Vivificat!

Two must see sites

2009-11-30T08:31:00.003-05:00

Folks! As I go into another "creative pause" to end the "cycle-within-the-cycle" on Catholic and Jewish modes of prayer, I want to invite you to review the following two sites:

Read and sign the Manhattan Declaration. It is a "call to Christian conscience" made by Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians - me included - "who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them." These truths are: 1. the sanctity of human life; 3. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and 3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty. All these are under fire today and all these need a defense. Make this declaration your own, please, go and sign it. Almost 200,000 people have done so already as of this morning.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has created an Advent and Christmas website with suggestions for daily prayers, readings, reflection and action. A collection of Lessons and Carols is also provided for live listening or download. Printable calendars in English and Spanish are one new feature of the site, a USCCB press release says. They suggest a family activity for each day of Advent, which begins on Nov. 29, and for each day of the Christmas Season. Many of the calendar’s reflections are taken from four of the collections from the Spiritual Thoughts Series by Pope Benedict XVI: “Following Christ,” “The Priesthood,” “Mary” and “The Saints.” The Festival of Lessons and Carols, a service of Scripture and song that dates to the late 19th century, is available for download at the site. It also lists recommended holiday-themed movies, prayers and blessings from the USCCB publication, “Catholic Household Blessings and Prayers.” The site makes suggestions for remembering the needs of the immigrants and the poor throughout the Advent and Christmas seasons and also provides photos of seasonal decorations of Catholic sanctuaries, including the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Scripture resources of the Advent/Christmas web site focus on the Old Testament. Jem Sullivan, Ph.D., from the USCCB Secretariat for Evangelization and Catechesis, opens the Advent season with a video about how families can enrich their faith through reading the Old Testament. The calendars also feature video clips of USCCB members and staff discussing their favorite Old Testament figures, stories and passages. The Advent/Christmas web site is at http://www.usccb.org/advent/ (Source: CNA)

First Sunday of Advent, AD 2009

2009-11-29T00:00:00.000-05:00

From today's Office of Readings, a reading from a sermon by St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

We do not preach only one coming of Christ, but a second as well, much more glorious than the first. The first coming was marked by patience; the second will bring the crown of a divine kingdom.

In general, whatever relates to our Lord Jesus Christ has two aspects. There is a birth from God before the ages, and a birth from a virgin at the fullness of time. There is a hidden coming, like that of rain on fleece, and a coming before all eyes, still in the future.

At the first coming he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in a manger. At his second coming he will be clothed in light as in a garment. In the first coming he endured the cross, despising the shame; in the second coming he will be in glory, escorted by an army of angels.

We look then beyond the first coming and await the second. At the first coming we said: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. At the second we shall say it again; we shall go out with the angels to meet the Lord and cry out in adoration: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

The Savior will not come to be judged again, but to judge those by whom he was judged. At his own judgment he was silent; then he will address those who committed the outrages against him when they crucified him and will remind them: You did these things, and I was silent.
His first coming was to fulfill his plan of love, to teach men by gentle persuasion. This time, whether men like it or not, they will be subjects of his kingdom by necessity.
The prophet Malachi speaks of the two comings. And the Lord whom you seek will come suddenly to his temple: that is one coming.

Again he says of another coming: Look, the Lord almighty will come, and who will endure the day of his entry, or who will stand in his sight? Because he comes like a refiner’s fire, a fuller’s herb, and he will sit refining and cleansing.

These two comings are also referred to by Paul in writing to Titus: The grace of God the Savior has appeared to all men, instructing us to put aside impiety and worldly desires and live temperately, uprightly, and religiously in this present age, waiting for the joyful hope, the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Notice how he speaks of a first coming for which he gives thanks, and a second, the one we still await.

That is why the faith we profess has been handed on to you in these words: He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Our Lord Jesus Christ will therefore come from heaven. He will come at the end of the world, in glory, at the last day. For there will be an end to this world, and the created world will be made new.
(Source)

Mass Readings

First Reading: Jeremiah 33:14-16
Psalm: Psalms 25:4-5, 8-9, 10, 14
Second Reading: 1 Thessalonians 3:12 -- 4:2
Gospel: Luke 21:25-28, 34-36

Can a Catholic Pray Like a Jew? - Part II

2009-11-27T13:30:00.007-05:00

continued from Part I

Themes in Jewish/Christian Divergence on Prayer

Before we continue, let us check my assumptions: first, and as I stated before, I am assuming that post-Biblical, post-second Temple Judaism developed independently from, and in many instances in opposition to, Christianity: it is then to be expected that many commonalities as well as many differences came to the fore after 2,000 years of separate development. Second, I only had a chance to peruse a very small number of Jewish primers on prayer and they all seem to me to emphasize liturgical prayer, whether in a synagogue or in a home setting. Third, although I was unable to find primers discussing personal prayer as an intimate relationship between God and the believer in Jewish life, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it’s just that my initial and very preliminary survey turned up none. Fourth, I have never attended, nor – absent a formal invitation by a person with standing who knows my intentions – plan to attend a Jewish synagogue service any time soon. What I speak of here has been gleaned indirectly, solely from book reading. With these things in mind, let us proceed.

Theme #1: Priority of Jewish Identity

Post-biblical, post-second Temple, rabbinical Judaism – Judaism as we more or less meet it today in its manifold expressions – emphasizes the liturgical over the spontaneous and the corporate over the individual in a way that the also liturgical and corporate-conscious Catholic Church does not. The Jewish synagogue liturgy – again, in its various Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform settings – aims to forge, nurture, and maintain a Jewish national consciousness through space and time. The worship of Israel’s God can’t take place without first restoring and reestablishing the Jewish identity of the worshipping assembly. This is done through the prayers themselves.

Jewish corporate prayer then assumes an exclusive stance that does not translate perfectly to our own notion of excluding catechumens and non-Catholic Christians from participating in the Eucharist. Jews are Jews first and foremost “genetically,” or like St. Paul once said “according to the flesh.” According to Jewish authorities, a Jew is always a Jew – unless he or she becomes a Christian. This sense of identity and belonging is reinforced constantly through their worship.

The best comparison I can make would be to imagine a “liturgy” in which our identity as Americans formed the unmovable tapestry against which the worship service takes place, through “liturgical” readings of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Gettysburg address, punctuated by patriotic songs and anthems and remembrances of our national milestones. This sense of national belonging, of common purpose, origin, and destiny, is exactly what their liturgy is meant to evoke to a Jew as they worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Instead, we Catholics tend to think of God and the new Israel as “transnational” in nature. The focus of our allegiance has shifted to Jesus as the embodiment of the New Israel around whom we gather to encounter the God of Israel. Our national identities have been subsumed and our consciousness of being a People of God sprouts from this recognition of Jesus as the embodiment of Israel.

Theme #2: A different notion of individual prayer

The primary mode of Jewish prayer in the home, individually or in family, seems to be formulaic and liturgical even there – and I say this fully conscious that in many instances, that’s our case too. But what I mean is that whereas Catholic home prayer may turn into individual opportunities for meditation, mental prayer, and contemplation, post-biblical Jewish home prayer or individual prayer rarely transcends the meaning and the occasion of the prescribed prayers because the observance itself is a sufficient vehicle for intimacy with God, a beginning, a springboard, and a vehicle, a medium.

For example, structured meditative prayers like the Rosary or the Chaplet of Divine Mercy seem to me inconceivable in a Jewish context and, if there are analogues, I freely admit my ignorance as to what these might be. I also note that I’ve seen little in postbiblical Jewish literature – and again, my research has not been exhaustive – about the practice of spontaneous, “glory and praise” individual prayer leading to silent contemplation due in part to a Jewish aversion towards “repetitive prayer” that even includes repetitive praise, and a different notion on God’s transcendence that apparently places insurmountable obstacles to a Catholic-like contemplative journey: Jews conceive of intimacy with God in more restricted terms than we do. This takes me to the next theme.

Theme #3: A different notion of intimacy with God

If I were to encapsulate Jewish theology in one catchphrase, I would say that Jewish theology is “a theology of boundaries” between man and his Lord that cannot be crossed. Let me illustrate:

·"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." – Exodus 3:5

·But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." – Exodus 33:20

·Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." – Exodus 33:23

·The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the LORD. 2 The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die, because I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover. – Leviticus 16:1-2

By way of contrast, Christian theology may be defined as one of “no boundaries” between God and man. For example:

·At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. – Matthew 27:51 (also Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45)

·No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. – John 1:18

·Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. – John 14:8-10

·Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. – Hebrews 4:14-16

The boundaries, barriers, and enclosure clearly set by God in the Hebrew Scriptures have been removed for us by Jesus in the New Testament, but for Jews, the ancient boundaries between God and man, between Creator and creature, still stand.

Anyone who has read Martin Buber’s I and Thou knows what I mean. If I were to point out a book on Jewish mysticism this would be it, although Buber didn’t intend it to be about mysticism, but about ethics. A most excellent book about how we experience the world through relationships and, through these relationships, we experience God. And yet, throughout the book, man remains at a “respectful” distance from a God who can’t and won’t be “thingified” into any created reality, including the Incarnation – much less “transubstantiation.” Man can approach God infinitely and be enriched by the endless approach, but the ultimate boundary still stands: man will never be conformed to the divine nature.

