How Do Law and Love Relate? The 30th Sunday of Ordinary Time

-->

How does love relate to law?  The two can seem opposed, a contrast to one another.  Love is a romantic dinner for two on a veranda overlooking the Seine.  Law is a solemn old man in a black robe, sitting behind a high podium with police officers at his side. 

The Readings for this Sunday insist that law and love, as strange as it may seem, are ultimately united.  Without love, law is cold.  Without law, love is mere emotion.  The Readings show the unity of the Old and New Testaments in pointing to the love of God as the highest law.

This Weekend in El Paso

www.apostolateofguadalupe.com

Yes, don't forget older scholarship--like this collection of essays. . .

Anthony Le Donne just had a great post up relating how New Testament scholar Dale Allison apparently encourages students to familiarize themselves with the work of older scholars.

My doktorvater, Colin Brown, felt the same way. He always encouraged me to read the works of scholars such as C.H. Dodd, T. W. Manson (far too often overlooked, in my mind!), and Vincent Taylor.

Well, in that spirit, I thought I'd post about a book I just received a book in the mail that I'm really looking forward to reading:

Robert Banks, editor, Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1974).

The book is a Festchrift presented to Leon Morris on the occasion of his 60th birthday. (Yes, the scholars here are somewhat more recent than some of those mentioned above--but the book is 40 years old now!)

I ordered the book because it features an essay on "priesthood" in Paul--a topic I am researching--but looking through the table of contents more carefully, there seems to be a number of interesting pieces.

Anyways, to Allison's insistence on remembering the contribution of scholars from earlier period, I say a hearty, "Amen!"

Ratzinger on the Abuse of Ecclesiastical Power

"Those who talk nowadays of the abuse of power connected with doctrinal discipline in the Church generally have in mind only the misuse of authority on the part of the Church’s ministerial office, which doubtless can occur. But it is entirely forgotten that there is also a misemployment of the authority conferred by one’s mission: the exploitation of the readiness to listen and to trust, which even today men still manifest toward the pronouncements of the Church, for a purely private utterance. Ecclesiastical authority actively serves this misappropriation of power when, by giving it free reign, it makes its own prestige available where it has absolutely no right to do so. The solicitude for the faith of the little ones must be more important in its eyes than the opposition of the great."

--Joseph Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates (trans. Adrian Walker; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 62–63, 64.

Join Us Friday: Catholic Answers Radio Live from JP Catholic

This Friday Catholic Answers' Radio Program, hosted by the irrepressible Patrick Coffin, will be doing a special broadcast live from JP Catholic.  In the first hour (from 3-4pm Pacific), my colleague John Kincaid will be addressing the question, "Was Paul a Christian?" I will be up in the second hour answering the question, "Are the Gospels Historical?"

If you're in the southern California area, I hope you can join us and be part of the live audience.

The "Trans-political" Kingdom of God: The Twenty-Ninth Sunday of Ordinary Time

Human beings are political animals, Aristotle famously suggested, and Jesus would agree. However, the readings for this week reveal that the political nature of the Kingdom of God transcends the regimes of this age and those who rule them. This is seen immediately in the first reading from Isaiah 45.

First Reading: Isaiah 45:1, 4–6

Thus says the LORD to his anointed, Cyrus,
whose right hand I grasp,
subduing nations before him,
and making kings run in his service,
opening doors before him
and leaving the gates unbarred:
For the sake of Jacob, my servant,
of Israel, my chosen one,
I have called you by your name,
giving you a title, though you knew me not.
I am the LORD and there is no other,
there is no God besides me.
It is I who arm you, though you know me not,
so that toward the rising and the setting of the sun
people may know that there is none besides me.
I am the LORD, there is no other.

In this first reading we encounter the figure of Cyrus, King of Persia, who famously liberated Judah from Babylon and allowed them to return to Palestine in the latter part of the sixth century B.C. It is impossible to doubt the strength of Cyrus and his empire. Yet the prophet is clear that Cyrus’s success was ultimately due to God’s deeper providential purposes in human history, purposes that are here described as his covenantal fidelity to his chosen people of Israel.

In particular, it is clear that God has chosen both Israel and Cyrus in order to make clear that he alone is the true God and King of the nations, for beyond the rise of Cyrus and the fall of Babylon is the Lord of history and the true King of the nations. This leads nicely to the responsorial psalm, for in her worship the covenantal people of God gather to acknowledge the true King of the nations, thereby uniting liturgy and politics in a rather public manner that at first blush should strike us moderns as quite alien.

Would the Real Pharisees Please Step Forward? The Debates on Marriage

I posted on this issue already, and took the post down because it was not stated with enough precision.  But upon further consideration, I believe my essential contribution was correct, and wish to restate it more accurately.

In the context of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, there has been an attempt by some to characterize the position of those who support current Church teaching and practice on divorce and remarriage as “Pharisaical,” while associating those who wish to accommodate some form of ecclesiastical blessing of second marriages within the Church with the evangelical mercy and love of Jesus.

This is extremely ironic, because in point of fact, it was the Pharisees who were very open to divorce and remarriage, but Jesus who opposed it. 

