Today in Westminster Cathedral in London, His Grace Archbishop Vicent Nichols consecrated a new auxiliary bishop, Most Rev. John Sherrington. Archbp. Nichols sermon is online. Pretty good. Give it a listen. You can got to the website of the Diocese of Westminster or listen here.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
From a reader:
Fr. Z, a priest friend of mine, Fr. “GS” wanted me to ask you about a Latin phrase that he thought he came across in The Wanderer. He is big a fan of your articles. At present he is in (an infirmary) and doesn’t have access to a computer.
He’s pretty sure it’s “Nisi crederetis non intellegetes,” and wanted to know if that is accurate and who was the author?
Fr. “GS”‘s physical condition continues to deteriorate and he is suffering from depression so any prayers you can say/offer for him would be appreciated.
I am sure all the readers here will, right now, stop and say an Ave or three for Father.
The phrase at question here is:
“Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis…. You will not understand unless you will have first believed.”
I always have liked the sound of that future perfect. But I digress.
Without getting into a discussion of the relationship of scientia and sapientia, or on the logical priority of faith or intellectual understanding, riveting in itself, St. Augustine used the phrase quite a few times in his works (lib. arb. 1,4; 2,6; mag. 37; f. et symb. 1; diu. qu. 81,2; agon. 14; doctr. chr. 2,17; c. Faust. 4,2; 12,46;s. 118; s. 126, s,139; s. 140;s. 272) and it is to him that we attribute it. To him and to Isaiah 7:9. Augustine was working from a different Latin text of the Old Testament, older than the Vulgate of Jerome, and had what some would say is a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:9. It was at least a variant.
The Hebrew of the passage in question:
וְרֹאשׁ אֶפְרַיִם שֹׁמְרֹון וְרֹאשׁ שֹׁמְרֹון בֶּן־רְמַלְיָהוּ אִם לֹא תַאֲמִינוּ כִּי לֹא תֵאָמֵֽנוּ׃ ס
And the Septuagint text reads:
καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ Εφραιμ Σομορων καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ Σομορων υἱὸς τοῦ Ρομελιου καὶ ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε
The Vulgate says, however, “Nisi credideritis, non permanebitis.” It goes back to that Hebrew word: אמן, “to support, confirm, be faithful, be established, to be certain, to believe in”
So, the phrase, important for Augustine, is based on something that had a variant. Augustine himself knew of and acknowledged the discrepancy, however. In De doctrina christiana 2,17 Augustine is talking about words as signs and the difficulties of understanding some passages in Scripture, which is written with ambiguous words. Augustine says that to help understand Scripture better one has to check the original languages and the context.
One the examples Augustine gives of where things can go wrong is from Isaiah 7:9, which someone translated as “Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis” and another rendered as “Nisi credideritis, non permanebitis“.
Suffice to say that Augustine does some amazing things with his version.
So… there it is. I hope this helped. However, if you don’t quite get all that, trust me. Unless you will have first believed, you won’t understand.
From the site of the SSPX. Here is the salient parts, as far as I can tell. Read the whole thing there.
[…]When I stated on August 15 of this year that we were in agreement on the fact that we did not agree about the Second Vatican Council, I also made sure to explain that when it comes to dogmas, like the doctrine of the Trinity, we are quite obviously in agreement when we find them mentioned in Vatican II. One sentence must not be taken out of its context. It is to the great credit of our theological talks that they seriously examined and elucidated all these doctrinal problems. The joint press release by the Vatican and the Society [Interesting. The press release I saw seemed to come only from the Holy See.] announced that a doctrinal document was delivered to you and that a canonical solution was proposed to you. Can you give us any particulars?
This document is entitled “Doctrinal Preamble”; it was handed over to us for in-depth study. Hence it is confidential, and you will understand why I say no more about it to you. However the term “preamble” does indicate that acceptance of it is a preliminary condition for any canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X on the part of the Holy See.
Q: On the subject of this doctrinal preamble, to the extent that this does not concern its confidentiality, can you confirm that it contains, as announced in the press release, a distinction between what is de fide [essential to the faith]—to which the Society fully adheres—and what is dependent on a pastoral council, as Vatican II itself claimed to be, and thus could be subjected to criticism without calling the faith into question?
FELLAY: […] Today, for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion. […] At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and of the later Magisterium.” There you have it; no more and no less.
Q: […] … there has been talk about a [personal] prelature rather than an ordinariate; it this correct?
FELLAY: As you correctly note, this canonical status is conditional; only later on will we be able to see the exact modality of it; it still remains a subject for discussion.
Q: When do you think you will give your answer to the proposal in the doctrinal preamble?