Since for Catholic Christians the boundaries have dropped, our experience of contemplative prayer has developed a vocabulary of “quest,” ascent, and union with God in the order of grace. We find this “grammar of ascent” in the New Testament itself:

·"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. – John 17:20-23

·…God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. – 1 John 4:16-18

·Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. – 2 Peter 1:4

To these we may add the promises made by Jesus as recorded in the Book of Revelation, promises which entail the full participation by the follower of Jesus in Jesus’ own messianic privileges and dignities.

All these ideas, although fully Jewish in their origin and symbolism, represent completely original thoughts, boldly encroaching upon the boundaries set in the Previous Testament. Works like The Ladder of Divine Ascent, The Cloud of Unknowing, The Interior Castle, and The Ascent of Mount Carmel would be foreign to post-Biblical Jewish thought. Jewish mysticism flowed through quite different channels, from the Merkabah to Hassidism, all of them vessels of communion with the God of Israel but all of them leery of approaching God in the familiar, unitive, even nuptial terms opened up by Jesus and experienced and described by Christian theologians ever since.

So, what are we to make of all these convergences and divergences? Where do we stand? That will be the subject of the next post, the conclusion of this “series within the series” of Jewish and Christian themes in Christianity.

My Position on Vatican II

2009-11-25T12:14:00.004-05:00

Folks, today I added the following paragraph to my Personal Mission Statement. You might find it interesting:

• I receive and treasure the divine, Catholic faith as handed down through the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. The list is here. I want to state particularly that I receive the Second Vatican Council in its documents without nuance, watering down, or reinterpretation as voicing the Ecumenical mind of the Catholic Church, and resist all attempts from some so-called "traditionalists" and "progressives" to render it meaningless through endless nitpicking interpretation or through appeals to a non-existent "spirit of Vatican II" that go beyond the Council's orthodox boundaries.

I just wanted to make that clear in case there are any unsaid questions about it.

Also, an announcement: the second post on Catholic and Jewish convergences and divergences on the matter of prayer will be published later today.

Today we remember Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J.

2009-11-23T12:46:00.004-05:00

Folks, today we remember, among other worthy martyrs, Blessed Miguel Pro.

Miguel Pro was born January 13, 1891, at Guadalupe Zacatecas, Mexico. From his childhood, high spirits and happiness were the most outstanding characteristics of his personality. The loving and devoted son of a mining engineer and a pious and charitable mother, Miguel had a special affinity for the working classes which he retained all his life.

At 20, he became a Jesuit novice and shortly thereafter was exiled because of the Mexican revolution. He traveled to the United States, Spain, Nicaragua and Belgium, where he was ordained in 1925. Father Pro suffered greatly from a severe stomach problem and when, after several operations his health did not improve, in 1926 his superiors allowed him to return to Mexico in spite of the religious persecution in the country.

The churches were closed and priests were in hiding. Father Pro spent the rest of his life in a secret ministry to the sturdy Mexican Catholics. In addition to fulfilling their spiritual needs, he also carried out the works of mercy by assisting the poor of Mexico City with their temporal needs. He adopted many disguises to carry out his secret ministry. In all that he did, he remained filled with the joy of serving Christ, his King, and obedient to his superiors.

Falsely accused in a bombing attempt on the President-elect, Pro became a wanted man. He was betrayed to the police and sentenced to death without the benefit of any legal process.

On the day of his death, Father Pro forgave his executioners, prayed, bravely refused the blindfold, and died proclaiming "Long Live Christ the King!"

Christ the King, by the intercession of Blessed Miguel Pro, I beg you to answer my prayers. Give me the grace and the strength necessary to follow your heroic example and to live my Catholic faith in spite of all temptations and adversities. Amen.

Source: EWTN.

Today's the Solemnity of Christ the King

2009-11-22T00:00:00.000-05:00

That the Lord is King is obvious from the Holy Scriptures. He's of Davidic descent (Matt. 1:1) as befits the the Messiah of Israel (1:16); He revealed himself as such before Pilate (John 18:36-37) and the last book of the Bible is a narrative of his Coming Kingdom. The Eastern and Western Churches portray the Lord's Kingship in similar yet different ways. The Eastern Orthodox icon to the right, written (for icons, like Holy Scripture, are "written," not "painted") by the Monk Michael, pictures Christ both in the garb of an Eastern Archbishop and Byzantine Emperor, whose garb often was identical to those of Eastern hierarchs. The vestments consist of the following elements:

The STICHARION or tunic which is worn by all clerics in slightly modified forms. Equivalent to the Roman alb, it may be of any material and color although white is usual.

The EPIMANIKIA or cuffs are worn by the deacon and higher ranks of clergy. The priest and bishop wear the cuffs over the sleeves of the STICHARION while the deacon places them underneath his STICHARION's broader sleeve. The cuffs were the symbols of civil authority in the Byzantine Empire.

The EPIGONATION is a lozenge shaped vestment suspended by a cord from the left shoulder and hanging.

The SACCOS is that vestment proper to Bishops which gradually replaced their use of the PHELONION. Directly copied from late imperial regalia it is a shorter tunic with ample sleeves and marked with a cross on the back. It is worn over the STICHARION or under tunic.

The OMOPHORION is probably one of the most ancient of the Bishop's vestments with a strictly symbolic origin. Copied from the scarf of office worn by the Emperor and other officials it identified the Bishop as head of the community. A large, long band of cloth it is marked with crosses and is passed around the neck hanging in front and behind. A "small" OMOPHORION worn simply around the neck and hanging in two pendants on the chest is properly worn in place of the large one after the gospel at the Liturgy. The OMOPHORION is worn by all Byzantine Bishops and corresponds to the Latin pallium.

The MITRA or Bishop's crown is equivalent to the Latin mitre as the Bishop's head covering. The crown is embroidered and bears small icons and is surmounted by a cross. Its origin is similar to that of the papal tiara and its use was adopted after the fall of the Byzantine Roman Empire. Certain Archimandrites and Archpriests, although not of episcopal character, have the right to the use of the crown. (Source: Byzantine Vestments)

The words: "King of Kings" and "Great High Priest" flank the Lord to his left and to his right respectively. He holds his right hand in blessing and in his left he holds the Holy Scriptures, opened, if I'm not mistaken, to the Letter to the Hebrews -- and there my Greek fails me.

The Latin portrayal of Christ the King also follows closely Western symbols of kingly power. To the left, painted by an unknown artist, we see our Lord portrayed in medieval royal garb, a scepter, and a two-tiered tiara, perhaps symbolizing his two natures (human and divine) or his offices (high priest and king). On his breast we see his Sacred Heart burning with love towards humanity. The Lord's right hand is also lifted in a gesture of blessing. Note also how the position of the fingers differ from East and West. In the Greek icon, the Lord's ring finger and thumb touch each other. This pairing symbolizes the two natures of Christ, divine and human, joined together. The remaining three fingers symbolize the Triune Godhead. In the Western portrayal, the ring and "pinky" fingers are flexed and the other three remain standing. The meaning of the gesture remains the same: Christ, True God and True Man, the Trinity, God One and Undivided. To this day, Eastern priests and bishops bless the people using the finger configuration depicted on the icon; sadly, the Latin form has fallen into general disuse.

The Feast and the Novena In the Western Church, the Feast of Christ the King marks the end of the Liturgical Year. Pope Pius XI introduced the feast in 1925 as a response to increasing atheism and secularism in the world. It is then fitting that we finish this presentation with the following Novena Prayer to Christ the King:

Recite One Our Father, One Hail Mary and One Glory Be per day followed by the Novena Prayer: O Lord our God, You alone are the Most Holy King and Ruler of all nations. We pray to You, Lord, in the great expectation of receiving from You, O Divine King, mercy, peace, justice and all good things. Protect, O Lord our King, our families and the land of our birth. Guard us we pray Most Faithful One. Protect us from our enemies and from Your Just Judgment Forgive us, O Sovereign King, our sins against you. Jesus, You are a King of Mercy. We have deserved Your Just Judgment Have mercy on us, Lord, and forgive us. We trust in Your Great Mercy. O most awe-inspiring King, we bow before You and pray; May Your Reign, Your Kingdom, be recognized on earth. Amen.

Today’s Mass Readings

First Reading: Daniel 7:13-14
Psalm: Psalm 93:1-2, 5
Second Reading: Revelation 1:5-8
Gospel: John 18:33-37

Can a Catholic Christian Pray Like a Jew? – Part I

2009-11-21T11:00:00.004-05:00

Folks, after several false stars, we continue now with our exploration of Jewish and Christian themes with an examination of Christian and Jewish similarities, differences, convergences and divergences on the subject of prayer. I found the subject matter vast, fascinating, but somewhat complicated. I apologize because this brief study will hardly do any justice to the subject but I hope it will serve as a starting point for further, deeper study and reflection on this matter. Also, please, note that I had to further subdivide this subject into three posts. Otherwise it would’ve become long, boring, and unwieldy. I expect to consolidate all three parts into a single PDF file at the completion of Part III.

At first I thought that the significant differences between Judaism and Christianity –the ones pretty much known to us all–would make me gravitate toward a negative answer to the question, something that went against my initial expectations. Nevertheless, in view of the evidence, my answer to the question “Can a Catholic Christian pray like a Jew” is a qualified “yes.” A Christian in general, and a Catholic in particular, can pray like a Jew, albeit a first century Jew, inasmuch as we pray like and in Jesus. Yet Jesus’ presence in the praying Catholic Christian is not a mere memory of someone who existed once in the past but who is only available to us through holy writings, but a living, breathing presence indwelling in us, who both prays in us and moulds us to pray like Him. In this sense, a Catholic prays like a Jew “all the time”. The reality of “praying like a Jew” is present in each one of us through Jesus Christ Our Lord.

