Angels also Michaelmas

7 things to know about Angels--today is the feast day--September 29^th is the feast of St.s Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael—archangel

{Does this day have any other names?

Yes. Traditionally in English it has also been called “Michaelmas” (i.e., the Mass that celebrates St. Michael, on the same principle that “Christmas” is the Mass that celebrates Christ’s birth).]

Here is the link of 7 things to Know:
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/celebrating-the-archangels-7-things-to-know-and-share#ixzz3Ei9D3ucI  check out the link in this article , also, which traces the history of Michaelmas

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/celebrating-the-archangels-7-things-to-know-and-share

And here is a link about the angels here and it gives many other links: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2014-09-29

from a link http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4620#114  :

Holy Angels

213. With the clear and sober language of catechesis, the Church teaches that "the existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls 'angels' is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition"²⁸⁰.

Tradition regards the angels as messengers of God, "potent executives of his commands, and ready at the sound of his words" (Ps 103, 20. They serve his salvific plan, and are "sent to serve those who will inherit salvation" (Hb 1, 14).

214. The faithful are well aware of the numerous interventions of angels in the New and Old Covenants. They closed the gates of the earthly paradise (cf. Gen 3,24), they saved Hagar and her child Ishmael (cf. Gen 21, 17), they stayed the hand of Abraham as he was about to sacrifice Isaac (cf. gen 22, 7), they announce prodigious births (cf. Jud 13, 3-7), they protect the footsteps of the just (cf. Ps 91, 11), they praise God unceasingly (cf. Is 6, 1-4), and they present the prayer of the Saints to God (cf. Ap 8, 34). The faithful are also aware of the angel's coming to help Elijah, an exhausted fugitive (cf. 1 Kings 19, 4-8), of Azariah and his companions in the fiery furnace (cf. Dan 3, 49-50), and are familiar with the story of Tobias in which Raphael, "one of the seven Angels who stand ever ready to enter the presence of the glory of God" (cf. Tb 12, 15), who renders many services to Tobit, his son Tobias and his wife Sarah.

The faithful are also conscious of the roles played by the Angels in the life of Jesus: the Angel Gabriel declared to Mary that she would conceive and give birth to the Son of the Most High (cf. Lk 1, 26-38), and that an Angel revealed to Joseph the supernatural origin of Mary's conception (cf. Mt 1, 18-25); the Angels appear to the shepherds in Bethlehem with the news of great joy of the Saviour's birth (cf. Lk 2, 8-24); "the Angel of the Lord" protected the infant Jesus when he was threatened by Herod (cf. Mt 2, 13-20); the Angels ministered to Jesus in the desert (cf. Mt 4, 11) and comforted him in his agony (Lk 22, 43), and to the women gathered at the tomb, they announced that he had risen (cf. Mk 16, 1-8), they appear again at the Ascension, revealing its meaning to the disciples and announcing that "Jesus ...will come back in the same way as you have seen him go" (Acts 1, 11).

The faithful will have well grasped the significance of Jesus' admonition not to despise the least of those who believe in him for "their Angels in heaven are continually in the presence of my Father in heaven" (Mt 10, 10), and the consolation of his assurance that "there is rejoicing among the Angels of God over one repentant sinner" (Lk 15, 10). The faithful also realize that "the Son of man will come in his glory with all his Angels" (mt 25, 31) to judge the living and the dead, and bring history to a close.

215. The Church, which at its outset was saved and protected by the ministry of Angels, and which constantly experiences their "mysterious and powerful assistance"²⁸¹, venerates these heavenly spirts and has recourse to their prompt intercession.

During the liturgical year, the Church celebrates the role played by the Holy Angels, in the events of salvation²⁸² and commemorates them on specific days: 29 September (feast of the Archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael), 2 October (the Guardian Angels). The Church has a votive Mass dedicated to the Holy Angels whose preface proclaims that "the glory of God is reflected in his Angels"²⁸³. In the celebration of the sacred mysteries, the Church associates herself with the angelic hymn and proclaims the thrice holy God (cf. Isaiah 6, 3)²⁸⁴ invoking their assistance so that the Eucharistic sacrifice "may be taken [to your] altar in heaven, in the presence of [...] divine majesty"²⁸⁵. The office of lauds is celebrated in their presence (cf. Ps 137, 1)²⁸⁶. The Church entrusts to the ministry of the Holy Angels (cf. Aps 5, 8; 8, 3) the prayers of the faithful, the contrition of penitents²⁸⁷, and the protection of the innocent from the assaults of the Malign One²⁸⁸. The Church implores God to send his Angels at the end of the day to protect the faithful as they sleep²⁸⁹, prays that the celestial spirits come to the assistance of the faithful in their last agony²⁹⁰, and in the rite of obsequies, invokes God to send his Angels to accompany the souls of just into paradise²⁹¹ and to watch over their graves.

216. Down through the centuries, the faithful have translated into various devotional exercises the teaching of the faith in relation to the ministry of Angels: the Holy Angels have been adopted as patrons of cities and corporations; great shrines in their honour have developed such as Mont-Saint-Michel in Normandy, San Michele della Chiusa in Piemonte and San Michele Gargano in Apulia, each appointed with specific feast days; hymns and devotions to the Holy Angels have also been composed.

Popular piety encompasses many forms of devotion to the Guardian Angels. St. Basil Great (+378) taught that "each and every member of the faithful has a Guardian Angel to protect, guard and guide them through life"²⁹². This ancient teaching was consolidated by biblical and patristic sources and lies behind many forms of piety. St. Bernard of Clarivaux (+1153) was a great master and a notable promoter of devotion to the Guardian Angels. For him, they were a proof "that heaven denies us nothing that assists us", and hence, "these celestial spirits have been placed at our sides to protect us, instruct us and to guide us"²⁹³.

