St. Rabban Gamaliel?

A reader writes:

Firstly I’ve noticed that Jerry Usher hasn’t been on Catholic Answers
Live much lately.  I hope things are okay.

Oh, yeah. Everything’s fine. Jerry was just helping local radio stations with their pledge drives. I was filling in as host some while he was gone. He’s back now, though (until his next round of helping stations).

Anyway, I have recently read that some early Christian writers felt
that on the basis of the narrative in Acts 5 in which the Rabban
Gamaliel defended Peter and others before the Sanhendrin that Gamaliel
was baptized and was to be considered a saint.

Needless to say as a Jew I find this rather disturbing.  Gamaliel is
probably on of the more revered scholars of the Second Temple period
(right up there with his grandfather Hillel) and is quoted at length
in Talmud.

So my question is, what actually is the Church position on Gamaliel’s
alleged baptism and sainthood?

The Church doesn’t have a position on either.

Being a saint, of course, means being in heaven (in this sense of the term), and the Church would certainly hope that Gamaliel’s there (like it hopes for everyone), but Gamaliel is not a canonized saint. Neither is he included in the current edition of the Roman Martyrology, which–in addition to saints canonized by popes–also includes many individuals listed as saints due to popular acclaim in earlier ages of the Church.

As the reader may be aware, in the early centuries of the Church, individuals were designated saints by popular acclaim. That is, if enough people regarded them as saints, they came to be officially so-regarded. (Much like Mother Theresa would be if the Church didn’t now have an official canonization process.) Eventually, bishops got in the act of regulating this popular devotion to individuals who had passed on, and in the fullness of time the pope got involved, as well. There was thus a migration upwards from popular acclaim to papal canonization as the criterion for recognition as someone who made it into heaven.

The thing about papal canonizations is that they are infallible, whereas merely episcopal acts or popular acclaim is not. The other thing about papal canonizations is that they are much slooooooower, and so since the popes took control of the process of designating saints, there have been a lot less of them. The vast majority of individuals listed in the Roman Martyrology (the Church’s official book of saints and blesseds) got there by popular acclaim rather than papal canonization.

Now, the thing is, the reader is correct that there was in early (but not first century) times a devotion to Gamaliel as a saint. This was, no doubt, based on his tolerant attitude towards the early Christian movement, as recorded in the book of Acts, and so some in the post-apostolic age concluded that he must have been a secret Christian, like Nicodemus was, which would also mean that he was baptized and–since he was a figure mentioned in the New Testament and someone who was opposed to the persecution of the early Church–that led to the inference that he must also have made it to heaven, and he came to be regarded as a saint.

That’s not enough, of course. The historical evidence is too thin to make such claims.

For a start, Gamaliel is not stated in the New Testament to be a disciple of Jesus (as Nicodemus was stated to be). He crops up twice (once when he counsels against persecuting the Church and once when he is mentioned as the teacher of St. Paul), and in neither case are we given to understand that he was a disciple of Christ–secret or otherwise. In the absence of other evidence, he should be taken as what the New Testament presents him as: a non-Christian Jewish individual who, though not a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, had a tolerant attitude toward Christians.

Now, it would be possible for someone to show up in the New Testament and not be mentioned as a Christian even though he became one (for example, after the writing of the book–Acts–that mentions him), and knowledge of that situation could have been passed down and then recorded in the writings of the post-apostolic age, but this is not at all likely in the case of Gamaliel.

The reason is that Gamaliel was a Jewish religious leader of note, and if he had become a Christian then it would be quite unlikely that he is handled the way he is in the Talmud. It would be much more probable that he would have been listed as someone who became a heretic.

Indeed, Gamaliel is recorded as having "a certain disciple" who is presented in the Talmud as scoffing at Gamaliel’s teaching. This student student is often thought to be a veiled reference to St. Paul (though it may not be). If so, it would apply at least a later deagreement between the two doctrinally.

In any event, if Gamaliel had become a Christian, we’d know about it from Jewish sources.

This line of reasoning, however, was not appreciated in the early centuries, when the two communities weren’t on the best of terms–and when the Internet hadn’t been invented, making looking stuff up a problem–and so the Christians who came to regard Gamaliel as a saint may be seen as making a human–though flawed–inference about him.

The number of them was great enough that Gamaliel was listed as a saint for a time in the Roman Martyrology, and as recently as 1956 (SEE HERE FOR THE 1956 EDITION’S MENTION OF HIM), but he was subsequently de-listed, and the present edition of the Roman Martyrology does not mention him.