On the other hand, since modern Judaism represents an independent, parallel development from first century Judaism along with Christianity, and inasmuch as modern Jews maintain a liturgical prayer rule similar to that of Catholics, it can be said that today’s Christians and Jews do pray to the One God in very similar ways and that therefore, in this narrow sense, Christians can and many times do pray like Jews of the present day. But this relationship with modern Judaism is one of similarity and not of identity, and, the opposite is not true, however: Jews cannot and do not pray like Christians because they are unable or unwilling to pray in Jesus’ Name. Let us begin a brief thematic exploration of the question.

Themes in Jewish and Christian Prayer Convergence

Theme #1: Jesus is the Gate for Christian/Jewish Prayer

Public and private prayer was central in the Judaism of Jesus’ day. Pious Jews of the time prayed in their homes, synagogues, and in the Temple. Jesus prayed like a Jew and did likewise. He was a Jew, his earthly parents and immediate family were Jews so he couldn’t help but to pray like a Jew. If he was to be intelligible to those around him, he had to pray like a Jew.

Yet, Jesus didn’t pray like any Jew. He dared to call God “Father” in terms of a special, unique, and exclusive intimacy that went beyond the purposes and meaning of “Father” in the normative Jewish prayer of his time.

Prayer was a core activity of Jesus and is always portrayed in exemplary terms in the Gospels. These instances speak to me with particular intensity:

· But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed. – Luke 5:16
· One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. – Luke 6:12
· Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say I am?" – Luke 9:18

This last one intrigues me. How can he be “praying in private” where it is obvious that he wasn’t alone? Because his attitude and demeanor showed to the disciples that Jesus was always in a state of constant dialogue with God, whom he called “Father” in his special, incommunicable way.

The God that Jesus revealed to us and who He called “Father” was –and is– the God of Israel. Jesus declared himself as “someone greater than the Temple” (Matthew 12:6). Jesus is now the Temple, the personal point of encounter between the God of Israel and his people. In Him we now pray as in the Temple.

Theme #2: The Psalms the Steps to the Door of Jewish/Christian Prayers

The Psalms are quoted more in the New Testament than any other book. Those of us who pray the Liturgy of the Hours pray the traditional prayers of Israel every day in a 4-week cycle: the Psalms. Those of us who pray the Psalms pray like Jews – those of the past and those of our present day. As we pray with the Psalms we submerge ourselves in the entire spectrum of the faith of Israel. The Psalms were –and continue to be– an integral part of the Temple and Synagogue liturgies. Jesus prayed the Psalms all the way to the Cross. When we pray the Psalms, we’re using Jesus’ own prayer book.

If Jesus is the Door through which we encounter the God of Israel, then the Psalms are like the steps leading to the Door. Moreover, if we pray the Psalms with their primary, literal sense in mind and without allegorizing them initially, then we are appropriating the very feelings and aspirations of pious Israelites and their descendants to this day. A case in point out of a great many examples is the closing verses of the penitential Psalm per excellence, Psalm 51, the Miserere (Psalm 51:18-19):

Do good to Zion in thy good pleasure
Rebuild the walls of Jerusalem,
Then will Thou delight in right sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offerings;
Then bulls will be offered in Thy altar. (RSV-CE)

Scholars tells us these canonical and inspired verses were added by a redactor-editor who wrote them during the Babylonian Captivity and who could not bear see the original Psalm end with such a negative view of temple sacrifices. Yet we can see in the Psalm itself a movement away from material, animal sacrifices in favor of a more personal, more spiritual manner of worship.

The literal sense of these verses shows the redactor-editor’s fervent wish for the end of the Babylonian Exile and for the Judahite remnant’s return to Jerusalem from Babylon. It also stated the writer’s wishes to see its walls and the Temple rebuilt, and for the sacrificial worship of God to resume. This was the holy writer’s original, immediate concern.

Afterwards, these verses remained in the Psalm as a testimony to answered prayer. The verses regained their urgency after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and remain a current expectation for many Jews to this day.

These verses are then, “crisis verses” and we can readily see how easy it is to allegorize them into a Christian context to respond to a variety of situations: the Barbarian and Saracen invasions, the Western Church’s own “Babylonian Captivity” and Great Schism in the Middle Ages; the Protestant revolt and the religious wars all come to mind as new contexts for the prayer of these verses. In its Christian interpretation Jerusalem and Zion become “the Church” and the animal sacrifices are seen as “types” of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Spiritualized this way, the full Psalm reforms into a continuum of repentance, penance, forgiveness, and hope for restoration that is shared alike by Jews and Christians throughout all ages. We both meet in this Psalm albeit for different reasons, but with a common, shared prayerful expectation of redemption and restoration.

Similar “convergences” of Christian and Jewish aspirations occur in many other Psalms, all made possible by the original, literal sense set down by the Israelite holy writer.

Theme #3: The Gospel Canticles and the Our Father as Jewish Prayer for Christians

Also prayed in the Liturgy of the Hours we find the so-called “Gospel Canticles” known as the Benedictus (Luke 1:67-79), the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and the Nunc Dimitis (Luke 2: 29-32), prayed at Morning, Evening, and Night prayers respectively. Their structure, themes, and rhythm track closely after that of the Psalms. Their main referent is the history of Israel, its election, the messianic expectation, and the hope for the integration of the Gentiles into Israel’s election, along with the hope, now seen fulfilled, of a new birth of justice and righteousness in the land. There’s no mention yet of the advent of the Church, the ekklesia, the new qahal or assembly of the New Israel; that remains in the future, to be told by St. Luke himself in his the Acts of the Apostles.

The Our Father is the Christian prayer par excellence and yet it’s replete with Jewish themes: the sanctification of God’s name – not mentioned in the prayer out of a very Jewish reluctance to pronounce the Name – the expectation of a Kingdom already dawning; the abandonment to God’s will; the petition for sustenance both for the body and for the soul; the forgiveness of our sins now as we now forgive others who sinned against us; the petition to avoid temptation and the deliverance from the evil one – from personified evil, not merely from moral evil – are themes that, experts tell us, could only be appreciated in the original languages that the prayer was said, in Aramaic and perhaps in Hebrew. The Our Father is written in the present tense, its imprecations are really an affirmation of a present realization.

Of course, we can’t forget our new relationship with the God of Israel clearly declared in this prayer reflected in the title Father. And although this appellation was known in various currents of Judaism at the time of Jesus, the twist Jesus gave it was unique, and meant to be as a mysterious sharing in Jesus’ own unique divine sonship. In Him, with Him, and through Him – as the priest declares at Mass when offering the consecrated gifts – we have been made participants of the “sonship” that, up to that moment, was the unique privilege of the people of Israel.

It is no coincidence, then, that the aforementioned “pillars of prayer” found in the New Testament and so minutely detailed by St. Luke all possess this sharp Jewish flavor. For these prayers are no mere “memorials” of mighty deeds but function almost in a sacramental fashion, making present the saving deeds by their mere recitation of the prophetic narrative. In this manner, these canticles and prayers echo the Paschal anamnesis or “reenactment” first recorded in the Paschal narrative found in Exodus, then in the institution of the Eucharist found in the Gospel, and then in our Liturgies in which the saving power of the Israel’s God is made present again in words and action. It should not surprise us, then, that the core prayers, narratives, and aspirations found in the New Testament are also the most “Jewish” and through them, we Catholics are at our most “Jewish.”

In the next Part we will discuss some of the divergences between Jewish and Christian modes of prayer.

Continue to Part II

Why does God sing?

2009-11-16T00:00:00.000-05:00

Folks, I continue with my “creative hiatus” as I study the question “Can a Christian pray like a Jew?” with a little more attention. In the meantime, I want to share with you something related to the subject, written by my better known colleague Father Stephen, an Orthodox Christian priest, communicator, and blogger of Glory to God for All Things. In this post written last Spring but reposted recently, Fr. Stephen explores the question Why Does God Sing? His answer is relevant to our current conversation. This is an excerpt:

I wrote this piece last Spring. The thought of God singing is among my favorite meditations. Yesterday was the feast of the Holy Angels on the Orthodox Calendar – who themselves sing with unceasing praise. Today I celebrate a birthday (not one of the “big ones”) and my treat for myself is to reprint these thoughts on the song of heaven.

Why would God sing? The question may sound strange and yet it is said in Zephaniah (3:17), “He will rejoice over thee with singing.” I first noticed this verse when I was a very young Christian and have puzzled about it for nearly forty years. Equally puzzling to our modern way of thought is the question, “Why does anybody sing?” I have been to plenty of operas and have to admit that even the ones in English need subtitles – singing does not necessarily make something more easily understood. And yet we sing.

God sings. Angels sing. Man sings.

Other than some adaptations that have been made in a few places in the modern period, any Orthodox service of worship is sung (or chanted) from beginning to end (with the exception of the sermon). Like opera, this musical approach to the liturgy does not mean that it will be better understood. And yet, the Christian Tradition, until the Reformation, was largely universal in its use of singing as the mode of worship. In the Western Church there was a development of the “Low Mass” in which little chanting was used – though this never found a place in the East.

This is not solely a Christian phenomenon. As a teenager I had a close friend who was Jewish. As a young teenager he began training to become a Cantor (the main singer in a congregation – second only in importance to the Rabbi himself). I was curious about Hebrew so he began to instruct me privately. Hebrew is a great language – particularly as published in Hebrew Scriptures.