Devotion to the Holy Angels gives rise to a certain form of the Christian life which is characterized by:

• devout gratitude to God for having placed these heavenly spirits of great sanctity and dignity at the service of man;
• an attitude of devotion deriving from the knowledge of living constantly in the presence of the Holy Angels of God;— serenity and confidence in facing difficult situations, since the Lord guides and protects the faithful in the way of justice through the ministry of His Holy Angels.Among the prayers to the Guardian Angels the Angele Dei²⁹⁴ is especially popular, and is often recited by families at morning and evening prayers, or at the recitation of the Angelus.

217. Popular devotion to the Holy Angels, which is legitimate and good, can, however, also give rise to possible deviations:

• when, as sometimes can happen, the faithful are taken by the idea that the world is subject to demiurgical struggles, or an incessant battle between good and evil spirits, or Angels and daemons, in which man is left at the mercy of superior forces and over which he is helpless; such cosmologies bear little relation to the true Gospel vision of the struggle to overcome the Devil, which requires moral commitment, a fundamental option for the Gospel, humility and prayer;
• when the daily events of life, which have nothing or little to do with our progressive maturing on the journey towards Christ are read schematically or simplistically, indeed childishly, so as to ascribe all setbacks to the Devil and all success to the Guardian Angels. The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture.

rule of faith for the Catholic

found here http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36161

The norm that enables the faithful to know what to believe. The revealed Word of God in Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition is a remote rule of faith. But the teaching of the Church based on divine revelation is considered the immediate rule of faith.


next, from the Catholic Encyclopedia  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

 ...the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.

.........................

The Church as the rule of faith

This follows necessarily from any adequate view of the Church as a Divinely constituted body, to whose keeping is entrusted the deposit of faith, but the grounds for this doctrine may be briefly stated as follows:

New Testament

Christ gave His disciples no command to write, but only to teach: "going therefore, teach ye all nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). And in accordance with this, the Church is everywhere presented to us as a living and undying societycomposed of the teachers and the taught. Christ is in the Church, and is its Head; and He promised that the Holy Spirit should be with it and abide in it. "He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (John 14:26). Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15; cf. Mark 16:16; Romans 10:17; Acts 15:28).

end of quote---it goes on to explain more fully the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth as I Tim 3:15 states

see also http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html

see also  http://people.opposingviews.com/catholic-remote-proximate-rule-faith-3891.html

here is the quote from the above link: 

Faith for Catholics is not only a simple trust in the gospel, it also includes believing in specific ideas. It means accepting certain truths about who God is, the nature of humanity, Christ and his life and even the church. When Catholics talk about the rule of faith they are describing the way in which Christian truth is understood, expressed and lived. Catholics understand God's truth to be perfect, both in its pure essence (or remote rule of faith) as well as in the way Christians must understand that truth (the proximate rule of faith).

REVELATION

An understanding of the Catholic ideas about the rule of faith must start by considering revelation. Catholics believe God has been revealed to humanity through the person of Jesus Christ and his life, death and resurrection. They also believe that God has been revealed in the Bible, and that God self-reveals through other means such as the traditions of the church as well as the natural order. Revelation, then, is the source of the rule of faith.

REMOTE RULE OF FAITH

Catholics believe all truth comes from God. God alone is truth to the Catholic. Catholics describe God's nature, attributes and knowledge as the "remote" rule of faith. God self-reveals to humanity, and that revelation itself is the remote rule of faith. It is considered remote because, as fallible creatures, human beings cannot directly interact with this perfect knowledge without some outside assistance. That assistance comes through the proximate rule of faith.

PROXIMATE BUT INANIMATE

Both the written books of the Bible and the unwritten traditions of the Church make up part of the proximate rules of faith, according to Catholics. This is the part of God's truth that human beings can interact with. Catholics read the scriptures and participate in the traditions of the church and thereby interact with the rules of faith. These are considered "inanimate" rules of faith, however. The Bible and the traditions of the church can't give themselves interpretation; they necessitate something living or animate to be fully understood.

PROXIMATE AND ANIMATE

The Catholic Church, and the magisterium or leadership in particular, has the duty to properly interpret the rule of faith for the Catholic Christian. The teachers of the Church, including theologians of the past, current priests and bishops and of course the Pope provide Catholics with an infallible understanding of the Bible and the church's traditions. Catholics refer to this role as the "proximate and animate" rule of faith because this is a dynamic, living interpretation of the rule of faith.

RULE OF FAITH IN PROTESTANTISM

The Protestant Reformation broke away from the Catholic Church over a number of different doctrinal issues. One of the core issues that separates these two strains of Christianity is the rule of faith. Protestants teach that the rule of faith is simply God's self-revelation through the scriptures, and that it is the duty of every believer to read and interpret the scriptures without interposition from the church. The Catholic Church has argued strongly against this position, fully rejecting private judgment as the rule of faith.

a listing of dogmas http://catho.org/9.php?d=g1  note need to translate

from comment 67 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/

If you are asking whether God’s direct speech is to be the rule of faith for the Church, the answer would have to be no. God’s direct speech and God’s acts in history constitute the material in the deposit of faith. But the rule for transmitting, interpreting, and safeguarding that deposit has been entrusted to authorized individuals. “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you… the overseer refutes false doctrine, etc.”

None of your examples establish the thing that you’re trying to prove

I think we must have a misunderstanding here. I am not arguing that Christ delivered every detail of the Tridentine Liturgy or Chrysostom’s liturgy, or some such development. But isn’t it obvious that Christ’s institution of the Eucharist predates its record in the Synoptics? And isn’t it obvious that Paul did not rely on his own letter to the Corinthians to convey the Church’s Eucharistic tradition to Corinth? He appealed to the tradition he received from the Lord.

Of course, we also have a written account of the institution, but the rite was in place and celebratedbefore any written account was offered. Is this really that controversial?

I’m still not sure what Apostolic practices you believe have been retained in the liturgy that are not grounded in Scripture.

Here’s one mentioned by Cyprian, but he’s not the first to do so:

Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united” (“On the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord,” No 13).

From St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit:

For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.

