From divino afflatu, On psalms

From divino afflatu by St. Pius X:

The collection of psalms found in Scripture, composed as it was under divine inspiration, has, from the very beginnings of the Church, shown a wonderful power of fostering devotion among Christians as they offer to God a continuous sacrifice of praise, the harvest of lips blessing his name. Following a custom already established in the Old Law, the psalms have played a conspicuous part in the sacred liturgy itself, and in the divine office. Thus was born what Basil calls the voice of the Church, that singing of psalms, which is the daughter of that hymn of praise (to use the words of our predecessor, Urban VIII) which goes up unceasingly before the throne of God and of the Lamb, and which teaches those especially charged with the duty of divine worship, as Athanasius says, the way to praise God, and the fitting words in which to bless him. Augustine expresses this well when he says: God praised himself so that man might give him fitting praise; because God chose to praise himself man found the way in which to bless God.

The psalms have also a wonderful power to awaken in our hearts the desire for every virtue. Athanasius says: Though all Scripture, both old and new, is divinely inspired and has its use in teaching, as we read in Scripture itself, yet the Book of Psalms, like a garden enclosing the fruits of all the other books, produces its fruits in song, and in the process of singing brings forth its own special fruits to take their place beside them. In the same place Athanasius rightly adds: The psalms seem to me to be like a mirror, in which the person using them can see himself, and the stirrings of his own heart; he can recite them against the background of his own emotions. Augustine says in his Confessions: How I wept when I heard your hymns and canticles, being deeply moved by the sweet singing of your Church. Those voices flowed into my ears, truth filtered into my heart, and from my heart surged waves of devotion. Tears ran down, and I was happy in my tears.

Indeed, who could fail to be moved by those many passages in the psalms which set forth so profoundly the infinite majesty of God, his omnipotence, his justice and goodness and clemency, too deep for words, and all the other infinite qualities of his that deserve our praise? Who could fail to be roused to the same emotions by the prayers of thanksgiving to God for blessings received, by the petitions, so humble and confident, for blessings still awaited, by the cries of a soul in sorrow for sin committed? Who would not be fired with love as he looks on the likeness of Christ, the redeemer, here so lovingly foretold? His was the voice Augustine heard in every psalm, the voice of praise, of suffering, of joyful expectation, of present distress.


Sent from my iPhone

Thoughts on Person, Relation, Family

This post is really just going to be a handful of quotes and thoughts.

Friendship seems to hold states together, and lawgivers apparently devote more attention to it than to justice. For concord seems to be something similar to friendship, and concord is what they most strive to attain, while they do their best to expel faction, the enemy of concord. When people are friends, they have no need of justice, but when they are just, they need friendship in addition. In fact, the just in the fullest sense is regarded as constituting an element of friendship. Friendship is noble as well as necessary: we praise those who love their friends and consider the possession of many friends a noble thing. And further, we believe of our friends that they are good men. (Nicomachean Ethics, 8.1, at the beginning of Aristotle's consideration of friendship)

Relativity toward the other constitutes the human person. The human person is the event or being of relativity. (Joseph Ratzinger, Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology)

"Pope Paul VI noted that “the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking”. He was making an observation, but also expressing a wish: a new trajectory of thinking is needed in order to arrive at a better understanding of the implications of our being one family; interaction among the peoples of the world calls us to embark upon this new trajectory, so that integration can signify solidarity rather than marginalization. Thinking of this kind requires a deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation. This is a task that cannot be undertaken by the social sciences alone, insofar as the contribution of disciplines such as metaphysics and theology is needed if man's transcendent dignity is to be properly understood." (Pope Benedict, Caritas in Veritate)

The third reason [against marrying blood relations] is, because this would hinder a man from having many friends: since through a man taking a stranger to wife, all his wife's relations are united to him by a special kind of friendship, as though they were of the same blood as himself. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16): "The demands of charity are most perfectly satisfied by men uniting together in the bonds that the various ties of friendship require, so that they may live together in a useful and becoming amity; nor should one man have many relationships in one, but each should have one." (Summa, II-II.159.9)


All right, those are all the quotes I wanted to bring together. The one quote from Aristotle has long been on my mind since it sounds odd when first heard: legislators care most about friendship. When we think of lawmakers, this is not the first thing that comes to mind, but giving it a few minutes of thoughts, that certainly seems like the way to go. Laws bring about justice for the sake of this higher good, friendship. If everything were just but nobody had friends, that would be a very poor state. A state with many friendships and strong friendships would seem to be the ideal.

