The Doctor and I got a little surprise today at Mass today. We’re getting low Masses for the course of the summer at St. Augustine’s parish, sadly. It’s one of those “we’re giving the choir the summer off” things, I guess. Anyway, everything proceeded as normal until we sat down for the epistle reading. Father moved to the usual place, and began reading it… in English!

We’ve only been in town a few weeks, but this was the first time here or anywhere that we’d heard the readings done first in the vernacular (in a traditional Latin Mass, that is.) Naturally we were somewhat startled, and Father obligingly devoted his homily to explaining the change, which he apparently plans to apply now to all low Masses in his two parishes.

Continue reading

This brief interview caught my eye partly because of the year that I spent in Hebrew and Jewish studies at Oxford, partly because it is an attack on Joseph Ratzinger’s scholarship. While at Oxford, I never had the pleasure of taking a course with Professor Vermes, but I certainly came to know his reputation. I have no difficulty in crediting his claim that the Holy Father’s knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and other Semitic languages might be better than it is. But I think that it is a mistake when Prof. Vermes, perhaps as a deliberate slight, attributes a lack of knowledge about Biblical scholarship later than 1970 to Benedict XVI. I don’t know if Papa Ratzinger is the most scholarly of popes since Papa Lambertini, but it wouldn’t be a far-fetched claim.

Prof. Vermes seems to think that the consensus of certain contemporary scholars amounts to the fact of matter; so Benedict, by defending orthodoxy, has written a book which will pressure Catholic biblical scholars to deny the facts before their eyes. This is really a ludicrous position. In order to assess the worth of any consensus, one first needs to know who the scholars are that make up the consensus. Especially in a field of study as controversial and hotly debated as Biblical and New Testament studies, I think that we can never ignore the pre-scholarly, as it were, bias of the investigators. The one solid fact of the matter in this case is that the evidence can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Just as in philosophy, what we first of all need to consider is whether the scholar has a made a case consistent with the facts; we ask whether his account is internally coherent. Then we look at the “costs” and benefits of maintaining that consistent account; we hesitate to commit to neat solutions in one area that require us to make ridiculous conclusions in another area.
Continue reading

Today, Good Friday, I’ve been meditating on the line from Matthew (27:25), spoken by the enraged Jews in response to Pilate’s continual efforts to set Jesus free: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

These words appear only in the Gospel of Matthew. It isn’t clear what we should literally take them to mean in any case — it seems unlikely that the crowd shouted this “all with one voice,” as it were, though we can fairly suppose that words to this effect must have been heard from multiple mouths. Gibson took some grief for putting this phrase into his Passion film, on the grounds that it has sometimes been used as a justification for tormenting the Jews as “Christ-killers.” He eventually agreed to take it out… but in fact he only removed the English subtitle, not the actual words, which rock-star-atheist Christopher Hitchens immediately took as evidence for Gibson’s true anti-Semitism.

Nobody should let the furor of all that silliness obscure their meditations on these profound words. I sometimes feel that the “felix culpa” puzzle of St. Paul is all encapsulated in this one line. Here we see the Jews ostensibly (and in their own minds) asking for something very evil — that Our Lord, though wholly innocent and good, should be put to death. But at the same time, in fact, they are pleading for something wonderful — that His blood should mark them and their children forever. For, as we know, the Blood of the Lamb has the power to redeem them from this and all their other sins. We can hardly help but think of the blood of the Passover, which marked the doors of their ancestors and thus saved their children from the angel of death. Mankind’s greatest sin, and its plea for redemption, are captured all in this one sentence.

I was looking through the Catena Aurea this morning, hoping to find something on this passage, but there was nothing. If anyone knows of anything good that has been written on it, please do share.

A recommendation from Fr. Wolfe, FSSP:

A brief note from Fr Wolfe for those who are inclined to serious study of the Scriptures
Over the years you have heard me refer to (and quote from) Cornelius à Lapide’s Commentaries on the Scriptures. Cornelius à Lapide’s Commentary on the Four Gospels has been translated from the Latin and is being published by Loreto Publications. For those who are very serious about Scripture studies (and either can’t read Latin or don’t have access to the Latin set) this is the premier Catholic Scripture commentary in the world. There is really nothing like it.
Loreto Publications will be taking orders until November 15 th. It runs just over $200 for the 4 volume set.

And just how, exactly, would one get the Latin set? Not an easy thing, I would imagine.

In some ways, I think this is too bad - I mean, too bad that it was not the whole of his commentary or, perhaps, a portion of his Old Testament commentary. It’s not that we have a wealth of in print, traditional, Catholic bible commentaries, but at least as far as the NT is concerned, we do have Thomas’ Catena aurea. I’m not saying that work should be the last word in NT commentaries, but unless you’re trying to do traditional Catholic bible scholarship, I can’t see what more you’d need. As for the Old Testament, though, it’s so large and frought with so many interpretative questions - witches of Endor, sacrificed daughters, etc. - that a solid commentary would be very nice to have. I guess the best we have at present is Fr. George Leo Haydock’s. Or can someone refer us to another?

Continue reading

So, I promised to write something about the feast of Pentecost for my Thursday column this week, and then Tobias Petrus anticipated me by writing something in a similar vein. (I had not planned to talk about alcohol, but I am planning to say something about new covenants.) One can hardly say enough about this magnificent feast, however, so I will soldier on with only minor modifications from my original plan.
Continue reading