Let’s review the relevant texts:

Thomas Oden's "Change of Heart"

InterVarsity Press is advertising a new book by the well-known Protestant theologian Thomas C. Oden, who transitioned from 1960's style Protestant liberalism to a kind of Patristic "mere Christianity." Oden offers the following anecdote about the pivotal moment in his "conversion," which came about through a fraternal correction from a colleague, Jewish scholar Will Herberg:

"Will was trying to show me that the errors I was making were much deeper than I had realized.  I tried to defend myself.  Suddenly, my irascible, endearing Jewish friend leaned into my face and told me that I was densely ignorant of Christianity, and he simply couldn't permit me to throw my life away.  Holding one finger up, looking straight at me with fury in his eyes, he said, 'You will remain theologically uneducated until you study carefully Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas ... If you are ever going to become a credible theologian instead of a know-it-all pundit, you had best restart your life on firmer ground.  You are not a theologian except in name only, even if you are paid to be one."

Yes, Dr. Oden, and Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas had another thing in common: they were all Catholics in communion with Rome.  We would love you to consider their ecclesiology!

Ratzinger's Ever-Relevant Erasmus Lecture

In my class Philosophy and Biblical Interpretation, I had the privilege of introducing our first quarter MA students in biblical theology to Cardinal Ratzinger's (Benedict XVI) Erasmus Lecture (January 27, 1988). Among the many remarkable features of this lecture, one section stands out in my mind for its definitive relevance for the future of exegesis and theology.

After broadly discussing the basis for Dibelius's and Butltmann's exegetical method, Ratzinger then continues:

  "But I think we must go a step further in order to appreciate the fundamental decision of the system which generated these particular categories for judgment (i.e., of Dibelius and Bultmann). The real philosophic presupposition of the whole system seems to me to lie in the philosophic turning point proposed by Immanuel Kant.

According to him, the voice of being-in-itself cannot be heard by human beings. Man can hear it only indirectly in the postulates of practical reason, which have remained, as it were, the small opening through which he can make contact with the real, that is, his eternal destiny. For the rest, as far as the content of his intellectual life is concerned, he must limit himself to the realm of the categories.

Thence comes the restriction to the positive, to the empirical, to the "exact" science, which by definition excludes the appearance of what is "wholly other," or the one who is wholly other, or a new initiative from another plane.

In theological terms, this means that revelation must recede into the pure formality of the eschatological stance, which corresponds to the Kantian split. As far as everything else is concerned, it all needs to be "explained."

What might otherwise seem like a direct proclamation of the divine can only be myth, whose laws of development  can be discovered. It is with this basic conviction that Bultmann, with the majority of modern exegetes, read the Bible.

He is certain that it cannot be the way it is depicted in the Bible, and he looks for methods to prove the way it really had to be. To that extent there lies in modern exegesis a reduction of history into philosophy, a revision of history by means of philosophy.

The real question before us then is, can one read the Bible any other way? Or perhaps better, must one agree with the philosophy which requires this kind of reading?

At its core, the debate about modern exegesis is not a dispute among historians: it is rather a philosophical debate. Only in this way can it be carried on correctly. Otherwise it is like swordplay in a mist.

The exegetical problem is identical in the main with the struggle for the foundations of our time. Such a struggle cannot be conducted casually, nor can it be won with a few suggestions. It will demand, as I have already intimated, the attentive and critical commitment of an entire generation."

Food and Clothing at God's Banquet: The 28th Sunday of OT

 

Food and clothing are necessary for life, and they are both themes in the Readings for this weekend.  Food and clothing go together sometimes: for example, we still dress up for a formal banquet or a fancy date night.  Some people still try to dress well for mass, and that’s a good custom, because how we dress shows the importance that we place on the event.  No one shows up for a job interview in a tank top and cut-offs, for example.  Is Mass as important as a job interview? 

But our external dress is not the point of this Sunday’s Readings.  Instead, they focus on the idea of a spiritual supper, and the spiritual preparation or “dress” that is necessary to participate in God’s ultimate wedding banquet. 

Our readings for this week begin with Isaiah’s famous prophecy of a feast on Mount Zion:

Level-headed advice from Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Time for a "gut check". 

Whatever is "new" is not necessarily true. At the same time, however, that does not mean that real advances are never made. 

An authentic Catholic approach to theology can never claim that all that can be said has been said but it should also avoid the trap of simply paying attention to the "latest trends".  

Or as the great twentieth-century Catholic theologian, Garrigou-Lagrange, said. . . 

"The desire of the true philosopher is, indeed, to acquire an accurate knowledge of philosophy, but he does not consider the temporal sequence of doctrines, as if these were the criterion or sign of their relative truth, and as if this sequence of doctrines were always and necessarily an evolution in the ascendant order, but never a regression and senile decline. From the fact that Scotus came after St. Thomas [Aquinas], it does not follow that his doctrine is truer, and that later on there is greater perfection in the eclecticism of Suarez.  

We must use the historical method in the history of doctrines, and this is indeed of great help in understanding the state and difficulty of the question, so as to give us, as it were, a panorama of the solutions of any great problem. But in philosophy we must employ the analytic and synthetic method proportionate to it. In theology, however, we rely first upon proofs taken from the authority of Holy Scripture or divine tradition, or even the writings of the holy Fathers, and in the second place on arguments drawn from reason, while, of course, not neglecting the history of problems and their solution."  

--Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God: Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas' Theological Summa (trans. B. Rose; St. Louis: Herder Book Co., 1943), 13.