FELLAY: [… ] But I can assure you that our decision will be made for the good of the Church and of souls. Our Rosary Crusade, which continues for several more months, must be intensified so as to enable us to obtain, through the intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever.
I am all in favor of that Rosary Crusade.
My dear old friend Fr. Jim Livingston, a priest of St. Paul and Minneapolis, has this to say about same-sex attraction.
We are jumping in media res, but this is from the STrib:
Some people can make the gay go away
JAMES LIVINGSTON, Star Tribune
I am glad for Ron Bates that he was able to overcome the guilt and shame that burdened him for years and find that God loves him. (“I tried for years to pray away the gay. It didn’t work,” Sept. 1).
But while I respect Bates’ personal experience, I respectfully disagree with his conclusions about same-sex attraction and traditional marriage.
I am the lead chaplain for the local Courage/Faith in Action group. [OOH-RAH!] Courage/FIA is a confidential support group for people who have same-sex attraction and who want to practice the virtue of chastity as understood by the Catholic Church.
As a confessor and confidant to many men and women who have homosexual attractions, I can say that people are not limited to the choices Bates offers.
The plain truth is that people with same-sex attractions experience them differently.
For some, those desires are deeply rooted and long-lasting, while others experience them as symptoms of something else: loneliness, lack of confidence or frustrated childhood bonding with same-sex parents or peers, just to begin the list.
In other words, some people really do find developmental and environmental roots to their same-sex attractions. And yes, some find release from them through therapy or through the mysterious grace of a spiritual awakening.
Bates was not able to pray away his same-sex attraction, but some people actually do. And others, while unable to avoid homosexual temptations, still live lives of chastity and virtue by the grace of God and with the help of good friends. [A vast discussion which must be had one day is how homosexual “relations” are a distortion of true “friendship”, properly understood.]
Marriage to a woman did not work for Bates, but for this you don’t redefine marriage. And especially for this you don’t tattoo a “GLBT” label onto teenagers who may be simply confused about their life choices. It took Bates 54 years to find his life direction after an imprudent start. [Fr. Livingston and I studied philosophy together, by the way.]
By the same logic, many young people could be trapped for years with a mistaken gay or lesbian identity, goaded on by our disintegrating, sexually untethered culture. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]
Like it or not, [nolens volens… willy nilly…] heterosexual behavior is rooted in human nature and the universal moral law. Both the body and the Bible witness to this truth in their own ways. [Natural Law and Revelation.]
Traditional marriage is rooted in this ancient if inconvenient truth, and it can’t be scolded or legislated away by one misguided generation. History is not and never will be on the side of gay marriage. [I reject the term, “gay”, but Fr. L is right.]
But what about the nerve root question that Bates addresses? What do you do when the “gay” just will not go away and your religious standards and traditions just seem to accuse, to point out what you can never do or be? Are the choices limited to either living in shame or just pitching the moral code out the window? [There is also the choice of suffering for a good reason.]
Many of us can relate in our own way. You were unfaithful and your spouse will not allow you to forget; you have a prison record that shows up every time you try to get a job; you have a weakness for alcohol or spending or food and your life is unmanageable.
Add your own weakness to the list. Regardless of how it got there, you want to move beyond it, but you can’t. Who among us is righteous and qualified to cast the first stone?
St. Paul confided in a letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 12:7-10) that he had a “thorn in his flesh” that wouldn’t go away. What God said to him was not “you’re going to hell” or “you are disordered.”
He said, “My grace is sufficient for you.” In the midst of his weakness, Paul found both steady direction and contentment in his friendship with Christ. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]
My point is this: Whoever you are and whatever insurmountable problem you have, don’t jettison your moral compass. Find friends who will support you in truth and virtue. [ut supra]
Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, “Does anyone here condemn you? Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more” (John 8:10-11). Minnesota citizens, you can support traditional marriage and be a friend to persons with same-sex attractions. It’s not an “either/or” issue.
* * *
The Rev. James Livingston is a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. He is the lead chaplain for the local Faith in Action support group, a prochastity ministry for men and women with same-sex attraction.
WDTPRS kudos to my old friend Fr. Livingston… zadok.
For your “Brick by Brick” file, from the site of the Diocese of Duluth where the His Excellent Most, and I do mean Most Reverend Paul Sirba is Bishop, comes this. I have written about Bp. Sirba before, here.
The Northern Cross – Local News
Deacon gets first taste of solemn high Mass
By Kyle Eller
The Northern CrossWhen Deacon Scott Peters of St. Benedict in Duluth was in deacon formation, he was told repeatedly that you never know just what ministry you will find yourself in. But perhaps the last thing he expected was to be preparing for a solemn high Mass as it would have been celebrated in 1962.
