
    > some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting
    > Adam [Solomon]).
    >
    > 7. Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man’s tendencies to sin.
    > Yes, I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins — in our
    > families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
    > profoundly. The “sins of our origins” approach helps to account for certain
    > patters of sin in particular families and societies.
    >
    > 8. Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist.
    > Yes, the old “laundry of the soul,” approach to Baptism is no longer
    > accepted.
    >
    > 9. Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and
    > godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
    > Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the
    > members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care
    > for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
    > persons volunteering to teach other people’s kids the basics of
    > Catholicism.)
    >
    > 10. Receiving the Holy Eucharist blends Christ’s spirit with our soul or
    > spirit). Communion is not Christ’s physical Body and Blood since Christ
    > exists as a spirit therefore has no physical form.
    > Yes. Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant a
    > literal transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of
    > Jesus. “Substance” in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing
    > and was not reducible to material appearance. Transubstantiation is a way of
    > expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecrated
    > bread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that
    > “transignificantion” would be a better term today than transubstantiation.
    > [Note: both Episcopalians and Lutherans believe in the real presence of
    > Jesus Christ in the Eucharistized bread and wine.]
    >
    > 11. The Sacraments of the Roman Catholic church are important for Catholics
    > but non-Catholics receive equal goodness/grace through their own beliefs
    > which in the eyes of God are equal to our sacraments.
    > Yes, but often people just focus on the seven rites and forget the broader
    > Catholic belief in the sacramentality of all of creation. The creaturely
    > realm mediates God’s presence to us, but Christ is the definitive “sacrament
    > of encounter with God.”
    > Protestants do not accept the sacramentality of creation, arguing that
    > because of the “FALL” all of creation is affected. Only explicit faith
    > connected to the inspired Word of God (Bible) is the source of salvation.
    > Catholics believe that the grace of salvation is universally offered and is
    > animated by works of love. (Protestants do not accept the works — grace
    > connection and on the whole do not accept that salvation is universal; it
    > requires explicit biblical faith in the merits of Christ. R. Catholicism
    > holds that persons who perform works of love in their own religions and in
    > their daily lives, may have an implicit baptism of desire and therefore may
    > be saved. God’s mercy and compassion is beyond human measure.)
    >

36. You might say I have been “Crossanized”.
    Sounds like a good reason for you to be exorcised.
    The box you are thinking outside of is Catholicism. 🙂
    The box he’s thinking outside of is Christianity.

37. Some of the items listed below are standard theological teachings at major Catholic universities
    Having received more than one theology degree at a major Catholic university, I can reasonably deny this. Good Catholic universities do not teach idiocy as reality.

38. “Some of the items listed below are standard theological teachings at major Catholic universities:”
    I can only repeat: Tragic.
    And I am tempted to shout “Foul spirit of confusion, come OUT!!”
    These universities are Catholic in name only. I hope that B16 will yank the Cathgolic rug out from under them, and soon.
    It’s not all bad news, though. The fastest growing Catholic colleges are those that are faithful to the magisterium and the authentic traditions of the Church (like Steubenville).

39. Realist:
    “(Do I accept them? Not necessarily but the teachings do show why so many Catholics like myself, are not sure who to believe anymore.)”
    You should read the Catecism of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that your colleagues who are teaching this stuff are old liberal grouches stuck in a timewarp from the 70’s. You should listen to what the pope and all the clergy say and teach if you are not sure of what to believe. Those ‘Catholic’ univerisities that teach against the teaching of the Church and Christ should either reform or drop the name Catholicism. – Does it really matter if the story of Adam and Eve is real or not? Well the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, have Divine Inspiration, so if God inspired them to write about Adam and Eve, then who are we to question its authenticity? – I hope and pray that your doubt ends. Peace.

40. Realist,
    You say “suffering from Dolly Parton” syndrome. Are you saying that because I believe that women cannot be priests makes me a person who suffers from Dolly Parton syndrome? (Laughing Rolling over).
    “Jesus chose men because in the first century CE/AD, women were not chosen for leadership roles. This is the 21st century and obviously times have changed. Considering the “performance” of our all-male bishops and cardinals in the past 50 years, our Church needs to change with the times.”
    You use of CE/AD ultimately gives you away. I firmly believe you can’t use CE and still believe in Christ. It’s first century A.D. not ‘first century CE/AD. Jesus chose men because in the first century CE/AD, women were not chosen for leadership roles? That’s an example of historical revisionism.
    Also look at the section of John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis it says “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definatively held by ALL THE CHURCH FAITHFUL.” That means you too realist. Another reason we hold that only men can be priests is that the man is the head of the family. Furthermore the idea that only men should be priests keeps the bridegroom bride imagery in mind. If a women were priest it would be a lesbian relationship. Do you realize in the Episcopalian Church that as a result of women priests and bishops, they now have gay clergy who live in immoral relationships. And many of the women priests in the Episcopal Church are for gay marriage!