The Ratzinger quote is one that I have puzzled over for sometime. Is he saying that a person is relation, or even that relation is somehow prior to a person being a person? Those statements both seem odd. Yet it is true that every persons is potentially related (to all other persons) and even necessarily actually related to at least two persons upon coming into existence. It is also the case that only persons can have the kinds of relations that are noble (i.e. friendship). So the capacity for friendship (I will call this relation, meaning this limited sense) is a property of the person, in the sense that only persons can be friends and all persons can be friends.

I want to note here that person does not name a nature, so it is interesting that I can point out a property. There are other properties (having intellect and will), so perhaps its not too odd, but I did want it to be noticed that these are not properties of a nature, but of something else.

These relations really seems to be what a person is made for. Aristotle speaks very highly of friendship, saying that life would not be worth living apart from it, yet goes on to say that our happiness consists in a contemplative act. His argument for this is from our nature, to which it is proper to know. That contemplation/seeing is certainly our happiness is beyond doubt. Yet there is more to be said, and what is seen is also to be considered. He says (I'm being vaguer than he) that the object of contemplation must be the highest thing for it to constitute our happiness. Yet in the two preceding books he talked about the glory of a friend and how one reason friends are so great is that one can contemplate the highest things in his friend. So it seems the object of the perfect sight is likely to be a friend.

Toward the end (this is just my memory) he says the object are the gods. Now surely, something divine is the highest object, right? I think so. Yet to see the divine, not only as other or as higher, but as friend is surely a far greater happiness. I do not know what Aristotle could have known about the personality of God, yet I think he would agree that to behold a friend is better than not to behold a friend, and that to behold God is better than not to; therefore, to behold God as friend is the highest of all.

Now it is a person that has a relationship. This is most clearly seen in the Christological disputes that took place. We call Mary the Mother of God because she bore Christ, a person who is divine. She did not beget a nature, but a person. I was not born of "parenthood", but of my mother and my father who became related to me when I was conceived.

(I wish my thinking was more complete and orderly on this. I'm really just writing where my mind goes, but I'm leaving out tons of stuff that I think is worth saying...)

There was a TIME magazine cover recently about how childless couples seem to be happier than those without children. Just about everyone I know was disgusted by this cover. Nope, I haven't read the article, but here is the cover: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130812,00.html "The Childfree Life: When having it all means not having children." Someone seems to be missing something. That most parents would give away everything they have to care for their child should be a sign that a child is something very special, something not entirely understood, but something loved--someone loved. It's a person! And the dignity/worth/awesomeness of this person is most made manifest through relation. It's nice that every child is born within at least two relations (this reminds me of a board game called Catan, where everyone automatically starts with 2 points; and yes, I just gave nature a compliment). A developing person is one that is learning to form and grow in relationships with others. If a child learned to eat, drink, dress himself, sleep, work, pay bills, study and entertain himself, but did not have any relationships with others, it would be safe to say that something went wrong, the child had not yet finished growing.

In the context of a family, one is immediately tied to others by familial bonds. First are the parents already mentioned several times, and then there are the siblings. I have trouble imagining life without siblings. They are persons who have a common origin, common experiences, often common likes and dislikes, common appearances, a common name, and common relatives! Whereas this can take many years to develop with another persons, in the context of the family, one is born into it. How wonderful! Meeting cousins is always wonderful, because there is at once a newness and a familiarity. This kind of relationship is so good that St. Thomas in the quote about talks about how marrying those of another family is wonderful, precisely because it increases the number of relationships like this.

I had a thought regarding the childless. Aristotle says that the ideal state is one that has as its end the common good. Less perfect states are those that aim at less common goods. Another premise, a common good is one's own good. All right, now someone who does not have children (or at least younger relatives or younger friends) will seem to have little or no interest for laws unless they affect someone of their own age group. This would be detrimental to a state which is to last from one generation to the next. On the other hand, those who have descendants (I read of an Israeli woman who recently died--she had 1400 living descendants) will be concerned that laws are framed such that they will benefit not only their own generation, but even those to come.

This makes me want to read The Republic again, paying special attention to the state invented there. Socrates suggests having children and wives in common, and yet by doing this the special relationships among them would be diminished. This is why Marx's plan leads to the destruction of the person. After reading that again, I will want to read book 2 of Aristotle's Politics where he criticizes it. Here is one line from chapter 3: "Each of the citizens comes to have a thousand sons, though not as an individual, but each in a similar fashion the son of any of them; hence all will slight them in similar fashion." And another: "It is better to have a cousin of one's own than to have a son in the sense indicated." Oh, and another! "It is impossible to avoid some who suspect who their brothers, parents, etc. actually are." That is to say, we are provided by such relations by nature.