Yet that Mass, with a polyphony choir, a chant schola, servers and another permanent deacon who is coming up from a Twin Cities parish famous for its traditional liturgies to fill the subdeacon role, will take place at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 14, at St. Benedict. The liturgical celebration is the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and it is the anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum,” which liberalized access to the traditional Mass.
“I never thought that I would be working in liturgy, especially the Traditional Latin Mass,” Deacon Peters said. When he was in formation, he was doing social work and thought his ministry might involve that. He says he didn’t even know what the old rite was.
He said the whole thing began with the Duluth Men’s Schola. (Full disclosure: This writer is the founder and director of the schola, which will be singing Sept. 14.) Then Father Eric Hastings, who will celebrate the Sept. 14 Mass, began to offer the simplest version of the Traditional Latin Mass, a “low Mass,” and there were no servers, so Deacon Peters learned how to serve.
From there, [Brick…] things began to develop slowly. The next step was doing the more complicated sung version of the Traditional Latin Mass, a “missa cantata,” culminating in a heavily attended missa cantata last year featuring a polyphony choir. (This year the choir will be singing William Byrd’s “Mass for Four Voices.”)
From there, [… by Brick] the next step was a solemn high Mass, which is vastly more complex — and a vastly more demanding liturgy for a deacon.
Deacon Peters said all along it was something meant to be guided by the Holy Spirit and carried out peacefully.
“There are no agendas, there were no expectations, it was just people who loved liturgy and wanted to be faithful to what the Holy Father was asking of us,” he said.
[…]
Deacon Peters freely admits that his work with the traditional liturgy has changed him as a deacon. “I’m a different deacon than I was before,” he said. He said he is more prayerful and reverent in how he approaches the sacrifice of the Mass, in whichever form it’s celebrated, a sentiment he has also heard from altar servers. [I have often written this about the effect the older Mass on priests who learn it. Why should it be different for deacons?… for lay people?]
He said the approach for this Mass and all the work associated with it is not confrontational or controversial but simply motivated by a desire to hand a “precious treasure” on, as a gift.
“We want it to be an act of love,” he said. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]
He said the parish is inviting all the faithful from the region to attend. Priests and deacons from the diocese are invited to attend the Mass and sit in choir, as there is no concelebration in this form of the Mass. For details, contact the parish at (218) 724-4828.
WDTPRS kudos to Dcn. Peters and Fr. Hastings.
Brick by brick with Pope Benedict!
Today in the Ordinary Form calendar it is the feast of St. John Chrysostom (+407).
I would guide your attention to a little attended to Letter of Pope Benedict XVI about St. John Chrysostom. I wrote about it here.
Also, I will share one of my favorite quote from the saint, so venerated in the East, as in the West.
This is from Homilies on the Statues 1,7:
Paul is not ashamed, and does not blush, after the many and great signs which he had displayed even by a simple word; yet, in writing to Timothy, to bid him take refuge in the healing virtue of wine drinking. Not that to drink wine is shameful. God forbid! For such precepts belong to heretics; […] For [Paul] does not simply say, “use a little wine;” but having said before, “drink no longer water,” he then brings forward his counsel as to the drinking of wine. And this expression “no longer” was a manifest proof, that till then he had drunk water, and on that account was become infirm. But since our discourse has now turned to the subject of blasphemy, I desire to ask one favor of you all, in return for this my address, and speaking with you; which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city [i.e., blaspheming against God by saying that wine is evil.]. And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and
rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them thither; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels! For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God. […]
So, there it is. St. John has taught us today that, should anyone say we shouldn’t drink wine or that it is bad for us or wrong or evil, strike him on the mouth!
Let us all know how that goes.
Happy feast of St. John Chrysostom!
May I suggest nice bottle of wine with supper tonight?
Andrea Tornielli has a piece in his Vatican Insider (English, Italian) about what is supposed to happen tomorrow when the SSPX Superior, Bp. Fellay and his assistants, go the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio in Rome, which houses the CDF and the PCED.
In brief, they will be given a summary of the Holy See’s position on the doctrinal discussions they have had with the SSPX. The Pope, apparently, has seen the document and approved it. The SSPX will have to make a response in some reasonable period of time. As a response they can either ask for clarifications or accept the document.
I lefebvriani, insomma, dovranno prendere posizione: potranno chiedere nuovi chiarimenti alla Santa Sede, ma non potranno più tergiversare. L’accettazione del documento è considerata nei sacri palazzi la condizione imprescindibile per la piena comunione, che prevede anche una sistemazione giuridica per la Fraternità fondata dall’arcivescovo Marcel Lefebvre, probabilmente attraverso la costituzione di un ordinariato simile a quello già previsto per gli anglicani.