I mastered the alphabet and began to understand that most vowels were not letters at all, just dots and lines, strategically placed to indicate their sound. I felt somewhat proud the first time I read a line aloud without prompting. I recall that when I finished I pointed at yet another set of markings that my friend had yet to mention.

“What are these?” I asked.

“They’re for the Cantor,” he explained. He also had to explain what a Cantor was and, fortunately, was able to demonstrate when I asked him how the musical markings worked. The sound would have compared easily to Byzantine chant – perhaps with lines of kinship. This past autumn I became acutely aware of another singing religion: Islam. My wife and I made pilgrimage to the Holy Land in September [2008]. The first morning (it was the Islamic holy month of Ramadan) a canon went off at sunrise (that will wake you up in Jerusalem!) and suddenly a plaintive chant blared across the city as the Muezzin chanted the morning call to prayer…

Please, continue reading here.

Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time

2009-11-15T00:00:00.000-05:00

Today’s Holy Mass readings:

First Reading: Daniel 12:1-3
Psalm: Psalm 16:5, 8-11
Second Reading: Hebrews 10:11-14, 18
Gospel: Mark 13:24-32

Internal Links Revamped

2009-11-14T15:30:00.001-05:00

Folks, I’ve created a “satellite” or “auxiliary” blog to store all static or seldom-updated contents listed in the “Internal Links” section on the left sidebar. Also, each entry has now enabled comments so if you want to interact with the static contents you are welcome to do so. These are the new Internal Links:

Please, enjoy the new functionality. Thanks!

Creative Pause

2009-11-12T11:33:00.003-05:00

Folks, the next subject I imposed upon me in the ongoing Judaism/Judaica cycle, "Can a Catholic Pray Like a Jew?" has proven to be fascinating issue, but alas, a somewhat complicated one.

I don't want to end up oversimplifying the whole thing and as a consequence disrespecting all involved, so...I ask for your benevolent patience as I put this next blog post together. It is in the works, I promise! Thanks!

Eight Lessons Learned from “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible”

2009-11-11T00:00:00.000-05:00

Folks, in this installment of this cycle of blog posts dedicated to Jewish themes, I want to share with you a few key points I gathered from the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s (PBC) The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This is an excellent document and I’ve only read up to a bit over a quarter of it, and yet I found these points worth learning from the beginning:

· The New Testament recognizes the authority of the Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people. The New Testament writings were never presented as something entirely new. On the contrary, they attest their rootedness in the long religious experience of the people of Israel, an experience recorded in diverse forms in the sacred books which comprise the Jewish Scriptures. The New Testament recognizes their divine authority. This recognition manifests itself in different ways, with different degrees of explicitness.

· In many religions there exists a tension between Scripture and Tradition. This is true of Oriental Religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) and Islam. The written texts can never express the Tradition in an exhaustive manner. They have to be completed by additions and interpretations which are eventually written down but are subject to certain limitations. This phenomenon can be seen in Christianity as well as in Judaism, with developments that are partly similar and partly different. A common trait is that both share a significant part of the same canon of Scripture.

· Tradition completes Scripture. Christianity has in common with Judaism the conviction that God's revelation cannot be expressed in its entirety in written texts. This is clear from the ending of the Fourth Gospel where it is stated that the whole world would be unable to contain the books that could be written recounting the actions of Jesus (Jn 21:25). On the other hand, a vibrant tradition is indispensable to make Scripture come alive and maintain its relevance.

· The limits of the additional contribution of Tradition. To what extent can there be in the Christian Church a tradition that is a material addition to the word of Scripture? This question has long been debated in the history of theology. The Second Vatican Council appears to have left the matter open, but at least declined to speak of “two sources of revelation”, which would be Scripture and Tradition; it affirmed instead that “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture constitute a unique sacred deposit of the Word of God which is entrusted to the Church” (Dei Verbum 10). It likewise rejected the idea of a tradition completely independent of Scripture. On one point at least, the Council mentions an additional contribution made by Tradition, one of great importance: Tradition “enabled the Church to recognise the full canon of the Sacred Books” (DV 8). Here, the extent to which Scripture and Tradition are inseparable can be seen.

· Jewish Methods of Exegesis. The earliest rabbinic attestation of exegetical method based on Old Testament texts, is a series of seven “rules” traditionally attributed to Rabbi Hillel (d. 10 A.D.). Irrespective of whether this attribution is well founded or not, these seven middoth certainly represent a codification of contemporary methods of argument from Scripture, in particular for deducing rules of conduct. Another method of using Scripture can be seen in first century historical writings, particularly Josephus, but it had already been employed in the Old Testament itself. It consists of using biblical terms to describe events in order to illuminate their meaning. Thus, the return from the Babylonian Exile is described in terms that evoke the liberation from Egyptian oppression at the time of the Exodus (Is 43:16- 21). The final restoration of Zion is represented as a new Eden.24 At Qumran, a similar technique was widely used.

· Rabbinic Methods in the New Testament. Traditional Jewish methods of scriptural argumentation for the purpose of establishing rules of conduct — methods later codified by the rabbis — are frequently used in the words of Jesus transmitted in the Gospels and in the Epistles. Those occurring most often are the first two middoth (“rules”) of Hillel, qal wahomer and gezerah shawah.These correspond more or less to arguments a fortiori and by analogy respectively. A particular trait is that the argument often revolves around the meaning of a single word. This meaning is established by its occurrence in a certain context and is then applied, often in a very artificial manner, to another context. This technique has a strong resemblance to rabbinic midrash, with one characteristic difference: in the rabbinic midrash, there is a citation of differing opinions from various authorities in such a way that it becomes a technique of argumentation, while in the New Testament the authority of Jesus is decisive.

· It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers. The messiahship of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original. The original task of the prophet was to help his contemporaries understand the events and the times they lived in from God's viewpoint. Accordingly, excessive insistence, characteristic of a certain apologetic, on the probative value attributable to the fulfillment of prophecy must be discarded. This insistence has contributed to harsh judgments by Christians of Jews and their reading of the Old Testament: the more reference to Christ is found in Old Testament texts, the more the incredulity of the Jews is considered inexcusable and obstinate.

· Contribution of Jewish reading of the Bible. The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jews (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolized the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins? In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible. On the practical level of exegesis, Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practiced for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history. For their part, it is to be hoped that Jews themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.

Brief Discussion

I want to single out three statements from above for additional reflection:

It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events.

The notion of “photographic anticipation” is popular among many Christians across denominational barriers, and not only among Evangelicals fascinated by end-time prophecy. We Catholics are not strangers to this temptation, which is shared by some of our faithful who give great importance to various private revelations and who debate the number, contents, and accuracy of various “secrets” granted to – in the best of cases – to privileged souls primarily for their own edification.

…Excessive insistence, characteristic of a certain apologetic, on the probative value attributable to the fulfillment of prophecy must be discarded. This insistence has contributed to harsh judgments by Christians of Jews and their reading of the Old Testament: the more reference to Christ is found in Old Testament texts, the more the incredulity of the Jews is considered inexcusable and obstinate.

Now, I must confess that I disagree with the PBC’s outright dismissal of the “probative value” of fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. Many Father and Doctors of the Church – roughly, our “rabbis” - defended this “probative value” in regards to Jesus because the read it in the New Testament itself. If we recognize, as we will below, that post-Second Temple, rabbinical Judaism and Christianity developed in parallel tracks while sharing a common origin, there’s no reason to discard the “probative value” of fulfilled prophecy in Jesus, while admitting – though respectfully disagreeing with - the possibility and the internal coherence of the alternative Jewish reading of their own Old Testament prophecy.

… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.

In other words, the post-biblical, post-Second Temple, rabbinical Jewish reading of the Bible, and the Christian reading of the Bible share a single point of origin, yet diverged into parallel, independent lines of development. One cannot reduce the Christian reading of Scripture into the post-biblical Jewish one or vice versa. The forced harmonization of rabbinical Jewish and Christian readings of the Bible may be popular today in Evangelical circles, particularly in the so-called “Messianic Jewish” movement, but this view is not consonant with biblical exegesis as understood in the Catholic Church.

Ultimately, faith in Jesus derives not from the beauty, coherence, and eloquence of a given set of arguments, nor is it found in a contrived, artificial harmony between Christianity and rabbinical Judaism, but it is the consequence of a living encounter in word and in sacrament with a living person, Jesus Christ, who makes the written Word intelligible to those He meets through his Spirit.

Despite the divergence of rabbinical Judaism from Christianity, the PBC writers assert that Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practiced for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history. I agree and admit that a lot of the rabbinical literature that I’ve been able to read resonates, not because I interpret it in Christian terms, but because Judaism’s and Christianity's common origin in the same Holy Scriptures makes rabbinical Judaism more intelligible to me as a Christian than any other religion on Earth, on its own terms.

Even the Jewish emphasis on the minute observance of the Law – now mostly embraced by Orthodox and some Conservative Jews – teaches me something about the freedom Jesus obtained for us and the miracle, if we choose to call it that way, of his extension of Israel’s election to the rest of us. I see this as providential and as an opportunity to build even more bridges of understanding between Christians and Jews.

I hope you keep this discussion in mind because it will become handy in the next installment of this cycle of posts, I will briefly discuss, compare, and contrast the Jewish and Catholic views on prayer, and attempt to answer the question: can a Christian pray like a Jew? Until then, shalom and pax et bonum.