There's some great stuff here. A quote from chapter 4: "We suppose affection to be the greatest of good things for cities." and "There are two things above all which make human beings cherish and feel affection, what is one's own and what is dear."

Another brief note. Some will say "Why are you looking to Aristotle's Politics for wisdom about political life and family relations? Doesn't he encourage slavery?" Two answers: one, he takes slavery as a given and then tries to understand its place within the whole of political and economic life. (I sometimes want to point out that the tasks done by slaves have not gone away: they still need to be done. Though I will grant that slavery and employed labor are not the same thing. That can be a long conversation for later..) The second encouragement to study the Politics comes from Blessed John Paul II! Here's a quote: "Returning to Aristotle, we should add that, as well as the Nicomachean Ethics, he also left us a work on social ethics. It is entitled Politics. Here, without addressing questions concerning the concrete strategies of political life, Aristotle limits himself to defining the ethical principles on which any just political system should be based. Catholic social teaching owes much to Aristotle’s Politics and has acquired particular prominence in modern times, thanks to the issue of labor." So that's encouraging. Read the whole of that chapter here: http://www.jknirp.com/mandi.htm

Rereading that chapter just now, I noticed how much the Blessed Pope talks about freedom, which he also defines: "Freedom, for Aristotle, is a property of the will which is realized through truth. It is given to man as a task to be accomplished. There is no freedom without truth." How wonderful! Freedom is often identified with autonomy, being able to do what one wants without anyone's help or burden; the freedom John Paul speaks of is something which is open to others because it is open to truth. The Pope mentions many documents about such freedom and how it stands to human relations, especially noting Gaudium et Spes. I'm putting that at the top of my queue now...

Speaking of relation, my sister coincidentally posted a status on Facebook that seems capture something of what I'm trying to get at:
"While over the summer I was exposed to sickening amounts of profanity and blows of blatant sexism, these same men could become the most sensitive and heartfelt when talking about one subject: thier wives. Like an excited child talking about Christmas, each one would talk about her unique, timeless beauty, often showing me pictures. They would tell of her sweetness, intelligence, her motherly wisdom. Their love was so great for their wives. With overtime there is rejoicing, since they are already away from home and their wives aren't at the hotel. Weekend work? A silence of sorrow. This marvelous sweetness and passion turned an awful day around, restoring a little hope in love. Thank you. And yet, they didn't share for my sake; they just couldn't keep from talking about the one they love."

Yep, that sums it up. 

Reminder to write

Reminder to write

I'm reading Isaiah now and am noticing how God relates his role as Creator with his role as Redeemer, and his oneness with his call to all nations. Also, here is a post that is worth reading:

http://monsalvaesche.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/thoughts-conceived-during-a-long-walk-through-a-california-oak-savannah-after-reading-too-much-teilhard-de-chardin/


Sent from my iPhone

Thoughts on the Father; Thomas on Matthew 24:36

No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (John 1:18)

All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.  (Matthew 11:27)

The only notion that pertains to the Father is "unbegotten", which is negative. The Son reveals the Father, but the Father is otherwise hidden. The Son and the Holy Spirit proceed and are sent. The Father does not proceed and is not sent. We participate in Christ's sonship by the sending of the Holy Spirit, but is any creature properly said to participate in the Father? A couple verses:

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named. (Ephesians 3:14-15)

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. (Matthew 23:8-10)

The Ephesians verse says that it is from the Father that every family is named. So it seems every family has some participation in the Father. Yet there is the verse that says to call no man father, as if this name is incommunicable. Yet we do use this name to speak of our earthly and spiritual fathers; even Christ and St. Paul do this.

"The Father, when known by anyone in time, is not said to be sent; for there is no one whence He is, or from whom He proceeds." (St. Augustine, De Trinitate 4:20)

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are present in all of us who possess grace, yet only the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be sent. For to be sent is to proceed, yet the Father proceeds not. By sending the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father is present in us.