The Lefebvrites, in short, have to take a stand: they can ask for new clarifications from the Holy See, but they cannot dawdle any more. Acceptance of the document is considered in the offices of the Holy See to be a indispensable condition for full communion, which also provide for the juridical arrangement for the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, probably through the establishment of an ordinariate similar to the one already provided for the Anglicans.
And we haven’t yet gotten past the next “Assisi Meeting” on 27 October.
There is a great deal of ground to be covered yet, it seems. But the hour is drawing near for some decisive moves.
Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.
14 September is an auspicious day for a next step. Don’t forget in your prayers to pray for a good outcome.
UPDATE:
Our friends at Rorate also wrote about the story, above. However, they have under another entry, a blurb from Le Figaro. Here is part of the Rorate translation, with my emphases and comments.
The great novelty comes from the Roman side. Le Figaro has learned that the Holy See could, for the first time, admit that these aspects fought by the “Integrists” [This is a term commonly used in French and Italian circles for traditionalists of a certain strong stripe. I can’t tell you how many times that word was shouted at me while in seminary in Rome. And I wasn’t.] are not considered as “essential” to the Catholic faith to the point of keeping outside the Church those who do not admit them. And that what is foundational to the Catholic faith for twenty centuries is the sole [aspect] considered fundamental for communion with the Holy See, and not the interpretation from the last Council to this day.
All along I have been saying it. All along.
People of good will can differ on theological points and still remain in unity.
People of good will can attain unity even when they disagree on matters which are by no means clear.
The history of the Church’s great Councils underscores this fact.
How many times have I written that the so-called “Feeneyites” were able to be in union with the Church but without having to abjure their position about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The theological problems the SSPX has with the Second Vatican Council or the Holy See or anything else, don’t necessarily need to be the absolute obstruction to unity.
Questions of the role of the Church in the modern world or religious liberty are really hard. There is room for debate and disagreement. It is possible for people of good will to disagree about whether or not the fruits of Vatican II were all wonderful. There is a precedent for closer union even when we consider the theological concerns some SSPXers might be harboring.
Slowly but sure the climate has been changing. Hopefully we have come to a point where hearts can also be moved to open. And there must be a willingness on the part of the SSPX to submit to the Holy Father’s authority… which he is exercising in very good will in their regard.
Again, it is possible for people of good will to disagree on very hard questions and still be in union.
From Reuters:
Exclusive: Orthodox leader urges Vatican to resolve dispute
By Philip Pullella | Reuters – 23 hrs agoROME (Reuters) – A senior leader of the Russian Orthodox Church on Monday called on the Vatican to do more to resolve outstanding disputes so that a meeting between Pope Benedict and the Russian Patriarch could take place.
In an exclusive interview with Reuters, Russian Orthodox Metropolitan (Archbishop) Hilarion, urged the Vatican to show “some signs” of readiness to resolve a decades-long conflict between Orthodox and Catholics in Ukraine that has been blocking a meeting of the two world religious leaders.
An unprecedented meeting between Benedict and Patriarch Kirill could begin to heal the 1,000-year-old rift between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity, which split in the Great Schism of 1054.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the Russian Orthodox Church has accused Catholics of using their new freedoms to poach souls from the Orthodox, a charge the Vatican denies.
[Pay attention:] But the biggest bone of contention concerns the fate of many church properties that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered confiscated from Eastern Rite Catholics, who worship in an Orthodox rite but owe their allegiance to Rome.
Stalin gave the property to the Russian Orthodox Church but after the fall of communism, the Eastern Rite Catholics took back more than 500 churches, mostly in Western Ukraine. [Get that? The property was taken from Catholics by Stalin. Stalin gave it to the Orthodox. At the fall of the Soviet regime, Catholics got their property back. But Hilarion wants the Catholics to give the property to the Orthodox, or there can’t be a meeting with the Pope. Did I get that right? Am I wrong?]
“As soon as we have this understanding, we will be ready to begin preparations for such a meeting,” he said. [So, it’s about the money?]
BIGGEST OBSTACLE
Hilarion said the dispute remained the major problem in Catholic-Orthodox relations and the main obstacle to a meeting.
[…]
Read the rest there.
I really hope there can be a meeting. I really do.
But… are these the proper conditions for a meeting?
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them thither; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels! For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God. […]
“Not very much was done or is being done in order to solve this problem,” said Hilarion, who is head of the external relations department of the 165-million-member Russian Orthodox Church and one of the closest aides to Patriarch Kirill.