One of the reasons for that, no doubt, was a greater sensitivity to the kind of concern that the reader expresses, though that by itself wouldn’t have been enough to get him de-listed. If there was solid evidence he became a Christian then the Church would have kept him as a saint, despite it being a potential sore spot interreligiously. The bottom line, though, is that the evidence does not point to Gamaliel having become a Christian, and that’s the controlling factor.

EMI To Nix DRM!

Good news, everybody!

EMI–one of the world’s largest music labels–has decided to give DRM-free online music a try. The deal is they’ll start selling their entire catalogue (except The Beatles) via iTunes in DRM-free form for $1.29 a song (up from 99 cents a song for the DRM-hobbled version of the music).

Personally, I’d pay the extra 30 cents for music portability, and I suspect a lot of other folks will, too.

As for The Beatles . . . well, they’ve been stick-in-the-muds for years, being slow to adopt changing music technologies. They were among the last artists to make their music available on CD, even when it was clearly the preferred choice by consumers. It’s like they’ve still got their heads stuck in the ’60s of something.

Steve Jobs also says that he expects half of the music on iTunes to be available in the premium, DRM-free version by the end of the year, which suggests he’s in negotiations with other labels for the same thing.

GET THE STORY.

That Depends On What The Definition Of “Is” Is

A reader writes:

An orthodox Catholic writer wrote:

”How are these words of Jesus
[in the consecration of the Eucharist] to be understood? In the New Testament, the Greek word estin that is
used in Jesus’ saying ‘This is my body’, could mean either ‘is
really’ or ‘is figuratively’ (or ‘signifies’). Both senses of the
word occur in the New Testament." 

Then he goes on to explain the
supports of the Catholic teaching.  My question is he right about
this as a possible translation?

From a linguistic perspective I would consider it problematic to represent the Greek word esti in English with the word "signifies."

Esti (which sometimes appears with a nu after it as "estin") is just the Greek equivalent of "is." It’s the verb "to be" in the third person singular form (present tense, active voice, indicative mood), and it would translate as "(he/she/it) is."

Esti works just the same way that "is" does in English. In both languages, the verb "to be" can be used to signify existence (as in "God is") or predication ("the grass is green") or equivalence ("Bruce Wayne is Batman"). It can also be used literally ("Jesus is the Son of God") or figuratively ("King Herod is a sly fox"). The latter seems to be a special case of equivalence.

We do see passages in the New Testament where esti is used figuratively. For example, in Revelation 17:9 John is told, "the seven heads [of the beast] are seven mountains on which the woman is seated." The word for "are" here is "eisi(n)" which is just the plural form of "esti(n)," the way that "are" is the plural of "is." Here we have a figurative use of "is," and the seven heads do signify seven mountains.

However, I would resist translating eisi as "signifies." That’s not what the word means in Greek. What it means is "are." It’s being used to convey the idea of signification, but that’s its connotation rather than its denotation.

It would be legitimate to use the connotation of a word as a translation if the receptor language can’t express the same thought any other way (e.g., in languages that don’t have the verb "to be"), but if the receptor language (English in this case) has exactly the same usage of exactly the same verb (it does) then the thing to do is translate the word according to its actual meaning, which is "is."

To render esti in English as "signifies" is not actual translation. It’s paraphrase. Paraphrase is warranted when actual translation is impossible or when it would be misleading, but when the receptor language accomodates a straightforward translation, it should be used. We otherwise run the risk of the translator’s own biases distorting the message in the original. Whenever possible the original should be presented to the reader in the receptor language, and he should be allowed to determine the connotation of what is being said.

The Nature of Hell

A reader writes:

Recent comments by the Pope on hell and other subsequent blogging comments have raised a minor question for me about hell. It seems that many will insist that there is no physical component to hell. This assertion seems logically in conflict with church teaching that in the resurrection we will have some kind of eternal physical body. A physical body implies the possibility of physical locality. If so, then heaven and hell could have corresponding physical attributes. So a more precise phrasing of the question is: "Does the assertion that hell has no physical reality indirectly conflict with church teaching on the resurrection and the state of our resurrected bodies?"

It strikes me that there is a tertium quid here. It isn’t just a choice between saying "Hell is spiritual, so there are no bodies there and thus it has no location" and saying "Hell must have a physical location because it contains bodies."