The survival of the Church is inextricably bound to the survival of Israel

2009-11-10T00:00:00.000-05:00

Folks, I’ve been meaning for a while to start a string of posts on Judaism – both biblical and post-biblical – and Judaica in general, but other events sidetracked me. I wanted When Anti-Zionism Turns Into Anti-Semitism which I posted last month to be the flag-bearer of the series but its place will be taken instead by yesterday’s discussion of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s (PBC) document, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.

To continue the series I want to comment on this excellent article by David P. Goldman published in the June/July 2009 issue of the journal First Things, entitled Jewish Survival in a Gentile World. These are some salient points from that article:

· It is no exaggeration to say that observant Jews and orthodox Christians have more in common with each other than either has in common with liberal or secular Jews on the one hand and liberal Christians on the other. Indeed, Jews who affirm the election of Israel should consider it all the more providential that Benedict XVI comes now as a witness to Jewish holiness. He told delegates of the Israeli rabbinate on March 12, “The Jewish people, who were chosen as the elected people, communicate to the whole human family knowledge of and fidelity to the one, unique, and true God.”

· The pope stands alongside observant Jews on one side of a great divide within the Jewish people. It is just as remarkable that observant Jews have become allies of the pope against his own detractors in the Catholic Church. The pope’s letter to Catholic bishops on the mishandling of the Lefebvrist-bishops affair (published the same day as that meeting with the Israeli clergy) declares: “I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which—as in the days of Pope John Paul II—has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.”

· Observant Jews whose suspicion of the Church has been honed by centuries of ill experience have trouble absorbing the odd circumstance that Providence has placed them in the same foxhole as Benedict XVI. But the crisis in Catholic–Jewish relations over the lifting of the Lefebvrist bishops’ excommunication has led to a moment of clarity. After the pope’s response, there can be no doubt that we have in Benedict a theologian with a deep understanding of Jews’ relation to God. We have also learned that the pope’s opponents inside the Church are our opponents. As a simple matter of fact, the pope’s opponents now aggregate on the left; the atrophied right wing of the Church, held up as a horror story to frighten the Jews, has little remaining influence—with the result that Catholics who oppose the pope on the ordination of women, the Church’s claim to unique truth, and the preservation of Europe’s Christian character are the Catholics who also overwhelmingly embrace the Palestinian Arab cause.

· When Christian theology declares that the New Testament fulfills the Old, they mean in effect that the history of Israel is a map to the inner life of every Christian. And this history is not simply a record interred in a book. The history of the Jewish people is manifest in the life of the Jewish people, for we are our history: Every one of us stood with Moses to receive the Torah at Mount Sinai, and all who clung to YHWH are alive today, as we pray before reading the Torah in public. We, the living people of Israel, are a flesh-and-blood map to the salvation of every Christian.

· For Christians, it is not merely that God’s earthly incarnation was as a Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, or that God’s promise to the Jews stands surety for what Christians believe to be his promise to them. The Christian’s rebirth to citizenship in Israel demands an inner transformation. When Christians say that Jesus fulfills the Torah and that his life recapitulates the defining miracles in the history of Israel, they mean that each Christian’s participation in Jesus’ sacrifice is the reliving of the history of Israel. The continued presence of Jews on this earth in God’s service is indispensable to Christian salvation, because it is the life of the family of Abraham that Christians must relive.

· For that reason Abraham Joshua Heschel averred without a hint of exaggeration that the wise old men who lead the Catholic Church know that Israel is so holy that our disappearance would endanger the existence of the Church. It is the Jew who converts the inner pagan inside each Christian, wrote Franz Rosenzweig, by which he meant that, absent the living people of Israel, the Israel of the Spirit into which Christians hope to be adopted too easily becomes an abstraction.

The whole article is captivating and may I say, true in its presuppositions, in its delivery, and its conclusions. Jews and Christians alike will find it challenging and may react toward it with various degrees of emotion, but both will be unable to ignore Mr. Goldman’s main thrust.

The quote by the eminent Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel also confirms an intuition that has been growing within me for a while now, first brought progressively to mind by my reading of a number of outstanding works of literature by Michael O’Brien (Father Elijah: An Apocalypse and Sophia House), Anne Rice (Servant of the Bones and the Christ the Lord series), and Chaim Potok (My Name Is Asher Lev and The Gift of Asher Lev) and then brought sharply into focus by the aforementioned PBC document, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.

This is my intuition: as Israel goes, so goes the Church. Our destinies are inextricably intertwined. Destroy Israel and the Church will soon follow.

By “Israel” I don’t mean merely the State of Israel. That’s only a subset of Israel – and Mr. Goldman knows correctly that Catholics do not make the State of Israel coterminous with Israel in its biblical sense. I mean all of “them” and all of “it,” the Jewish people everywhere as well as their beliefs and practices. Were they to disappear suddenly, the Church would soon follow.

I therefore find unsurprising the length at which the devil, the world, and the flesh have gone to stamp out the Jews throughout history. How and whenever Christians lent themselves to the diabolical task of destroying, terrorizing, forcefully assimilating, banishing, or exterminating Jews, they were by their acts undermining the very foundations of the Church. Destroying Israel would guarantee the destruction of the Church. The devil knows this, hence his unceasing diligence in his quest to destroy Israel by the hands of Christians, when at all possible. The irony is not lost on him, I am sure.

(I believe there’s still much soul-searching to be done among us Christians to understand the meaning and implications that too many from those among us, followers of a Jewish Messiah, have been willing persecutors of the Jews throughout the ages. We need to come to terms with that too, so that we too can heal our “family tree.” But that’s a subject for later.)

I am positive that people from along the Jewish-Christian divide will find this intertwining of the Church and Israel profoundly unsettling, challenging, and threatening. This realization is bound to rekindle ancient suspicions and hatreds. This can be seen readily not only from the commentary that Jewish people had left at the bottom of Mr. Goldman’s article in First Things, but also by the “horror” at the supposed “Judaisation” of the Church shamelessly expressed by many within the Church and as exemplified by a writer in this thread at a Catholic Answers forum – a thoroughly orthodox Catholic organization, by the way, not responsible for what the commenters say – or by this Anti-Semitic blogger at The Ugly Truth. To them, Mr. Goldman’s arguments will be akin to blasphemy, I’m sure.

I harbor no illusions that sweetness and light will be the lot of those of us who see the intimate connection between Israel and the Church. Stones will be cast from both sides of the divide. Those who don’t mind their passions and know not the God who is Love will continue not only to hate, but also to incite others to hate. As far as Christians who hate Jews are concerned, were they to continue in their hate without repentance, confession, absolution and penance, will end in hell, for that’s the consequence of such a mortal sin. I’m sure that God-fearing Jews hold similar views regarding the hatemongers in their midst.

Let me finish by restating the principal insight that I gain from Mr. Goldman’s article: as Israel goes, so goes the Church. Our destinies are inextricably intertwined. Destroy Israel and the Church will soon follow: our mutual survival depends on our mutual, continued existence.

I think so. I know so.

- Read also Zionism for Christians, also by David Goldman, published in First Things the summer of 2008.

Apostolic Constitution on Anglicans Returning to the Church Published Today

2009-11-09T12:59:00.003-05:00

Folks, the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum cœtibus, regulating entry into the Catholic Church by communities coming from the Anglican Communion, was published today. You may access it here. Highlights:

In recent times the Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans to petition repeatedly and insistently to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately. The Apostolic See has responded favorably to such petitions. Indeed, the successor of Peter, mandated by the Lord Jesus to guarantee the unity of the episcopate and to preside over and safeguard the universal communion of all the Churches, (1) could not fail to make available the means necessary to bring this holy desire to realization.

Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.

Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed.

Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese.

The Ordinariate is composed of lay faithful, clerics and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally belonging to the Anglican Communion and now in full communion with the Catholic Church, or those who receive the Sacraments of Initiation within the jurisdiction of the Ordinariate.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.

Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

A most excellent document. Read it all here.

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

2009-11-09T00:00:00.002-05:00

Folks, this is an inestimable resource for the study of the Old Testament and the relationship between the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish people, and Catholic Christians. Produced by the Pontifical Biblical Commission back in 2001, I happily stumbled upon it today – I should’ve seen it a long time ago, though. I’m sure you will profit too from this publication. I reproduce the index below. It is hyperlink so, if you see a subject that catches your attention, click on it to navigate to it! (There was a problem with the links, but I think I've got that fixed)