I would particularly direct your attention to the mention of the invocation at the display of the eucharistic elements, an extremely important eucharistic tradition (included in all ancient liturgies) that reinforces and confirms the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist.

from comment 71 at the same link:

I’ve been asking all along for a valid argument that concludes with “God intends the 66 to be the rule of faith.”

What I think I’ve been hearing instead is the assertion that the Scriptures are inspired, that they are the word of God, and that only the word of God should rule the Church, that the word of God is found nowhere but Scripture, therefore, etc. This is the position outlined in WCF and in Calvin. But the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises and at least one of the premises is question begging. So I’m asking you guys to present a valid argument for this conclusion.

This is why your arguments don’t introduce anything new to the discussion aside from huge leaps in logic.

You haven’t shown that my argument has “leaps.” And, I think that I have introduced something substantive to the discussion. Namely, the claim that the doctrine on the rule of faith must be taught by divine authority. This is a doctrine that the Protestant position implicitly denies. As Richard Muller notes, the Protestant infers Scripture’s regulative authority from its attributes, not from the actual content of revelation. You also seem to concede this, because every time I ask for evidence that God intends the 66, you respond that this is an illegitimate question. Instead, you propose an argument based on the attributes of Scripture, but not on its content. Attributes, I might add, that are alleged on the basis of interior experience (Sheep hearing voices, and all that), rather than on the actual content of revelation.

To summarize the Protestant approach:

1. I feel that these books are divine, so they must be divine.
2. Only the divine can rule the Church.
3. Only these books are divine (presumably, because I don’t get these feelings from other sources),
4. So only these books can rule the Church.

The Catholic position is, rather:

1. Doctrine must be established by divine authority.
2. Christ (a divine authority) teaches that the faith is to be transmitted by authorized interpreters and via ritual/tradition.
3. Therefore, the rule of faith is this apostolic authority established by Christ.
4. And, for good measure, those authorized authorities never indicated that any canon of Scripture was to take over the job Christ gave them. Instead, they appointed men to succeed them and instructed them to hand on the faith, correct error, and appoint successors.

The Catholic position – rightly or wrongly – is based on the objective teaching of Christ and the apostles. The Protestant position is an inference, ultimately, from religious experience.

If you think I’ve mischaracterized the Protestant position, I’m happy to hear an alternate explanation.

[go to the comments on that post and the Protestants give good arguments for their views as well]

Long life Spans in the Bible

from Catholic Answers:

Full Question

Can you give me a logical answer about the people's ages in the book of Genesis? Some of them lived to be 900 years old. What is the Catholic Church's teaching about this?

Answer

The Church has no teaching regarding whether these ages are to be taken literally or not. The Church will say that whatever Scripture says is inerrant but must be understood in terms of the conventions of literature that were in use at the time.

It is known that, in many ancient cultures, fantastically long lives were assigned to famous forebears. This could be an indication that the ages are to be taken as symbolic of the greatness and venerability of the individuals.

However, this is not something the Church has taught. God can keep people alive as long as he wants. If he wants someone to live to be 900 years old, then that person can do so.

---

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff   [found here http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/did-people-really-live-for-900-years-as-described-in-genesis}

For those who do understand it more literally--who are trying to find scientific explanations to the questions of long life,  this second article describes why they may have lived longer--or what things may have affected their life spans.  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html

inerrancy--including a history of this concept

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441

Septuagint

Article on Septuagint here: http://www.bibliahebraica.com/the_texts/septuagint.htm  a few quotes:

The oldest witnesses to the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century AD/CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date much later, from around 1000.

The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been debated by scholars. One extreme view was that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from the Masoretic text. The other extreme, favored by Jewish religious scholars, was that the differences were primarily due to intentional or accidental corruption of the Septuagint since its original translation from the Masoretic text. Modern scholars follow a path between these two views. The discovery of many fragments in the Dead Sea scrolls that agree with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic proved that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic editions.

.....................................................

The Early Christian Church, however, continued to use the Greek, since it had always been the language of the Church and because the prophetic passages clearly pointed to Jesus as the Christ in the Septuagint version, whereas the same passages were ambiguous or absent in the Hebrew. When Jerome started preparation of a new Vulgate translation of the Bible into Latin, he started with the Septuagint, checking it against the newer Hebrew Masoretic Text, he discovered many significant differences. Encouraged by his Jewish friends who provided him the Masoretic with their insistence of its perfect accuracy, Jerome at last broke with all church tradition to translate the Old Testament not from the age-old Greek but from his new find, the Masoretic. The Psalms in the Masoretic differ particularly from the Septuagint, although the Latin Mass still used the Psalms from the older Greek versions. Indeed, all the other early Christian translations of the Old Testament were done from the Greek version and Church fathers such as Origen remarked on how Jewish religionists differed in both the interpretation of the Old Testament and how over time the Jewish text grew different from the Christian in wording.

The writers of the New Testament, also written in Greek, quoted from the old Greek versions exclusively. This is significant since the new Masoretic text prominently diverged in those passages which prophesied Christ. Thus even when Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and other translations from the Greek appeared, Greek versions continued to be used by the Greek-speaking portion of the Christian Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages, and the Greek Orthodox Church (which has no need for translation) continues to use it in its liturgy even today. Many modern Catholic translations of the Bible, while using the Masoretic text as their basis, employ the Septuagint to decide between different possible translations of the newer Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous.

Recent Aramaic findings among the Dead Sea Scrolls read most closely with the LXX, and not with the Masoretic text. For example Deuteronomy 32:8-9, both the LXX and the Aramaic agree that the patron of the people of Jacob is lower in status than the Most High. This suggests that the older LXX may be more accurate than the newer Masoretic text which was given to Jerome.

see also: http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

Why do some Catholic Bibles have more than 5 books labeled as Pentateuch

I found some answers here http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=12313283  Here are a few of the answers: 

 The EIGHT books of the Pentateuch??? Per my NAB

---

Actually this is not a misprint.

The original NAB translators decided to do this on the basis that many early Greek manuscripts actually include Joshua, Judges, and Ruth as part of the Pentateuch.