41. Dear Realist,
    Why would you claim to be Catholic when in the earlier posts you don’t believe approximately 90% of the Church’s Doctrines. It seems to me that you’d be better off in the Episcopal Church in the USA. Also, liberal/conservative do not fit in terms of Christianity only Orthodox/Heterodox do. If you don’t accept what the Church teaches then you are a heretic. BTW so is Crossan. Do you also believe that Jesus was eaten by wild dogs?

42. Sorry for the last comment about the heresy thing. (Matt 7:1-2) If you are not sure what to believe then I suggest a few resouces to pick up to figure out the truth. One, the old gray St. Joseph Catechism, simple enough for kids and yet deep enough for adults. Two, the “New” Catechism, the meat on which to chew after you have tasted the milk of the St. Joseph Catechism. Then read your Bible (not the NAB, I suggest the Douay Rheims, the Confraternity Version, or the Ignatius RSV – these don’t have as many doctrinal errors in them as the NAB [especially in the footnotes!]) every day, 5 chapters per day until completed. I read 3 OT chapters, 1 Psalm, and 1 NT Chapter and then finished with 3 OT, 1 Wisdom book, and 1 chapter of the Prophets. Take these readings and compare them to the Catechism. That will help you determine the truth and not some aging hippie’s view of relativism.

43. The thing that really irritates me about Crossan and his ilk, is that they are allowed to teach their poison at CATHOLIC Universities. He was given De Paul Universitiy’s Highest Award, for teaching heresy! (St. Vincent must be spinning in his reliquary!) We hear that the universities, colleges, and seminaries were/are/will be cleaned up, when???

44. Dr. Eric,
    Why is the NAB read at Church’s on Sunday’s? Correct me if I’m wrong.

45. Nicholas– Dr. Eric’s problem with the NAB is the footnotes. Those aren’t read in Church.
    The NAB translation is approved for liturgical use in the U.S. Other translations have been approved in the past, too, like the RSVCE and JB.

46. The translations are also problematic; the NAB has for Luke 1:28 “Hail, favored one, the Lord is with you!” Not “Hail, FULL OF GRACE” -emphasis mine
    Psalm 22:17 reads “So wasted are my hands and feet that I can count all my bones.”
    Instead of “They have PIERCED my hands and feet; I can count all my bones.” – were the Lord’s hands and feet wasted or pierced?
    At least Isaiah 7:14 reads “…the virgin shall be with child…” But the footnote does mention “a young unmarried woman” -problematic since the Vulgate reads “…ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium…” St. Jerome, who had access to manuscripts that today’s scholars don’t read, read the ancient languages and translated the word as virgin.

47. That should have been: St. Jerome had access to ancient manuscripts that modern scholars can’t read because they don’t exist.

48. They don’t exist anymore. I need to eat, my brain is losing fuel, and we don’t close for another hour;-)

49. Dr. Eric,
    To my knowledge, John D. Crossan is still a Catholic in good standing with the Church.
    With respect to the OT, most if not all of it has been judged by over one million Conservative Jews to be non-historical. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/17903/edition_id/356/format/html/displaystory.html . “There was no Abraham, no Isaac, no Jacob, no Moses, no flood (forget Noah), no Exodus, no glorious King David. The Walls of Jericho never came tumbling down. In other words, there was nothing. It’s all made up. It’s all a bunch of fables, myths, fairy tales, bedtime stories.”
    You have to give a lot of credit though to the Jewish scribes for great wisdom and common sense via embellishment of Jewish tradition.
    I wonder if we could get JDC to review the situation in his next book?

50. Dr. Crossan should be declared anathema. He excommunicated himself. As far as the OT is concerned. I believe that the Church has Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Moses, Kind David down as real people in the Roman Martyology. Plus the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people. Even John Paul II believed it.

51. Dear Realist,
    One million conservative Jews also claim that Jesus is not God and “JDC” claims that JC was eaten by wild dogs after the crucifixion. He may not have been formally excommunicated by Cardinal George but he still teaches heresy. Actually he is an apostate (CCC #2089) since he repudiates the very essence of the Catholic faith that Jesus is “…God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten not made, one in Being with the Father… the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures.”
    Do yourself a favor, start your theology with the people who actually knew the Apostles or their disciples: ie St. Ignatius of Antioch, martyred AD 107; Pope St. Clement, who died around AD 99; other notable writings include St. Polycarp, who was consecrated bishop by the Apostle John; and Irenaeus who learned from St. Polycarp. Don’t listen to people who want to bring down Christ’s Church from within and who want to drag as many souls to hell with them as they can.