Preface

Introduction

I. The Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people are a fundamental part of the Christian Bible

A. The New Testament recognizes the authority of the Sacred Scripture of the Jewish people

1. Implicit recognition of authority

2. Explicit recourse to the authority of the Jewish Scriptures

B. The New Testament attests conformity to the Jewish Scriptures

1. Necessity of fulfilling the Scriptures

2. Conformity to the Scriptures

3. Conformity and Difference

C. Scripture and Oral Tradition in Judaism and Christianity

1. Scripture and Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism

2. Scripture and Tradition in Early Christianity

3. Relationships between the two perspectives

D. Jewish Exegetical Methods employed in the New Testament

1. Jewish Methods of Exegesis

2. Exegesis at Qumran and in the New Testament

3. Rabbinic Methods in the New Testament

4. Important Allusions to the Old Testament

E. The Extension of the Canon of Scripture

1. In Judaism

2. In the Early Church

3. Formation of the Christian Canon

II. Fundamental themes in the Jewish Scriptures and their reception into faith in Christ

A. Christian Understanding of the relationships between the Old and New Testaments

1. Affirmation of a reciprocal relationship

2. Re-reading the Old Testament in the light of Christ

3. Allegorical Re-reading

4. Return to the Literal Sense

5. The unity of God's Plan and the Idea of Fulfilment

6. Current Perspectives

7. Contribution of Jewish reading of the Bible

B. Shared Fundamental Themes

1. Revelation of God

2. The Human Person: Greatness and Wretchedness

3. God, Liberator and Saviour

4. The Election of Israel

5. The Covenant

6. The Law

7. Prayer and Cult, Jerusalem and Temple

8. Divine Reproaches and Condemnations

9. The Promises

C. Conclusion

1. Continuity

2. Discontinuity

3. Progression

III. The Jews in the New Testament

A. Different viewpoints within post-exilic Judaism

1. The last centuries before Jesus Christ

2. The first third of the first century A.D. in Palestine

3. The second third of the first century

4. The final third of the first century

B. Jews in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles

1. The Gospel according to Matthew

2. The Gospel according to Mark

3. The Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles

4. The Gospel according to John

5. Conclusion

C. The Jews in the Pauline Letters and other New Testament Writings

1. Jews in the undisputed Pauline Letters

2. Jews in the other Letters

3. Jews in the Book of Revelation

IV. Conclusions

A. General Conclusion

B. Pastoral Orientations

Thirty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time

2009-11-08T07:40:00.001-05:00

Today's Mass Readings:

First Reading: 1 Kings 17:10-16
Psalm: Psalm 146:7-10
Second Reading: Hebrews 9:24-28
Gospel: Mark 12:38-44 or 12:41-44

Go to Mass!

Call Your U.S. Representative to Oppose Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill

2009-11-07T08:17:00.000-05:00

Folks, according to CNN,

...anti-abortion Democrats will be allowed to offer an amendment during the House health care debate Saturday that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers in the new so-called "exchange" the legislation would create, three Democratic sources told CNN.

The prohibition would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger, known as "Hyde" language.

The hotly anticipated vote on the nearly $1.1 trillion bill by the full House of Representatives is tentatively set for Saturday, but it could be delayed until Sunday. President Obama is expected to visit Capitol Hill on Saturday in hopes of gaining support among Democrats.

House Democratic leadership sources said that win or lose, they hope giving abortion foes the opportunity to vote will clear the way for passage of their health care bill.

Planned Parenthood decried the amendment, saying it would result in the elimination of abortion coverage currently offered by most private health insurance plans.

"This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes," the group said in a statement.

"Women won't stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today."

Of course I don't give a hoot what Planned Parenthood and the cheerleaders of the Culture of Death think. As Abby Johnson, former director of the Texas Planned Parenthood abortuary will tell you, abortion is not health care.

The USCCB has been doing an awesome job reminding Congress that Catholic support for Health Care Reform has its limits and that we will not stand for any false compromises and amendments of dubious, confused, and obfuscated wording.

Sixty-nine Democratic representatives have questioned various aspects of the current health care bill and many oppose the bill's language as insufficient to prevent abortion funding. Read the list here. Please, call them to congratulate them, ask them to hold fast, and keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

Fr. Thomas Dubay Series “Contemplation” – Mp3s

2009-11-06T00:00:00.000-05:00

Fr. Thomas Dubay discusses contemplative prayer. This series found here at EWTN includes the following topics:

What is Contemplation?
Love of God
Christian Contemplation vs. Zen Contemplation
The Dynamism of Contemplation
Contemplation in Today’s World
The Radical Call To Deep Prayer
Truth, Joy, Beauty and Love vs. Fads
Living the Gospel Generously
Examples in Scripture of Growing in Prayer
Emptiness & Apparent Emptiness
Silence, Openness, Receptivity
Realistic and Unrealistic Expectations in Prayer

You can listen online or download the Mp3s.

- Hat-tip to Karen at CatholiciCast.com

Statement on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage concerning the Maine November 3rd vote on marriage

2009-11-05T11:04:00.000-05:00

Yesterday on November 3rd, the people of Maine voted to uphold the true nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The voice of the people in this country has spoken once again on the side of justice, in favor of the truth about marriage.

Marriage is an institution which precedes all others, whether political or religious. It deserves the state’s reinforcement and protection. The Catholic Church recognizes that this truth is contentious and difficult for some to accept. Yet it is a truth both accessible to human reason and confirmed by revelation, and the Church reasonably and compassionately urges all to respect it. The nature of marriage is written in the truth of who we are as human persons, as man and woman. One can say it is written not merely on our hearts, but in our very bodies.

The Church stands for the basic rights of all people, including homosexual persons. She decries any unjust discrimination against persons who experience same-sex attraction. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with denying basic rights to anyone, though it is often framed in such terms. In fact, protecting marriage is safeguarding the rights of our most dependent and vulnerable among us—our children, who deserve to be welcomed as a gift of spousal love and not to be intentionally deprived of a mother and a father. Protecting marriage affirms the unique and indispensable roles of mothers and fathers, and recognizes the particular responsibilities that husbands and wives bear in society. Protecting marriage affirms the permanent and exclusive love between a husband and a wife as a wonderful and incomparable good in itself which also is of great social and practical consequence. Their sexual difference, man to woman and woman to man, is real and valuable—not a social construct, and not an aspect of the human person that may be disregarded at will and without cost. This difference is essential for marriage and is the relational context for the formation of the human person. Sadly, the attempts to redefine marriage today ignore or reject the unique identity and gifts of man and woman. Such a dismissal only fosters confusion about what it means to be human.

Protecting marriage between one man and one woman is a matter of justice. It is a matter of truth. Law should be at the service of truth and justice. Laws based on untruths are unjust. Working for justice presumes that we work to preserve the true meaning of marriage. Especially in our society where we see so many marriages fail, we should work to strengthen marriage rather than redefine it. Marriage must be protected and promoted today for what it is and what it is meant to be: the lifelong, exclusive union between husband and wife. There are many ways to uphold the basic human rights of all people, but sacrificing marriage can never be one of them.

On behalf of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, I express my deep gratitude to Bishop Malone and to all those organizations, individuals and voters who worked to support the truth of marriage in Maine. The Ad Hoc Committee urges all people of good will to pray that our leaders and all people of this great country will promote and protect the truth and beauty of marriage and its fundamental place in service to the dignity of every person and to the common good.

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz
Archbishop of Louisville
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage

Unrepentant pro-abortion nun admonished; reluctantly ceases abortuary escort service

2009-11-05T08:39:00.001-05:00

Folks, this according to the Chicago Tribune:

For decades, Sister Donna Quinn has championed the rights of women to use contraception, seek ordination and end unwanted pregnancies.

The Dominican nun has picketed for abortion rights in Washington, petitioned the pope for a female archbishop and escorted women into abortion clinics.

But as the Vatican turns up scrutiny of the nation's nuns and U.S. Roman Catholic bishops refuse to support universal health care if it covers abortion, Quinn has put her crusade on hold.

"I want to be clear that this is my decision," she said in a statement Tuesday, saying she would suspend her role as a peacekeeper outside the ACU Health Clinic in Hinsdale. "Respect for women's moral agency is of critical importance to me, and I look forward to continuing to dialogue with our congregation on these matters as a way of informing my actions as well as educating the community."

On Tuesday, the Wisconsin-based Sinsinawa Dominican order announced that Quinn had been reprimanded for escorting patients into a Hinsdale clinic that provides abortions.

"After investigating the allegation, congregation leaders have informed Sister Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession," Sister Patricia Mulcahey, head of the Sinsinawa Dominicans, said in a statement. "They regret that her actions have created controversy."

Quinn said the order's announcement only served to stir more controversy. A private meeting to discuss her position had been set for later this month, she said.

"I am disappointed that the process agreed upon was circumvented," she said. "As a peacekeeper, my goal is to enable women to enter a reproductive health clinic in dignity and without fear of being physically assaulted. ... I am very worried that the publicity around my presence will lead to violations of every woman's right to privacy and expose them to further violence."

The sudden rebuke highlights the tension in America's women's religious communities, now targeted by two sweeping Vatican investigations. Quinn's activism was no secret. But in years past, Dominican leaders have come to her defense.

The primary example was in 1984 when the Vatican instructed religious orders to dismiss nuns who refused to retract their claim that Catholics held a range of opinions on abortion rights. Instead, the leaders talked to Vatican officials and resolved the issue with no ousters of nuns.

But that was a different era, said Sister Beth Rindler, co-coordinator of the National Coalition of American Nuns, a group of nuns who push for women's ordination, gay rights, abortion rights and an end to war.

"We're standing with her very much. We consider her one of our prophets," said Rindler, a Franciscan Sister of the Poor. "She's standing with women who she believes can make good moral decisions."

But Mary-Louise Kurey, director of the Chicago archdiocese's Respect Life Office, said Quinn's efforts to shield women from abortion opponents at clinics pose harm. "I feel really sad because these are individuals who are trying to help women and those actions are profoundly misguided," Kurey said.

Quinn showed no signs of changing her ways Tuesday.

"I take this opportunity to urge those demonstrating against women who are patients at the Hinsdale Clinic, whom I have seen emotionally as well as physically threaten women, to cease those activities," she said. "I would never have had to serve as a peacekeeper had not they created a war against women."

Commentary. Why, we're beholding here another Mother Teresa in the making - not. I'm not going to say much more except to ask for prayers for her repentance, conversion, penance, healing, and reconciliation.

- Read also: With Catholics/Dominicans like this, who needs NARAL? at the Insight Scoop Blog.