Since the Greek Septuagint collection of books defined the accepted canon of the early Church, the original NAB defined its table of contents by this earliest Christian list.

When the NABRE was produced, the translators decided to follow the older (and original) Jewish descriptions, limiting the Pentateuch to the Five Books of Moses or the Torah.

Some scholars still prefer the Greek definition of books, even though technically the "pente" in the Greek word "Pentateuch" means "five."

The reason for this preference among some is that Joshua is considered a continuation of Deuteronomy. Judges picks up the story where the book of Joshua leaves off and Ruth immediately follows setting the stage for the "real" history of Israel under the rule of its kings. The books are seen by many not as mere history as they are setting the stage for the great David dynasty story.

So again it's not a misprint, just a change in editorial direction as how to present the books in the table of contents.

Rev 12:2

from Father Angel on Tumblr:

alwaysabeautifullife said:

In Revelations 12:2 it describes The Woman in labor with pain. I was taught Mary had no labor pain, and giving birth to Christ was like giving birth to light. Can you explain this to me? What is the True teaching? Thank you ;)

Hello,

The book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature, which means it is filled with symbols and metaphor. Therefore, much of the message is cryptic and difficult to decipher.

The woman of Revelation 12 is a controversial figure. She is seen as a symbol of the Church which suffers and toils to bring Christ before the nations (“give Him birth”). Revelation itself is an account of the Church’s severe persecution under the oppression of the Roman imperial government, whose symbol is the Beast and the Antichrist.

Insofar as the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Gospel of John, is seen as a new Eve, a new mother of “the living” (baptized) at the foot of the tree of life (Calvary), she is seen also as a symbol of the Church, or a prototype of what the Church will be—a perfect disciple who brings forth Christ.

That means that if we apply Johanine typology to Revelation, the Virgin Mary also suffered, and is presently in toil and labor (by her prayers and intercession), until the missionary efforts of the Church bring Christ to birth in the hearts of people. She also wails aloud in pain, symbolically, as she sees the disciples undergo trials for the sake of the Name of Jesus.

In other words, think of Revelation as a book of metaphors. Chapter 12 is not meant to be a literal story of the life of Mary and how she gave birth to Jesus. God bless and take care, Fr. Angel

assurance

For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,[100]

[Council of Trent

A Catholic explanation of the Greek word δικαιόω (dikaiow

It can be found here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%8C%CF%89-a-morphological-lexical-and-historical-analysis/

ALSO another discussion states:[ http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/01/justification-always-forensic.html

The various dikai- terms all refer to the same quality or effect of Jesus’ death on the believer. In other words, despite their grammatical distinctions, dikaiosunē, dikaios, dikaiōsis and evendikaioō all have the same sense; therefore, the rendering of dikaiosunē is “righteousness,” of dikaios, “righteous,” and ofdikaioō, “make righteous. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, pp. 245, 246 – the entire chapter, “’Justification by Faith’—A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept”, pp. 242-332, 

The Lutheran scholar, John Reumann (hearkening back to Melanchthon) maintains that dikaioō has a double sense: declarative and causative (see his, Righteousness in the New Testament, pp. 4-11.)

Further, a group of Finnish Lutheran scholars[2] are now recognizing the importance of deification in understanding the nature of justification, and are able to declare, “Lutherans can without difficulty argue that a Christian is both made righteous and also deified as a partaker of the divine nature”[3].

Even McGrath could write:

It is certainly true that Augustine speaks of the real interior renewal of the sinner by the action of the Holy Spirit, which he later expressed in terms of participation in the divine substance itself…God has given man the power both to receive and participate in the divine being. By this participation in the life of the Trinity, the justified sinner may be said to be deified. (Ibid., p. 1.32)

Though one must wait until Augustine to find a concrete reflection on the role that deification plays in justification, the doctrine of deification itself is quite prominent in many of the Church Fathers prior to Augustine. And though most are aware of the importance of deification in Orthodox thought, recent scholars are now identifying certain elements of deification in Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.

To make a very long story short, Augustine’s take on justification certainly has Biblical warrant, and just might be spot-on.

[Then one comment arguing against the above]:
But what you fail to tell your readers is that McGrath provides a long analysis of the history of the word group (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin), and that Augustine, not knowing Hebrew or Greek, GOT IT WRONG!!

After a long explanation of Hebrew word “sedaqa” – the “justice” of God, which carries a wholly legal/imputation connotation, and which is translated into dikaiosune in Greek, McGrath suggests that Augustine’s Latin word, “iustitia” is a permissible interpretation of the Greek word, it is wholly unacceptable as an interpretation of the Hebrew concept which underlies it.

So the “novum” which the Reformers introduced is essentially a correct exegesis of the language that Paul used in Romans and other places

[to which the author of the article answers]:

 Chris VanLandingham, in his Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, devotes 90 pages it this very issue, and his research makes McGrath’s conclusion highly suspect.


>>So the “novum” which the Reformers introduced is essentially a correct exegesis of the language that Paul used in Romans and other places.>>

Me: Since VanLandingham, Hiestand, Kimmel, Sanders, Dunn, and so many other competent scholars disagree with you on “this very issue”, I cannot help but think that your conclusion is suspect.

......................
>>The corruption of language introduced by Augustine condemned the medieval church, “astonishingly faithful to the language of Augustine,” was a muddle, to which the Reformers applied a good bit of clear biblical exegesis.>>

Me: Once again, there is a growing group of scholars who do not think that Augustine introduced a “corruption”.