"The Lord said to my Lord." (Psalm 110) Pope Benedict (following Tertullian and many others) see how this verse points to the Trinity. "The Lord" is the Father and he speaks to "my Lord" who is the Son, and I who sing this Psalm am inspired by the Holy Spirit and on this account am able to bear witness to this eternal conversation.  The Lord said to my Lord. It is by sending the Holy Spirit into words of the prophets, that the speech of the Father is made known. He remains in complete mystery, never coming down from his dwelling place, yet he sends his Spirit on the waters and sends his only Son, and by this he is present without being sent. Present without being sent. Who is he?

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17)

When he speaks from the heavens, he speaks of his Son. Later, at the scene of the Transfiguration, he says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." (Matthew 17:5)

Listen to the Son and we will hear the Father. The voice that came from heaven: What is it? It is (if I am not mistaken) a creature which bears testimony to the Father, yet the Father is not sent as these words are heard. Rather it is a sound that points to the Christ, the only one who shows us the Father. And here is a puzzle verse:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36)

Surely he speaks of the Son with respect to his human knowledge? I will seek St. Thomas' commentary on the matter...

Sed est quaestio hic, secundum Hieronymum, quia dicit Marcus XIII, 26: nec etiam filius hominis; ex quo videtur Arius suam haeresim confirmare, quia si pater scit quod nescit filius, ergo maior est eo.
But a question is here, according to Jerome, because Mark 13:26 says "nor even the Son of man", from which Arius seems to confirms his heresy. Because if the Father knows what the Son does not know, there he is greater.
Ideo potest dici quod filius scit, et quod dies iudicii secundum aliquam rationem determinatus est, et quidquid determinatur a Deo, suo verbo aeterno determinatur; ideo impossibile est quin verbum sciat.
Therefore it is able to be said that the Son knows, both that the day of judgment was determined according to some account, and that whatever is determined by God is determined in/by his eternal word. Therefore it is impossible that the Son know not.
Sed quare dicitur nescire? Augustinus et Hieronymus dicunt quod consuetus modus loquendi est dicere nescire aliquid, quando non facit illud scire; sicut dicitur Gen. XXII, v. 12: nunc cognovi quod timeas Deum; idest, cognoscere feci; ideo dicitur filius nescire, quia non facit scire.
But why is he said not to know? Augustine and Jerome says that it is a fit way of speaking to say that he does not know something when he does not make to know it [awkward]. Just as is said in Genesis 22:12, "Now I have known that you fear God," that is, I have made to know; therefore it is said that the Son does not know because he does not make to know.
Alio modo dicit Origenes quod Christus et Ecclesia sunt sicut caput et corpus, quia sicut caput et corpus sunt sicut una persona, ita Christus et Ecclesia. Sed Christus aliquando accipit formam Ecclesiae, ut in illo Ps. XXI, v. 2: Deus, Deus meus, respice in me, unde quod dicitur quod Christus non scit, intelligitur quod Ecclesia non scit: unde dominus, Act. I, 7: non est vestrum scire tempora vel momenta et cetera.
In another way, Origen says that Christ and the Church are just as head and body, because just as the head and the body are one person, so Christ and the Church. But Christ somewhere takes the form of the Church (just as in Psalm 22, "My God, my God, look at me, why have you forsaken me?"). Whence is said that Christ knows not, but it is understood that the Church knows not. Whence the Lord says in Acts 1:7, "It is not yours to know the time or the moment."
Notate quod dicit Augustinus quod ipse volebat ostendere ex quibusdam signis, quod adventus iudicii non possit sciri determinate, quia non determinat quodcumque tempus.
Note that Augustine says that he wants to show from certain signs, that the the coming of judgment is not able to be known determinately, because he does not determine any time. ...[he goes on and talks about the ages of the world]

It is interesting to see how Origen interprets the text. He uses one of the seven rules that St. Augustine lays down toward the end of On Christian Doctrine, about attending to the head and the body. Oh well, more thoughts later.

Pope Francis Catechism

"Do not “water down” your faith in Jesus Christ. The Beatitudes: What must we do, Father? Look, read the Beatitudes: that will do you good. If you want to know what you actually have to do, read Matthew Chapter 25, which is the standard by which we will be judged. With these two things you have the action plan: the Beatitudes and Matthew 25. You do not need to read anything else. I ask you this with all my heart." (Pope Francis, Thursday 25 July 2013, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130725_gmg-argentini-rio_en.html )

Matthew 5
The Beatitudes
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. 8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Matthew 25Parable of the Wise and Foolish Maidens 1 "Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' 7 Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' 9 But the wise replied, 'Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.' 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.' 12 But he replied, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.' 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.  

Parable of the Talents
14 "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. 17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.' 