52. Assuming that you are serious about learning the faith and not just making controversy, Realist, another great resource is http://www.catholic.com.
    I’ll take my referral cheque now Jimmy 🙂

53. The translations are also problematic; the NAB has for Luke 1:28 “Hail, favored one, the Lord is with you!” Not “Hail, FULL OF GRACE” -emphasis mine
    Neither perfectly conveys the meaning of “Chaire kecharitomene,” but neither is either really “problematic.”

54. Dr. Eric,
    The references you cite i.e. The Letters of Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp, are all used by Crossan in his book The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterrean Peasant.
    Example: 5+. Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.

55. Pha,
    I agree that chaire kecharitomene is not accurately translated as full of grace but “Hail, she who has been prefected in grace!” Is not what we say in the “Hail Mary.” “Hail full of grace” at least has the word grace in it and “favored one” could mean anyone. God has favored you and me and George Bush and everyone else. Only one woman was full of grace from the beginning of her existence. Grace is the key to the passage here showing what was so special about her; not being favored.
    Check out http://www.catholic.com, click on Mary and the Saints, then click on Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Also check out http://www.catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

56. Realist,
    A couple of thoughts came to mind. This whole posting series was about the priesthood, if you’re not married, are you considering it; if you are, are you having guilt because you didn’t follow a possible vocation? What Church teaching are you REALLY bothered by? No one starts with the male celibate priesthood when they have gripes against the Church. What’s REALLY bothering you? E-mail me if you want, I’ll try to help.
    About Crossan, you’re still quoting someone who has apostasized from the Catholic Faith. Read for yourself what the Early Church Fathers wrote, don’t rely on Crossan for your theology. Two or three brothers (Nicholas and myself) have admonished you now (Matt 18:16-18) the next thing is to go to the Church. Read the Catechism, call Catholic Answers or Open Line on EWTN Radio. Don’t let Crossan and his cronies confuse you about the truths of the Faith. They’re trying to make names for themselves like Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Marcian, etc… Find out what happened to those guys and see for yourself how you’re being led astray.
    Dr. Eric

57. Grace is the key to the passage here showing what was so special about her; not being favored.
    I too prefer constructions that use the English word “grace,” and especially Pope John Paul II’s translation “filled with grace”, but “favor” is not incorrect.
    Even authors who dislike the use of “favor” and caution others regarding its use freely admit this:
    “[C]haritoo belongs to a group of verbs ending in omicron omega…. [these verbs] mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the root…. charitoo should mean to put into charis. That word charis can mean either favor or grace.” Fr. William Most, “Mary’s Immaculate Conception”
    “Jerome expresses the root meaning of charitoo by the Latin noun gratis (‘grace,’ ‘favor’)” Father Mateo, “CRI’s Attack on Mary: Part II”
    “The meaning of the root of charitoo is favor or grace. Hence the verb means to put her into favor or grace.” Fr. William Most, “Mary Coredemptrix in Scripture”
    Etc.

58. Pha,
    Is that Pha as in a first name or PHA as an abbreviation?
    Not that I meant that favor is incorrect, sorry if that’s the way it came out, but that full of grace is a better translation for kecharitomene. But as was written before, the NAB has errors in it.
    PS How do you put those little phrases in underlined green in your post that link to another site?

59. Dr. Eric – In the comments box on this site, the italics and links and such are done with basic html tags. Some tags can be used here (e.g. linking) and others cannot (e.g. posting photos). You can learn basic html tags on sites like Webmonkey 🙂
    As for the NAB, it’s the translation currently approved by the Holy See for liturgical use in Latin Church parishes in the U.S., errors or no. *shrug*
    “Pha” is an abbreviated name 🙂

60. Pha,
    I have a friend whose parents are from Laos (like on King of the Hill) his name is Pom, short for Phommachanh. So I thought it was like that.
    Thanks for your advise on how to put those links in the posts.
    As for the NAB being approved for use in the US. Our bishops haven’t always been known to always do the right thing…Weakland, Williams, O’ Connell, Law, Mahony, etc…
    “From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the Temple of God.” -Paul VI 29 June 1972

61. Dr. Eric,
    I am happily married and have been so for 35 years. We have three children all educated at Catholic universities. Unless you have a PhD from a Catholic universary and written well-referenced books on the history/theology of our Church, I don’t believe you will be able to help answer any of my questions. I do have such a friend who teaches at a large Catholic university. This friend has been very helpful in verifying much of what I have read in the books of Schillebeeckx, Crossan, Borg, Funk, Johnson, Armstrong, Chilton, Vermes, Somerville, Fredriksen, and Brown.