But then there is this thought provoking article--not Catholic: 

Dikaiosyne Theou (The Righteousness of God) in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship  http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dikaiosyne-theou-the-righteousness-of-god-in-contemporary-biblical-scholarship/

Then there is a debate type--written here between Horton and Sungenis
:http://www.faithfulanswers.com/is-justification-by-faith-alone/

here is a bit:

James give us further evidence that such a schema won’t work by introducing Rahab to the discussion. The all-important words James uses in 2:25 are “And in the same way” (Greek: homoiws). Here is the rest of it: “And in the same way was not Rahab the harlot also justified (Greek: dikaiow) when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?” James is telling us that Rahab was justified “in the same way” that Abraham was justified. But here’s the curious lacuna for Protestant theology: Scripture never describes Rahab’s justification as an instance in which faith was manifested before her works. Rather, Joshua 2 shows that Rahab’s faith and works were simultaneous. Thus, Protestants can’t treat Rahab’s justification in the same way they treat Abraham’s, for they hold that Abraham’s justification occurred in Genesis 15:6, many years prior to the work (supposedly for vindication), that Abraham did in Genesis 22 when he offered Isaac. 

Again, we see how Scripture traps those who impose artificial systems on it. It seemed plausible to them to separate Abraham’s justification into two components (one justifying, one vindicating) but they can’t do so with Rahab’s justification. Here is where the haunting words “And in the same way” come to roost, for this means that Abraham was justified identical to Rahab. There can be no difference, otherwise there would be two salvation plans, one for Abraham and one for Rahab, but that is not possible. No, the reality is that Rahab’s justification occurred when she exhibited faith and works, simultaneously. In fact, Hebrews 11:31 calls Rahab’s incident with the spys an act of “faith,” whereas we have seen James call it a “work.” Thus, her faith was working together with her works to give her justification. We certainly cannot say that the work James ascribes to Rahab was merely something to vindicate her. 

And it is no surprise to see Scripture speak of Abraham in the same way, for Hebrew 11:19 says that his attempt to offer Isaac to God was an act of “faith,” whereas we have seen James call it a “work.” In both Rahab and Abraham, faith and works are simultaneous, and thus it is no surprise that James says they were justified “in the same way,” and thus it is conclusive that “faith alone” did not justify either of them. There are more proofs to what I have introduced above. I suggest that those who are interested should read Chapters 1 and 2 of Not By Faith Alone to get the full picture. 
...........................................
......................................................................................
As for Dr. Horton’s contention, ala Alister McGrath, that 

“…the best example of the errors in the Latin Vulgate, corrected in tail end of the Renaissance, concerns its translation of the Greek word ‘dikaiosune,’ which means ‘to declare righteous.’ It is a legal term, a verdict. But the Latin Vulgate had translated ‘dikaiosune’ with the Latin word iustificare, which means ‘to make righteous,’” 

it can be easily shown that McGrath is the one in error here. Here is an excerpt from my book Not By Faith Alone which deals with McGrath’s assertion: 

In his work, Iustitia Dei, McGrath maintains that in Augustine’s translations, his Latin meanings were not faithful to the Hebrew meanings. This echoes the assertion of the German Lutheran, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), a student of Melanchthon, who said that Augustine misrepresented the Greek word dikaioun to refer to “making righteous” instead of “declaring righteous.” McGrath cites Chemnitz’s view on page 29, and elsewhere in the book attempts to show through the etymology and usage of the Hebrew that tsedaqah is a more general word than the Latin iustificare. 

Hence, McGrath says Augustine’s Latin translation missed the “soteriological overtones” associated with the Hebrew tsedaqah (p. 8). McGrath says these kinds of problems were further complicated by the Greek word dikaiosune which was also limited in scope due to its Aristotelian origins. To support this position, McGrath cites several usages of the Greek eleemosune (“mercy, alms”) by the LXX to translate the noun tsedaqah rather than the normal insertion ofdikaiosune. McGrath also cites the anomalies of where LXX uses dikaiosune to translate tsedaqah in Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:15; and Ezk. 45:10; in these instances the Hebrew merely carries the sense of “accurate” not, as translated, “just.” 

In another example, McGrath cites the translation in Deut. 33:19 which should be “correct sacrifices” instead of “righteous sacrifices.” Similarly, McGrath sees a weakness in dikaiosune to translate the general scope of the Hebrew verb tsadaq. He cites the LXX translation of Isaiah 5:22-23 and 43:26 as proof. As a result, McGrath is of the opinion that the semantic range of the root dikaioun was expanded to accommodate tsedaqah. McGrath suggests that the difficulty comes to the fore when the “post-classical” Latin term iustificare is used to translate the “expanded” forms of the dikaiooderivatives. 

More importantly, McGrath also asserts that Greeks and Latins had decisively different ideas of the concept of merit, and that this was the main cause for the Latin church’s emphasis on merit and the prevalence of merit in medieval theology. According to McGrath, in Greek culture merit was only a matter of “estimation” which is not inherent in its object, i.e., considering an entity to be something that it is not in itself. McGrath asserts that merit, in the Latin culture, refers to the quality inherent in the object or person. 

Representative of these two meanings, according to McGrath, is the Greek passive axiousthai (“to deem worthy”) and the Latin equivalent, mereri. The Greek word that would have denoted “inherent merit” is meroma, from which the Latinmeritum is derived. McGrath’s conclusion: the disjunction between axiousthai and mereri is similar to the disjunction between dikaiosune and iustificare. Hence the Greek word has the primary sense of being considered righteous, whereas the Latin word denotes being righteous or the reason one is considered righteous. 

All in all, McGrath concludes that the initial transference of a Hebrew concept, to a Greek concept, to a Latin concept, led to a fundamental alteration in the concepts of justification and righteousness as the gospel spread from Palestine to the Western world (p. 15). Unfortunately, McGrath’s linguistic analysis and conclusion appear to read into history what his theology dictates. 

Despite the anomalies that always occur in translating a word from one language to another, it is a matter of certain faith that inspired Scripture, which translates Hebrew text into Greek text, cannot err, and does not envision the problem McGrath proposes. First, without reservation, the New Testament authors use the dikaioo cognates to translate the Hebrew and Septuagint cognates. These translations occur in many non-justification contexts (i.e., “non-imputation” contexts). 

For example, in 2 Cor. 9:9 Paul cites a quotation from Psalm 112:9 and uses the Greek dikaiosune to translate the Hebrew feminine noun tsadaqah (which the LXX also translates as dikaiosune). The context of 2 Cor. 9:9-10 concerns liberal giving, both of God and men, to those in need. 