It would be contrary to Catholic teaching to deny that the damned–after the resurrection–will have bodies. They will indeed have them, and that raises the question of where or how these bodies will exist. It might be that they will exist in a spatially extended sense in some physical location, as they do here on earth in this life. However, it could also be that they will exist in some way that does not involve a physical location, which I suppose would mean that they would be real but not extended in spacetime.

The situation is analogous to that of heaven. I sometimes point out that heaven is at least capable of receiving bodies–we know that becaue that’s where Jesus’ and Mary’s bodies are right now–but that doesn’t mean that they are extended in the natural, physical manner that they were when they were here on earth. Heaven thus might or might not involve a physical location. What it does involve, for resurrected humans, is bodies, and the same will be true of hell.

I thus tend to accept union or disunion with God as the essential characteristic of these two states and leave the question of location open. To my mind, they might or might not involve a location, though for resurrected humans, both will be an embodied state.

More On That Motu Proprio

One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
Link:
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.

A while back I conjectured that now that the apostolic exhortation is out, we might begin to hear more about the motu proprio liberalzing the use of the Tridentine rite of Mass, buliding up to its release.

It appears that there are now signs of that.

Roman Catholic Blog has a post on two related stories that deal with this.

The first comes from Rorate Caeli, where an excerpt is given from a French publication (Le Figaro) in which Cardinal Bertone discusses the matter. Here’s the money quote:

Is a Decree widening the possibility of celebrating the Latin Mass according to the rite from before Vatican II (the so-called Mass of Saint Pius V) still expected?

[Secretary of State] Cardinal Bertone: The merit of the conciliar liturgical reform is intact. But both [for reasons of] not losing the great liturgical heritage left by Saint Pius V and for granting the wish of those faithful who desire to attend Masses according to this rite, within the framework of the Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII, with its own calendar, there is no valid reason not to grant to every priest in the world* the right to celebrate according to this form. The authorization of the Supreme Pontiff would evidently preserve the validity of the rite of Paul VI. The publication of the motu proprio which specifies this authorisation will take place, but it will be the pope himself who will explain his motivations and the framework of his decision. The Sovereign Pontiff will personally explain his vision for the use of the ancient Missal to the Christian people, and particularly to the Bishops.

*au prêtre du monde entier: literally, to the priest of the whole world

Now, I have a little note of caution here, because the interview in question hasn’t yet appeared on Le Figaro’s web site, raising a tiny question in my mind about the provenance of the story. However, I think it’s most likely accurate.

Here’s the French group that originally put it online.

There’s also this story from Catholic News Service, which is well worth reading. It cites a bunch of unnamed Vatican sources, but it nevertheless conveys the expectation that the motu proprio will soon be released. What’s interesting, though, is that it provides a plausible understanding of Benedict’s rationale in issuing it: that it’s not just a gesture to the SSPX but is instead an effort on his part to harmonize elements in the Church’s recent liturgical history.

EXCERPT:

More than making peace with Archbishop Lefebvre’s followers, they said, the pope is trying to make peace with the church’s own tradition.

One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.

The almost total prohibition of the old missal, which had been used for 400 years, was unprecedented in the history of the liturgy, he said in the book.

In effect, he said, "the old building was demolished" and a new one put in its place. Thus the liturgy ceased to be a living development and was treated as something manufactured by experts, which has caused the church "enormous harm," he said.

This is something that Cardinal Ratzinger said on more than one occasion, and in more than one way. In one of Peter Seewald’s interviews with him, he expressed the thought that for 400 years the Tridentine rite of Mass had been the Church’s most sacred possession, and it was problematic to then suddenly turn around and treat it as forbidden.

In any event, after a long dormancy of hearing anything about the motu proprio, it now sounds as if things are in motion again.

Saturn’s North Pole Hexagon

Saturn_hexagonA reader writes:

Any thought on THIS?

I was re-reading Lovecraft’s “A Shadow out of Time” yesterday and later in the day this odd image makes the news.

Maybe it’s an inter-planetary elder sign or maybe the “stars are right” for you know who’s return.  I think Lovecraft would have found it amusing to make it into a part of his Mythos. 

I think you’re right that Lovecraft definitely would have worked it into his mythos, if he’d known about it.

Clark Ashton Smith would have had fun with it, too, if he’d known about it when writing The Door to Saturn.

My own thoughts are these:

1) It’s very, very strange that Saturn would have a hexagonal storm at it’s north pole.

2) Maybe the Saturnian Santa Claus has a thing for geometry.

3) I expect Kara Thrace to fly out of it as part of her destiny to lead the rag-tag fleet to Earth.

MORE HERE.