A good thing happened in Maine yesterday

2009-11-04T12:12:00.004-05:00

Folks, according to the Wall Street Journal and several other sources ~~excluding~~ and CNN, Maine voters rejected a law allowing same-sex couples to marry in a closely fought referendum that saw unexpectedly high turnout. Rolling back the law is a setback for gay-rights advocates and makes Maine the third state in which residents reversed their government's decision to permit gay marriages, after California and Hawaii. Same-sex marriage has yet to win a popular vote in any state, despite a recent string of wins in the New England region. The other states that grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont -- have done so via legislative vote or judicial ruling, and New Hampshire will grant such marriages starting in January after a vote by its legislature. The federal government and most other states don't recognize same-sex marriages.

This victory is a tribute to the hard work of all the defenders of natural marriage in the state of Maine and also exemplifies the fact that voters don't want the definition of marriage tampered with by anyone. As my much better known colleague, Thomas Peters of the American Papist states, this result comes despite Maine being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional-marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference. Proponents of same-sex marriage, unlike in California’s Prop 8, can’t blame Maine on Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording. Their issue loses when the people decide. And it loses every time.

I hope this lesson is learned once-and-for all in the corridors of power. I hope that politicians get to understand that Americans do not want the definition of marriage tampered with in order to mollify the loud, well-funded minorities who are attempting to impose their viewpoint upon us come hell or high-water. If you are an assemblyman, local or state representative, senator or judge running for office, or if you are a congressman or senator in Washington and you decide to tamper with the definition of marriage, have no doubt that we will remove you from office and replace you with someone who knows what the American public really wants. As simple as that.

Congratulations, National Organization for Marriage, with whom I've had the honor to collaborate occasionally, and congratulations to Maine-based pro-marriage grassroot activists for a job well done and a well-deserved victory in one of the critical issues of our age.

Update: CNN finally got around to report it 30 minutes ago - about 2:30 PM EDT today.

Update: Dominican Community Apologizes for Pro-Abortion Nun

2009-11-03T17:58:00.001-05:00

Folks, this according to LifeSiteNews, a follow up to Why is this woman still a nun?

HINSDALE, Illinois, November 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A congregation of US Dominican nuns has publicly apologized for the scandal caused by one of its members acting as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area abortion facility.

LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) first broke the story about Sr. Donna Quinn, O.P., a Dominican nun who is outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, who had been identified by pro-life witnesses as an escort for the ACU Health Clinic.

Sr. Quinn's religious community, the Wisconsin-based Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation, admitted in a press release posted on their website that they were informed of the allegation several months ago, and, after having completed a period of investigation, the Congregation's leaders have informed the pro-abortion sister that "her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious."

The congregation reports that its leaders "are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately" and regret the public scandal caused by her actions.

The Sinsinawa Dominicans took the opportunity to re-affirm unequivocally their commitment to the Catholic Church's core teachings, as well as the necessity to witness to the sanctity and dignity of all human life from conception to natural death.

"We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society," read a statement issued on behalf of the congregation.

"As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion."

Commentary. This is great news and denotes great progress after the Sinsinawa Dominicans’ initially tepid, non-committal response to the initial reports. I hope Sr. Donna is disciplined according to canon law, repents, makes penance, and be reconciled with the Lord and His Body, with us, the Church.

A promise was made; now it needs to be kept

2009-11-03T00:00:00.000-05:00

Archbishop Chaput outlines the dangers of the current health-care reform bills and urges Catholics to contact Congress (www.usccb.org/action) and demand that current health-care proposals be changed to respect all human life -- including the unborn, the elderly and the immigrant.

Eight weeks ago President Obama promised a joint session of Congress that “his” health-care plan would not include or provide public monies for abortion. This seemed persuasive because it made sense. As polling has shown, most Americans do not want abortion or its funding included in any publicly supported health plan.

The president's support for a federal “right” to abortion is a matter of record. Like it or not, voters can assume that he'll appoint judges who share that view. Therefore, the main concern of his “pro-choice” constituency is safe under his leadership. This is bad news for the rest of us, but it does give the White House room to compromise. Excluding abortion funding from the president's health-care efforts - I mean really excluding it and not sneaking it in under the cover of some bureaucratic shell game—would be an easy concession for Congress and the White House to make. It's a modest price to pay for Catholic and similar pro-life support, or at least their neutrality. It might also put some meat on the bones of Washington's talk about “common ground."

Eight weeks later, there is no “president's” plan. Instead, as of Nov. 1, Congress has produced five different proposals, including a merged House version totaling nearly 2,000 pages of complex and sweeping legislation. Few citizens have actually read the text. Even fewer really understand its implications. But all of the proposals have one thing in common: Not one of them lives up to the president's promise.

Let's remember that America's Catholic bishops have pushed for national health-care reform for decades, long before our mass media discovered it as a theme. The Church regards access to basic health-care services as a right, not a privilege. But to be legitimate, reform efforts need to respect the dignity of the whole human person from conception to natural death. That includes the unborn child, the immigrant and the elderly. Genuine reform also demands strong protections for the conscience rights of medical professionals and institutions. And it also requires that our ideals rest on a foundation of sound reasoning. In other words, real reform must be economically realistic and financially sustainable.

Since August, the U.S. bishops and their staff have worked tirelessly with members of Congress and the White House staff, trying to craft mutually acceptable health-care legislation. The Church in the United States wants to find the common ground that would enable Catholics to support Congress and the White House in ensuring access to basic health services for all our people. But every effort by concerned members of Congress to ensure morally acceptable legislation — despite the outstanding leadership of Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak — has been rebuffed, often with the kind of political doubletalk that seems deliberately designed to confuse.

Here's the result. On Oct. 28, Chicago's Cardinal Francis George and other leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) announced that all efforts to adequately revise current health-care proposals have failed. In other words, not one of the current legislative proposals offers legitimate “common ground” on the issues vital to Catholics. And to date, despite the president’s original promise, the White House has done nothing to fix that problem.

To put it bluntly: all of the health-care reform solutions currently facing Congress violate human dignity in potentially grievous ways. Unless these proposals are immediately changed to reflect the concerns of Congressman Stupak, other like-minded members of Congress, and leaders of the national Catholic community, Catholics need to vigorously oppose and help defeat this dangerous legislation.

Bishop Conley and I will speak directly to the people of the archdiocese on this urgent matter through a letter read at all Masses in all parishes this weekend, Nov. 7-8. Materials will be made available to all parishes outlining the vital issues that remain in the health-care reform debate, and urging parishioners to immediately contact their federal representatives.

The health-care reform debate has been dogged by a pattern of misleading, complex and at times flatly dishonest claims in Congress about the content of the 2,000-page legislation now taking final shape and nearing a vote. Don't be fooled. Contact your senators and representative. Demand that current health-care proposals be changed to respect Catholic and pro-life concerns. And equally important for all of us: We need to do it now.

Source: Archdiocese of Denver

Higher Criticism of the Koran Resisted

2009-11-02T00:00:00.000-05:00

Folks, Sandro Magister, the world-renowned vaticanista, hosted in his website an exchange between Muslim theologian Aref Ali Nayed and the Catholic Islamologist Michel Cuypers which I think you should read. The subject of the exchange is one that I’ve covered repeatedly in these humble folios, having to do with the need for a higher criticism of the Koran in order to know, expose, and study its literary genres, its historical context, the oral traditions that converged in its formation, and the phases in its redaction that gave us the text as we read it today. Of course, such an study has proven to very disquieting because Muslims hold a position nearly identical to that embraced by our own Protestant Fundamentalists of the KJV-Only, Independent Baptist kind regarding the Bible: that the Koran is the infallible, inerrant, exclusive Word of God, perfect in every detail, mechanically dictated by God and passively received by the sacred writer.

Magister tells us that Michel Cuypers, 67, is a Belgian member of the Little Brothers of Jesus, the religious community founded in the 20th century by René Voillaume. He spent twelve years in Iran, first in a leper colony in Tabriz and then studying Persian language and literature in Tehran. He received a doctorate in Persian literature from the University of Tehran in 1983. He then studied Arabic in Syria and Egypt, and in 1989 he moved to Cairo, where he now resides. Cuypers is a researcher at the Dominican Institute for Oriental Studies, founded in Cairo half a century ago by the Dominican Islamologists Georges Anawati, Jacques Jomier, and Serge Beaurecueil. Since 1994, he has completely focused his studies on the composition of the text of the Koran, adopting the method of rhetorical analysis. His articles and essays are increasingly appreciated by Muslim scholars as well. Two years ago in France, Lethielleux published a fascinating book by Cuypers, dedicated to the analysis of one of the chapters of the Koran: "Le festin: une lecture de la sourate al-Mâ’ida [The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth sura of the Koran]," with a preface by the prominent Muslim scholar Mohamed-Ali Amir-Moezzi. At the recent meeting of Oasis, Cuypers gave an address precisely on the role of tradition in the Muslim world of yesterday and today. His address is reproduced further below. At the conclusion, Cuypers shows how important it is that the Muslim world open itself to a critical interpretation of the Koran. In particular, it clearly emerges from this interpretation that the most warlike verses of the sacred text do not in any way "abrogate" the more tolerant and peaceful ones, as the proponents of holy war claim. Oasis was created in Venice in 2004, through the initiative of Cardinal Angelo Scola. It publishes a semiannual magazine by the same name, in four editions and in five languages: Italian, English, French, Arabic, and Urdu. It publishes books and manages a multilingual website, with a newsletter. Read his entire address here.