Thus, contrary to McGrath’s thesis, dikaiosune is understood as that which is inherent within both God and man due to the good they have done. Similarly, Hebrews 1:9 uses dikaiosune to translate the Hebrew male noun tsadaq in Psalm 45:7 (of which the LXX uses dikaiosune) and speaks of the inherent righteousness of Christ. (The relevance of the LXX may be even more significant here since Hebrews 1:6 is quoted by Paul directly from the LXX). 

In addition, 1 Peter 3:12 uses dikaioo to translate the Hebrew adjective tsadeek of Psalm 34:15 (of which the LXX usesdikaious). The context of 1 Peter 3:12 regards righteous individuals as inherently righteous, for it is they who “turn from evil to do good” and “seek peace and pursue it.” Similarly, Hebrews 11:7 uses dikaiosune to describe the righteousness of Noah, translating the Hebrew adjective tsadeek in Genesis 7:1 which refers to God seeing Noah as inherently righteous for his goodness in the midst of the wicked people of his day. 

We should also add that Scripture does not support McGrath’s assessment of the Greek word axioo to refer only to the estimation of an individual rather than his merit (which he distinguishes from the Latin notion of merit that gives the individual the “right” of the third party estimation, i.e., because he is deserving of it). The New Testament uses axioo not only in considering someone worthy but also in recognizing someone worthy because he is actually worthy. For example, Hebrews 3:3 uses axioo in reference to Christ’s worthiness: “Jesus has been counted worthy of greater honor than Moses…” This is a common usage of axioo and its cognates in the New Testament (cf., 1 Thess. 1:11; 1 Tim. 5:17; Col 1:10; et al). 

Thus we see that Dr. Horton relies on faulty information in the analysis of Alister McGrath. 
................................
) Has any Catholic theologian ever contested that dikaiow and its derivatives are totally void or incapable of being used in a legal sense? No, never. There were various instances in which the Greeks used the word in legal contexts. Paul could have done the same thing, if he desired to do so. But that just begs the question: DID he do so? Take the word “marriage,” for example. Is that a legal term or a personal term? It can be either, depending on the context in which it is placed. When applying for a marriage license, or when in divorce court, the word “marriage” becomes very legal, does it not? But when a husband loves his wife (as opposed to merely giving her food, clothing and shelter) is “marriage” merely a legal term? No, certainly not. It takes on a whole new meaning that law knows nothing about, for law can’t love. Only people who make a personal commitment of trust and care can love each other. 

In the same way, Protestants think that just because they can find some examples where Greek culture used dikaiow in a legal sense that this automatically allows them to conclude that Paul is using it thusly, and, in fact, is confined to such a meaning in the New Testament. It is the all-or-nothing meaning that Protestants attempt to assign to dikaiow that is the problem. They tell us that it can ONLY refer to legal matters, and thus Paul is forced to use it forensically. But they have never proven this. They have never shown that dikaiow has such an exclusive meaning in Greek, nor have they produced a clear passage of Scripture which shows that Paul used dikaiow forensically, and only forensically. What they have done is give a lot of misinformation about dikaiow and Paul’s use of the term in the New Testament, not the least of which is Dr. Horton’s attempt below. 

The verbal ending of dikaiow is declarative; if the biblical writers intended by “justification” a process of moral transformation, there is a perfectly good verbal ending for that sort of thing in Greek: adzo rather than ow. For instance, “to make holy” is translated from the Greek verb, “hagiodzo,” and this word is never rendered “to justify.” When the biblical writers refer to justification, they use the declarative ending; when they refer to sanctification, they use the progressive ending. If it is good enough of a distinction for the biblical writers themselves, surely we should have not trouble with the Bible’s own language. 

6) Although Protestants have touted the ow ending as being exclusively forensic, the reality is that this is simply not true. We can find disproof for Dr. Horton’s contention in one of the very Protestant sources Dr. Horton admires. Philip Schaff, for example, says “Modern exegesis has justified this view of dikaiow and dikaiowsis, according to Hellenistic usage.” and then Schaff makes the admission: “.although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in ow (e.g., delow, phanerow, tuphow, to make manifest, etc.” (History of the Christian Church, Vol. VII, f. 2, p. 123). 

A study of these three NT words confirms Schaff’s admission. The word delow appears seven times in the epistles, all of which denote a recognition of an actual manifestation (e.g., 1 Cor 3:13; Col 1:8); phenerow appears fifty times, denoting the same (e.g., 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 3:16); tuphow is used three times, referring to an actual blindness (John 12:40). 

We also have the witness of M. J. LaGrange stating: “First, we should not that verbs in ow mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaiow would properly mean “make just” (La Justification selon saint Paul, RB 1914, 121, cited by C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, 1995, 1:341). 

Protestants attempt to defend their forensic use of dikaiow by appealing to equally dubious definitions of associated words. For example, Protestants attempt to support an exclusively forensic meaning to dikaiow by appealing to the Greek word logizomai, normally translated as “credited” or “reckoned” in modern translations (cf., Romans 4:3). As taken from pages 324-325 of NBFA, here is what happens when they do so: 

“This matter concerns the use of the Greek word logizomai, translated as ‘reckoned,’ ‘credited,’ ‘accepted,’ ‘counted,’ ‘considered.’.Protestant exegesis, especially that of Romans 4 where the Greek word logizomai appears twelve times, has consistently understood the word in the sense of ‘credited.’.Abraham is understood as one who has ‘something to his credit’ so that when God looks at his ledger book, as it were, he sees that, in accounting terms, Abraham is in the black. 

Evangelical Joel Beeke comments on this verb: 

‘This verb most often indicates ‘what a person, considered by himself, is not, or does not have, but is reckoned, held or regarded to be, or to have. It is clear then that when Abraham was justified by his faith, the righteousness which was reckoned or ‘charged to his account’ was a righteousness not his own but that of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ.’ 