62. Realist,
    My doctorate is not in theology (yet!), my “expertise” is care of the human body. But I know bad philosophical arguments and theology when I hear/read them.
    I notice you don’t list Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Borromeo, Bellarmine or anyone who lived before the 20th century. Are they not cool enough to read anymore?
    At which large “catholic” university does your friend teach?
    So you support the Jesus Seminar? So, Jesus only said 18% (if one includes the non canonical “gospel” of Thomas) of what is attributed to him? “Scholars” 1950 years after the fact, our saviours in the Jesus Seminar now can tell us what Jesus spoke, how he felt, and what he knew?
    Here’s a quote from Karen Armstrong: “Jesus himself never claimed to be God” -“History of God” page 81
    Is that what you believe? Cross reference Ex 3:14, John 8:58-59; 5:18; 10:28-30. Also John 1:1 and Rev 22:13&16.
    Ironically read Luke 4:33-34…even the demons know that Jesus is God (James 2:19)
    Ex-nuns, ex-priests, apostates, how can someone who claims to be Catholic even consider this junk?

63. As for the NAB being approved for use in the US. Our bishops haven’t always been known to always do the right thing.
    The approval comes from the Holy See, not just the USCCB.
    Unless you have a PhD from a Catholic universary and written well-referenced books on the history/theology of our Church
    Got half the requirements, anyway.
    So-called “scholars” like Crossan and Armstrong are downright laughable.

64. PHA and Dr. Eric,
    Have you read any of the books of the authors I cited? Or have you simply “googlized” their names to find bits and pieces that fit your thinking?

65. Realist,
    Have you read any of the authors (SAINTS!) I cited? I have read enough of the “Jesus Seminar” to know that it’s junk. (Voting on what Jesus said and did?????) Jesus also took a poll in Matt 16:13-19 and finally had to get the real answer from Peter.
    And, I have seen Crossan and Armstrong on the History Channel enough to know that they are apostates. But, no, I have not and will not read them until I finish Sts. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Borromeo, Bellarmine, Albert the Great, etc…
    You still haven’t answered whether you believe that Jesus is God or not (Rom 9:5, Heb 1:1-13, Col 1:15-19, John 5:18, 1 John 5:20, and John 1:1-3) and whether or not you believe he rose from the dead (Acts 2:24-31, Matt 16:21, Matt 17:22, Matt 18:19, Matt 28:1-9, Mark 16:1-9, Luke 24:1-8, John 20: 1-17, and 1 Cor 15:1-49.)
    Have you read the Bible or did you just “googlize” it like your Jesus Seminar buddies? (I know that they didn’t have the internet back then [Al Gore didn’t invent it yet!] they used the “Cliff Notes” from the “gospel of Thomas” to fit their thinking!)

66. Dr. Eric,
    I have read most of the Lives of The Saints as per my religion classes in high school and religious readings during Eucharistic adoration at 4 AM in the morning. Some parishes have 24/7 coverage. Ditto for the Bible. Augustine and Thomas A. are well reviewed by the Papal Congregation publications and by many of the authors I previously noted. Neither Augustine nor Aquinas reviewed the historical records regarding JC and the historical Jesus is the subject being discussed here.
    I found Augustine’s Confessions to be hard-to-follow, “scribble” theology. Apparently he wrote it without editing it.
    We are all Sons and Daughters of God. JC’s somewhat elevated position appears to have been created to impress the Gentiles like you and me and to ensure our support, political and economic. This also allowed us to compete with the Roman, Greek and Egyptian Gods. Paul’s theory about the soon-to-come second coming also aided in the effort. When might we expect it?
    Most of the Biblical citations in your last post by the way are judged by most contemporary biblical scholars to be embellishments or post resurrection additions.
    Examples:
    73- (not historic) Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69
    275- (not historic) The Empty Tomb: (1a) Mark 16:1-8 = Matt 28:1-10 = Luke 24:1-11, (1b) John 20:1,11-18, (1c) Gos. Pet. 11:44; 12:50-13:57;
    You will have to read Crossan’s The Historical Jesus to review the history of these passages. Crossan’s rationale is not based on votes.

67. Realist-
    If “most contemporary biblical scholars” think the Gospels are rife with “embellishments or post resurrection additions”, then most contemporary biblical scholars are simply wrong, as well as out of step with the magisterium. What we need to ask ourselves is how so many contemporary scholars have gone so far wrong.
    I can’t help but pass on this passage from Providentissimus Deus, written over 100 years ago;
    “…this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.”

68. Oh, and Realist,
    Would you please give me a definition of “scribble” theology?
    You keep using the term, and I’ll be darned if I can get at what it is supposed to mean.

Comments are closed.