Cuyper’s address earned the reaction of Aref Ali Nayed, a prominent figure in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam. Born in Libya, he has studied the philosophy of science and hermeneutics in the United States and in Canada, has taken courses at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, amd has given lectures at the Pontifical Instititue for Arab and Islamic Studies. He is a consultant for the Interfaith Program at the University of Cambridge. He has directed the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Amman, Jordan. This year he founded an Islamic studies center, called Kalam Reseasrch & Media, in Dubai, according to Magister. In replying to Cuypers, Nayed also adopts a combative tone. He completely ignores his extensive and elaborate arguments, to zero in on a single phrase. And he uses this as an opportunity to level against the Catholic Church, in the matter of biblical exegesis, the same accusations of obscurantism that are typical of secularist polemics. And, vice versa, to claim for Islam precedence in those methods of historical criticism and literary analysis that later became the prerogative of Jewish exegesis, then Protestant, Enlightenment, and finally Catholic. Nayed makes these core allegations:

Muslim scholars have always based their interpretations and exegeses of the Qur’an on the bases of several sciences, including the science of the ‘circumstances of revelation’ (asbabulnuzul), on the science of the history of the Qur’an (tarkhulqur’an), and on the careful study of the linguistic modes familiar to the Arabs around the time of revelation (ulumulugha). Muslim scholars developed a comprehensive apparatus of historical-critical-linguistic methodologies for understanding the Qur’an (ulumulqur’an). (For more on this, see "Al-Itqan" of Imam Jalaloddin Al-Suyuti (c. 1445-1505 CE).
Muslim scholars were always aware of the fact that interpretation, understanding, and exegesis of God’s eternal discourse are forms of human strenuous striving (ijtihad) that must be dutifully renewed in every believing generation. Solemn belief in the eternity and divine authorship of the Qur’an never prevented Muslim scholars from dealing with it historically and linguistically. On the contrary, belief in the revelatory truth of the Qur’an was the very motivation for spending life-times in close scholarly study of God’s discourse. (For more on this see "Kitab Al-Ilm" of Imam Ibn Abd Al-Barr)

Read Nayed’s entire argument here.

More recently, Cuyper again used Magister’s website as an outlet to reply to Nayed. This is his core retort:

On the other hand, I notice that Prof. Nayed repeatedly uses the expression "historical criticism" or "historical-critical method" both to affirm that Muslim scholars have always practiced it, and to ask Westerners to stop wanting to apply this method to the Qur'an (in the sense in which they mean it, obviously). Now, neither Magister nor my article uses this term even once. I did this intentionally, preferring to speak of "criticism," of the "critical" or "scientific" method, in a broader sense. The historical-critical method (which I personally respect, although I do not use it) is not, in fact, the only "critical" or "scientific" method for approaching the texts. Magister makes reference to the fact that the method that I personally use for analysis of the Qur'anic text is that of "rhetorical analysis." Contrary to the historical-critical method, which deconstructs (rightly or wrongly) the texts into fragments from different time periods, rhetorical analysis allows one to demonstrate the coherence of the text, its "composition": a method that, by virtue of its rigorous rules, equally deserves the description "critical." In various studies, I have shown the continuity of this method with the observations of many classical Muslim scholars: Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjânî, Zarkashî, Suyûtî, Al-Biqâ’î, and many others.

A more delicate aspect of the question is evoked by Prof. Nayed in these terms: "What is even more ironic is the fact that some Catholics, not only imagine such Muslim closure, but go on to attribute it to the Muslim belief in the divine authorship of the Qur’an (i.e. that the Qur’an is the very speech of God). This is very strange indeed, and comes down to thinking that one who believes in the divine authorship of the sacred text can not possibly be a dialogue partner on theological matters!"

It goes without saying that faith in the sacred text as the Word of God is the very foundation of every religion that considers itself "revealed." The difficulty comes, instead, from a theological question that concerns the manner of transmitting this divine Word. At the end of my talk, I explained that an excessively narrow conception of this manner of transmission, as pure and simple dictation directly from God, makes it more difficult to admit that the Qur'anic text, while still being considered the Word of God, also includes the vast cultural and scriptural Tradition that came before it. An eminent Iranian theologian, Professor Muhammad Mujtahed-e Shabestari, was recently banned from teaching at the University of Tehran, for having dared to say that Qur'anic revelation, although it is of divine origin, inevitably includes a human element due to the transmitter of this Word, meaning the Prophet of Islam.

Now, if I, a dwarf, may be permitted to walk among these giants, let me say this: Brother Cuyper is truly a son of God – a peacemaker – who in his demeanor and expression has “bent over backwards” to accommodate Nayed and Islam. He has extended every courtesy to Nayed’s understanding of revelation which is quite representative of the Muslim worldview on these matters. But Cuyper is not blind to a fact that even I can see: despite Nayed’s protestations, no serious, consistent, coherent, or sustained higher-critical study of the Koran has ever been engaged systematically in Islamic centers of higher learning, ever. Those who attempt that kind of study are persecuted, and their lives and limbs threatened. They lose their jobs, their tenure, and their dignity. For what little I have seen, Islamic scholarly efforts at “asbabulnuzul, ulumulugha” and “ulumulqur’an” are superficial at best, circular, assume what they seek to prove, and are anything but multidisciplinary in the modern sense.

I’ve discussed this three years ago in Textual criticism and the Koran's New Testament antecedents: Implications for a Christian apologetics against Islam and reached this conclusion: that textual and linguistic analysis shows that the Koran borrows from ancient Christian lectionaries. Therefore, Islamic claims for the Koran's unique and unitary origin are questionable. The finding reinforces the Christian polemic against Muslim claims of a unique and superior prophetic authority vis-à-vis Christianity. The scholar who researched these similarities had to publish his work anonymously for fear of death.

Finally, today I happily stumbled upon a very interesting article published in The Atlantic back in January 1999, entitled, What Is the Koran? The date is significant, 2 years before 9/11, and the article itself would chronicle a milestone whose significance we have now come to appreciate:

In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure's inner and outer roofs stumbled across a remarkable gravesite, although they did not realize it at the time. Their ignorance was excusable: mosques do not normally house graves, and this site contained no tombstones, no human remains, no funereal jewelry. It contained nothing more, in fact, than an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents—damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks, and set them aside on the staircase of one of the mosque's minarets, where they were locked away—and where they would probably have been forgotten once again, were it not for Qadhi Isma'il al-Akwa', then the president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find.

Al-Akwa' sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, and in 1979 managed to interest a visiting German scholar, who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the hoard was a fabulous example of what is sometimes referred to as a "paper grave"—in this case the resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different parchment codices of the Koran, the Muslim holy scripture. In some pious Muslim circles it is held that worn-out or damaged copies of the Koran must be removed from circulation; hence the idea of a grave, which both preserves the sanctity of the texts being laid to rest and ensures that only complete and unblemished editions of the scripture will be read.

Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries—they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.

Read it all here. It’s a great piece.

This goes way back and transcends any “compare and contrast” Islam vs. Christianity table I can formulate. Textual, linguistic, and higher-critical studiesof the Koran are still in their infancy, carried on by a few courageous Muslim and Christian scholars. The work is far from done and will continue to meet stiff resistance from Muslim scholars across the board. Yet, it is a necessary endeavor, perhaps the great necessary scholarly endeavor of the 21st century.

Today we observe the Solemnity of All Saints

2009-11-01T00:00:00.000-04:00

From today's Office of Readings, a sermon by Saint Bernard, abbot.

Let Us Make Haste To Our Brethren Who Are Awaiting Us

Why should our praise and glorification, or even the celebration of this feast day mean anything to the saints? What do they care about earthly honours when their heavenly Father honours them by fulfilling the faithful promise of the Son? What does our commendation mean to them? The saints have no need of honour from us; neither does our devotion add the slightest thing to what is theirs. Clearly, if we venerate their memory, it serves us, not them. But I tell you, when I think of them, I feel myself inflamed by a tremendous yearning.

Calling the saints to mind inspires, or rather arouses in us, above all else, a longing to enjoy their company, so desirable in itself. We long to share in the citizenship of heaven, to dwell with the spirits of the blessed, to join the assembly of patriarchs, the ranks of the prophets, the council of apostles, the great host of martyrs, the noble company of confessors and the choir of virgins. In short, we long to be united in happiness with all the saints. But our dispositions change. The Church of all the first followers of Christ awaits us, but we do nothing about it. The saints want us to be with them, and we are indifferent. The souls of the just await us, and we ignore them.

Come, brothers, let us at length spur ourselves on. We must rise again with Christ, we must seek the world which is above and set our mind on the things of heaven. Let us long for those who are longing for us, hasten to those who are waiting for us, and ask those who look for our coming to intercede for us. We should not only want to be with the saints, we should also hope to possess their happiness. While we desire to be in their company, we must also earnestly seek to share in their glory. Do not imagine that there is anything harmful in such an ambition as this; there is no danger in setting our hearts on such glory. . . .

Therefore, we should aim at attaining this glory with a wholehearted and prudent desire. That we may rightly hope and strive for such blessedness, we must above all seek the prayers of the saints. Thus, what is beyond our own powers to obtain will be granted through their intercession.

(Click on the Icon to see it larger)

Mass Readings for Today:

First Reading: Revelation 7:2-4, 9-14
Psalm: Psalm 24:1-6
Second Reading: 1 John 3:1-3
Gospel: Matthew 5:1-12