Unfortunately, Beeke presents a false premise which leads a false conclusion. First, the Greek verb logizomai does not ‘most often indicate’ what someone or something is merely ‘considered’ to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing (cf., Luke 22:37; Rom 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1 Cor 4:1; 13:5, 11; Phil 3:13; 4:8; Heb 11:19, et al). Contrary to Beeke’s proposition, in only a few instances is logizomai used as a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality (cf., Rom 2:26; 2 Cor 12:6). 

Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that logizomai denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it. In the case of Abraham, we can then understand the phrase “his faith is reckoned as righteousness” in Romans 4:3 such that God is recognizing or viewing Abraham’s faith as righteousness.This is very different from saying, as Beeke claims, that God ‘credited’ Abraham with righteousness as if to say that Abraham was not really showing any righteous qualities when he demonstrated his faith but that God, because of the alien righteousness of Christ, merely gave him the label of righteousness.’ 

I recommend to the reader that he consult pages 324-354 in Not By Faith Alone to see all the arguments refuting the contention of Dr. Horton that dikaiow is exclusively forensic. 
end of quote


More on this topic is discussed at this site and in this comment 192 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/the-witness-of-the-lost-christianities/

re: #188)

1. His failure to understand the Hebrew behind sdq and related Hebrew concepts for “justice” and “righteousness” in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)

2. This word group is then translated into the Greek; the original meanings are contained in the translated terms, but the terms in Greek culture acquire new meanings.

3. Augustine relies on the equivocated Greek meanings (extant in later Greek culture, but not found in the original Hebrew) in his writings rather than the original (Hebrew) concepts.

4. By the time these verses are translated into the Latin, they have meanings that are entirely different from what they originally meant in Hebrew.

5. Thus, the Latin-speaking world is treated, via Augustine, to a concept of “justification” that simply is not derived from the knowledge of the Old Testament God.

The fifth premise does not follow from the first four. Just because one does not know Hebrew, it does not follow that one has no knowledge of the “Old Testament God.” So that argument is a non sequitur.

But more importantly, the argument you are trying to construct presupposes that the only way to know correctly the Apostolic doctrine of justification is by knowing Hebrew. If, for example, (speaking hypothetically) there was a direct chain of reliable oral transmission from the Apostles to St. Augustine, concerning the doctrine of justification, then even if St. Augustine did not know Hebrew, he would know the Apostolic doctrine of justification. So the hidden premise doing all the work in your argument is a premise claiming that the only way to know the Apostles’ doctrine of justification is by knowing the Old Testament in Hebrew. And that’s not only a question-begging premise (for reasons laid out in “The Tradition or the Lexicon“) but one that is problematic as well, because it would imply that in order for the Apostles to teach their doctrine of justification to the first generation of Christians, they would first have had to teach all these early Christians to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. It would entail that *all* the Greek-speaking Christians who preceded St. Augustine and who did not know Hebrew (from the first century to the fourth century), did not know the truth about justification, and could not have known the truth about justification until learning Hebrew. It would thus entail a massive automatic apostasy (inasmuch as the doctrine of justification is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls) in the first century as soon as the gospel reached persons who did not speak Hebrew and did not learn Hebrew. In this way your presupposition makes learning Hebrew a prerequisite for becoming Christian (and for catechizing one’s children into the Christian faith), more so than even Arabic is thought to be necessary for becoming Islam, and limits the spread of Christianity only to persons who know Hebrew. Your argument thus imposes the lexical paradigm on St. Augustine, and in this way begs the question by presupposing (a) the non-existence of a community passing on the Tradition, and (b) that a necessary condition for coming to know the truth about the Apostles’ doctrine of justification (and thus about the gospel) is by way of exegeting the Hebrew Old Testament.

from comment 204"

Moreover, presupposed in the notion that the meaning of the Greek (and Latin) terms for justification, must not differ from the meaning of the Hebrew term as used in the Old Testament, and insofar as they do differ, there is a *theological* error, is the assumption that the New Covenant cannot go beyond the Old Covenant, that the new wine must be poured into old wineskins. This deeper assumption (i.e. that the New Covenant cannot go beyond the Old) is in essence the error of the Judaizers described in St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, in that by denying that the New Covenant can go beyond the Old, it implicitly denies that the one who purportedly made the New Covenant is greater than Moses, capable of being the mediator of “a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (Heb 8:6), and in that way it denies the incarnation of Christ, as Matt Yonke has explained in “Too catholic to be Catholic.”

end of quote

also one Protestant describes 2 Cor 5:21 in this way--as follows and this could fit with Catholic Theology

:http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dikaiosyne-theou-the-righteousness-of-god-in-contemporary-biblical-scholarship/

The difficult expression of 2 Corinthians 5:21, that in (relationship with) Christ “we might become the righteousness of God” further underlines a relational rather than a judicial or ontological meaning. The text is concerned with reconciliation to God in and through Christ (see Center; Peace, Reconciliation and calls those who are reconciled to become instruments of that reconciling work (2 Cor 5:18–19). In that context, the phrase “to become God’s righteousness” means that believers become participants in God’s reconciling action, extensions of his restoring love.
For Paul, then, God’s righteousness is God’s saving deed. In continuity with OT expressions of God’s righteousness as God’s faithfulness and steadfast love toward Israel, Paul sees this divine action finally expressed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The acceptance of that divine condescension through the act of faith justifies us (makes us right) with God. Righteousness is present in this restored relationship when life is lived in conformity with God’s purposes.

more comment on this found hereat 275 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/the-witness-of-the-lost-christianities/#comment-119407

While I respect the scholarship that goes into trying to reconstruct the nuances of words at two-to-three thousand years’ remove, a text of limited length is simply never going to convey the wealth of meaning and understood nuance and context that oral transmission conveys, nor with the reliability of oral transmission.

For this reason, I think the more reliable rule-of-thumb for “reconstructing” ancient Christianity is: Rely on (informed, scholarly, arduously-assembled, respectable) speculations about the meanings of words and how they change over time only if you must.