Judgment of the Nations
31 "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

St. Thomas' Division of Scripture

[I'm taking this text, with a few minor corrections, from http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Principium.htm (I didn't see a copyright...). My reason for copying it here is to manifest the divisions, by formatting them with bullet points. Just a small visual aid.]

This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that is for ever. All that keep it shall come to life: but they that have forsaken it, to death. — Baruch 4.1

According to Augustine in On Christian Doctrine 4:12 one skilled in speech should so speak as
to teach, to delight and to change; that is,

• to teach the ignorant, 
• to delight the bored 
• and to change the lazy. 

The speech of Sacred Scripture does these three things in the fullest manner. 

• For it firmly teaches with its eternal truth. Psalm 118:89: ‘Your word, O Lord, stands firm for ever as heaven.’ 
• And it sweetly delights with its pleasantness. Psalm 118.103: ‘How sweet are your words to my mouth!’ 
• And it efficaciously changes with its authority. Jeremiah 23:29: ‘Are my words not like fire, says the Lord?’

Therefore in the text above Sacred Scripture is commended for three things.

• First, for the authority with which it changes: ‘This is the book of the commandments of God.’ 
• Second, for the eternal truth with which it instructs, when it says, ‘and the law that is for ever’. 
• Third, for the usefulness with which it entices, when it says, ‘All that keep it shall come to life.’

The authority of this Scripture is shown in three things.

• First, its origin, because God is its origin. Hence it says, the commandments of God’. Baruch 3.37: ‘He found out all the way of knowledge.’ Hebrews 2:3: ‘For it was first announced by the Lord and was confirmed unto us.’ Such an author is infallibly to be believed, both 
• on account of the condition of his nature, because he is truth; John 14:4: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.’ 
• And on account of his fullness of knowledge; Romans 11:33: ‘Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!’ 
• And also on account of the power of the words; Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and efficient and keener than any two-edged sword.’
• Second, it is shown to be efficacious by the necessity with which it is imposed. Mark 16.16: ‘He who does not believe shall be condemned.’ The truth of Sacred Scripture is proposed in the manner of a precept, hence the text says, ‘the commandments of God’. These commandments 
• direct the intellect through faith: ‘You believe in God, believe also in me’, John 14:1; 
• inform the affections with love: ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another’, John 15:12; 
• and induce to action: ‘Do this and you shall live’, Luke 10:28.
• Third, it is shown to be efficacious by the uniformity of its sayings, because all who teach the sacred doctrine teach the same thing. 1 Corinthians 15:11: ‘Whether then it is I or they, so we preach, and so you have believed.’ And this is necessary because 
• they all had one teacher. Matthew 23:8: ‘Your teacher is one.’ 
• And they had one spirit, ‘Have we not walked in the same spirit?’ 
• and one love from above, ‘Now the multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul’ (Acts 4:32). Therefore, as a sign of the uniformity of doctrine, it says significantly, ‘This is the book.’

The truth of this teaching of Scripture is immutable and eternal, hence the words, ‘and the law that is for ever’. Luke 21.33: ‘Heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall not pass away.’ This law will endure for ever because of three things:

• First, because of the power of the lawgiver. Isaiah 14:27: ‘For the Lord of hosts hath decreed, and who can disannul it.’ 
• Second, on account of his immutability. Malachi 3:6: ‘For I am the Lord and I do not change’; Numbers 23:19: ‘God is not a man, that he should lie: nor like the son of man, that he should be changed.’ 
• Third, because of the truth of the law. Psalm 118:86: ‘All your commandments are faithful.’ Proverbs 12:19: ‘The lip of truth shall be steadfast for ever.’ 3 Ezra 4:38: ‘Truth remains and gathers strength eternally.’

The usefulness of this Scripture is the greatest: ‘I am the Lord your God who teaches you profitable things.’ Hence our text continues: ‘All who keep it shall come to life.’ Which indeed is threefold:

• First it is the life of grace, to which Sacred Scripture disposes. John 6:64: ‘The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’ For through this life the spirit lives in God. Galatians 2:20: ‘It is now no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me.’ 
• Second is the life of justice consisting in works, to which Sacred Scripture directs. Psalm 118.93: ‘Your decrees I will never forget, for by them you have given me life.’ 
• Third is the life of glory which Sacred Scripture promises and to which it leads. John 6.69: ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of everlasting life.’ John 20:31: ‘But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.’

The Division of Sacred Scripture
Sacred Scripture leads to this life in two ways, by commanding and by helping.