(CHT to the second reader, who also spotted the Kara Thrace connection!)

The first reader also asks:

By the way,  several months ago you blogged about “the Mound” story.  It’s been many years since I’ve read it and I was wondering how you knew the exact location to have found it by the satellite images?

I discovered that the story The Mound was based on a real geological formation known as Ghost Mound, between Hydro and Binger, Oklahoma and found its latitude and longitude recorded in a list of GPS coordinates for people wanting to visit various mound formations in the area. (Here’s another source listing them.)

MORE HERE.

AND HERE.

AND HERE.

USCCB Smackdown

One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.

Yet, What I refuse to promote is outright Lucifer-ous type of attacks and rebellion against the Church Our Lord had established from those who disguise themselves as true Catholics and, even far worse than that, have the blasphemy which lies at the core of these attacks disguised as Traditional Catholic Teaching, which itself is so far from the Truth!
Many of John’s post have promoted disobedience and disrespect against the Catholic Church and, in fact, its Traditional Teachings. Papal Authority is at the heart of Traditional Catholic Teaching, the very core that, in fact, many brave Saints like Thomas More and hundreds of others throughout the centuries gave their very lives for since it is this Authority which Christ Himself established for HIS Church in St. Peter and his Successors.
Yet, not only does John attack this Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church, but he villainously goes on to actually disguise his rebellious attacks against the Church as well as this refusal to recognize Papal Authority as even Traditional Catholic Teaching!
Further, he has the gall to declare Pope John Paul II as well as Pope Benedict XVI as APOSTATES!
It was bad enough that he had spread calumny and other such treacherous lies against JP II and B16 as well as Mother Teresa in previous posts, but he goes as far as placing upon himself an authority that is not his own!
If John has the right to spew his venomous attacks against the Church and purposely misrepresent actual Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church here (as some have wrongfully advocated — and even compared him to a Saint, of all things!) then I don’t see why folks like Maguire shouldn’t be allowed to continue to do the same!
Thus, John holds nothing of Traditional Catholic Church Teaching as Sacred nor does he care for the many Souls that have been saved and converted to the Catholic Faith!
John would rather that Protestants as well as non-Christians be damned to Hell than even join the Catholic Church! If you actually read many of his posts to me, he condescendingly looks down on Protestants and non-Christians as something less than dirt and treats them with such disdain and hate!
If this is the kind of True Catholic that the Rad Trads adore and promote, better that I become a Protestant than a servant of Lucifer as this!

Readers of JA.O know about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith–the universal Church’s doctrinal watchdog group. What many may not know, though, is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has an equivalent body, known as the Committee on Doctrine.

Whereas the CDF is tasked with dealing with global problems in the area of theology, the COD is tasked with dealing with local (i.e., national) ones, and it’s just delivered a stinging warning about the writings of one of our home-grown dissenters, Daniel Maguire of Marquette University.

GET THE STORY.

MAGUIRE TALKS BACK HERE.

It’s interesting how Maguire accuses the COD of being "obsessed with sex" when it was his writings on sexual issues that contained clear contradictions on Church teaching.

Marquette’s response is also interesting.

And disappointing.

Bringing Children to Mass

A reader writes:

I have a baptized daughter who is a few months old. My wife and I went home to my parents this weekend. They went to Church Saturday night as we were visiting other relatives. On Sunday morning my mom offered to watch our daughter while we went to Church. I agreed.

On the way to church I began to wonder if not brining my daughter to church was a sin. Was it? And how grave was it? I abstained from communion because I wasn’t sure.

I’m not clear from your answer whether you took your daughter to Mass Saturday or if it was just Sunday morning when you didn’t take her to Mass. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because a child that young is not required to attend Mass. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 11 Merely
ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or
received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law
expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

The law regarding who has to go to Mass on Sunday (or Saturday evening; either satisfies the Sunday obligation) does not specify an age. It simply says:

Can.  1247 On Sundays and other holy days of
obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and
affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the
Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

Since there is no specification of age here, canon 11 means that children under 7 years of age (or people who lack the use of reason or people who are not baptized) are not bound to attend Mass.

It thus was not a sin to leave your daughter in the care of your mother.

Parents do have a moral obligation to ensure that as their children age, they get in the habit of going to Mass so that once the obligation kicks in at 7 years of age they’re used to it, but this is not an obligation that means they have to be there every single Sunday, and it certainly does not mean that children less than a year old have to be taken to Mass. Children that young are incapable of forming the habit of going to Mass.