And “only if you must” means: “only if there isn’t a robust, documented chain of oral transmission you can use as a CHECKSUM, so-to-speak, at various points in time along the way. If there is a robust and documented chain of oral transmission, then it makes more sense to prefer that over a process of “lexicographical archaeology,” because it is more reliable. Indeed, it provides you the Answer Key In The Back Of The Book, so-to-speak, against which you can check your forays in lexicography to see how accurate they turned out to be.”

(I don’t know if you know what I mean by the word “checksum.” It’s an Internet term: When a message is sent from Computer A to Computer B, it is broken into packets; each of these carries part of the message plus a checksum which is a “hash” of the content of that packet created by processing the content of the packet through a mathematical algorithm. The “hash” algorithm has the following property: Two messages with slightly different contents produce radically different “hashes.” When a packet arrives at Computer B, Computer B does not automatically trust it. Instead, it looks at the contents and “hashes” them, and compares the “hash” of what it received to the “hash” generated by Computer A of the same packet. If the two “hashes” are different, then Computer B knows that the content of the packet was corrupted or altered en route; Computer B reacts to this by ignoring the corrupted packet and sending a message asking Computer A to re-transmit it.)

I reiterate the fundamental principle: oral transmission of certain kinds is highly accurate.

There is, of course, a kind of oral transmission which is not reliable, and you reference it: The “game of telephone,” in which each person in a circle must quickly whisper a message to the next, in such a way that no other can hear it, and the next does the same to the person after him, and so on.

The reason this very unusual form of oral transmission is unreliable is: When the message passes from A to B, and then from B to C…

- A is not allowed to repeat himself to B;
- B is not allowed to ask A whether he got it right;
- A is not allowed to wait until he is sure that B got it right before appointing B to pass the message on to C;
- A is not allowed to listen to what B is saying to C, to make sure he is saying it right.

Thus a game of “telephone” produces errors.

But imagine how the game of “telephone” would be if B was allowed to spend months with A, conversing about the message.

Imagine how the game would play out if B wasn’t allowed to talk to C until and unless A felt so confident that B had the message down pat that A was willing to appoint B to an office of leadership in an organization that existed for the purpose of propagating the message.

Imagine how the game would play out if, for months or years, A could remain in a supervisory role while watching B deliver the same message to C and D and E, to make sure nothing was getting changed over time.

And imagine the results if all this happened in a culture where there was a strong tradition of oral memorization, and no Internet Blogs (!) or Smartphone Apps to distract the participants.

Is there any doubt that the game would be…well, no fun? Because the message would be transmitted entirely without those funny distortions which make the usual version of the game amusing?

But these, of course, are exactly the circumstances under which the Apostolic Tradition was passed from the Apostles to the earliest bishops like Polycarp and Ignatius and Clement, and from them to their successors like Irenaeus.

And of course it was how it was handed from Jesus to the Apostles, with the exclusion of Paul — but let us assume that this very mystical special case received a transmission equally clear.

At any rate, this method of transmitting what is meant by a word — by using it in context until it becomes part of one’s workaday vocabulary, in an organization dedicated to preserving the message of which that word was part — is a far more reliable way for a man to know the meaning of a word, than is the practice of lexicographical spelunking.

I don’t mean to discount the real effort, perhaps even the genius, that these men put into trying to derive what these words meant, and into discovering whether they meant the same things in various times and places.

But the oral tradition — of the type by which Irenaeus received the Apostolic Faith from Polycarp, and he from John, and John from Jesus — simply provides a richer and more certain way to receive the “fullness of the faith.” By comparison, any attempt to reconstruct the faith — at a remove of more than a thousand years, and over the wider gulf of drastic cultural change — from mere textual analysis will produce…well, will produce a lot of widely-varying notions of what the original message was, and when it comes to scholarly research into this or that term, “two of a trade will never agree.” (Well…not “never.” But very very far from “always.”)

So I think your methodology — relying on McGrath, et alia, to have discovered in their text-based reconstructions of the faith things which somehow escaped the notice of men who spent months or years learning it (and many more years practicing it) from men who spent months or years learning it from the Apostles is just plain backwards. Instead of using it for Topic X because the Fathers are silent about Topic X, you’re using it when the Fathers are not silent about Topic X to try to prove the Fathers wrong about Topic X.

That’s like wanting to know the worldview of the Ramnulfid family in Acquitaine in the year 1100, and trying to figure it out by working backwards from a collection of modern and ancient French-English dictionaries…all the while ignoring that you have a thousand pages collected from the personal diaries of that family’s children and grandchildren including Elanor of Acquitaine and William III and Adelaide and Hugh Capet. And then, when you come up with a theory you’re fond of, you want to argue that Elanor and Bill and Adelaide and Hugh have it all wrong…?

In all of this, I’m not mentioning the fact that, when I first read the quotes from McGrath about how the Hebrews viewed sedaqa or saddiq, it seemed as if you were trying to argue for the Catholic view of righteousness or justification over and against the Protestant! Certainly I was unable, from what you cited, to find anything that wasn’t amenable to the faith as I know it. I certainly didn’t see how your accusation against Augustine followed from them. But that kind of thing is more up Bryan and David’s alleys, so perhaps they can say more.

But I thought I should comment on your overall procedure and how very backwards it seems to me, preferring what is less-reliable, more prone to scholarly error, over-and-above the very evidence that those scholars ought to be using to check their work.

They ought to say, “If I had been asked to sum up certain theological topics on the basis of my reading of the Bible, I would never have described it the way I find Origen, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius, and the rest of these fellows do. Sure, they disagree — with no clear majority — in some areas or are silent about others: Those are the points where I am forced to rely on my own best reading. And there are some areas where my Bible-reading produces the same resulting expressions of faith as they use…which means I must have read correctly. But in areas where their view disagrees with my own, unanimously or nearly-so, I am forced to conclude that no matter how clever my own exegesis and how ample my scholarly resources, I am probably missing something.”