• Commanding through the mandates which it proposes, which belong to the Old Testament. Sirach 24-33: ‘Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice.’ 
• Helping, through the gift of grace which the lawgiver dispenses, which pertains to the New Testament. Both of these are touched on in John 1:17: ‘For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’

Hence the whole of Sacred Scripture is divided into two principal parts, the Old and New Testaments, which are mentioned in Matthew 13:52: ‘So then every Scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings forth from his storeroom things new and old.’ And Song of Songs 7:13: ‘In our gates are all fruits, the new and the old, my beloved, I have kept for you.’
The Old Testament is divided according to the teaching of the commandments, for the commandment is of two kinds, the binding and the warning.

• The binding is the command of a king who can punish transgressors. Proverbs 20:2: ‘As the roaring of a lion, so also is the dread of a king.’ 
• But a warning is the precept of a father who must teach. Sirach 7:25: ‘Do you have you children? Instruct them.’ 

The precept of a king is of two kinds,

• one which establishes the laws, 
• another which induces to observance of the law, which is customarily done through his heralds and ambassadors. 

Thus it is that three kinds of command are distinguished,

• that of the king, 
• that of the herald 
• and that of the father. 

On this basis the Old Testament is subdivided into three parts, according to Jerome in his prologue to the Book of Kings.

• The first part is contained in the law which is proposed by the king himself. Isaiah 33:22: ‘For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King.’
• The second is contained in the Prophets who were, as it were, ambassadors and heralds of God, speaking to the people in the person of God, and urging them to observance of the law. Haggai 11:13: ‘And Haggai, the messenger of the Lord, as one of the messengers of the Lord, spoke.’
• The third is contained in the works of hagiographers, writers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and spoke as for themselves and not for God. Hence they are called saintly writers because they were writers of the sacred, agios meaning ‘sacred’, and graphia meaning ‘scripture’. Thus the precepts found in them are paternal. As is evident in Proverbs 6:20: ‘My son, keep the commandments of your father.’
• Jerome mentions a fourth kind of book, namely, the apocryphal, so called from apo, that is, ‘especially’, and cryphon, that is, ‘obscure’, because there is doubt about their contents and authors. The Catholic Church includes among the books of Sacred Scripture some whose teachings are not doubted, but whose authors are. Not that the authors are unknown, but because these men were not of known authority. Hence they do not have force from the authority of the authors but rather from their reception by the Church. Because there is the same manner of speaking in them and in the hagiographical works, they are for now counted among them.

The first part, which contains the law, is divided into two parts, insofar as there are two kinds of law, public and private.

• A private law is imposed for the observance of one person or one family. Such law is contained in Genesis, as is evident from the first precept given to man, ‘But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil ‘you shalt not eat’ (2:17), and to Noah, ‘Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat’ (9:4), and to Abraham, ‘And again God said to Abraham: And you therefore shalt keep my covenant, and your descendants after you in their generations’ (17:9).
• The public law is that which is given to the people. For the divine law was given to the Jewish people through a mediator, because it was not fitting that the people should receive it immediately from God. Deuteronomy 5:5: ‘I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and You and at that time to show you his words.’ Galatians 3.19: ‘What then was the Law? It was enacted on account of transgressors, being delivered by angels through a mediator.’Thus a twofold level is found in legislation. 
• First, when the law comes from the Lord to the mediator, and this pertains to three books, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Hence we frequently read in them, ‘God spoke to Moses.’ 
• Second, when the law is given to the people by the mediator, and this pertains to Deuteronomy, as is evident from its very beginning, ‘These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel.’

These three books are distinguished by the three things in which a people should be ordered.

• First, precepts bearing on equity of judgement, and this is found in Exodus. 
• Second, in sacraments with respect to the establishment of worship, and this in Leviticus. 
• And third, in offices, with respect to the administration of the community, and this in Numbers.

The second part, which is the prophets, is subdivided insofar as a herald ought to do two things. He should

• manifest the beneficence of the king, so that men will be inclined to obey, 
• and he should declare the edict of the law.

There is a threefold divine beneficence that the prophets expose to the people.

• First, the effect of heredity, and this in Joshua, of which Sirach 46:1 says, ‘Valiant in war was Joshua.’ 
• Second, the destruction of armies, and this in the book of Judges, of whose destruction Psalm 82:10 says, ‘Do to them as to Midian, as to Sisera.’ 
• Third, the exultation of the people, which is twofold, namely 
• the private exaltation of one person, and this in Ruth, 
• and a public which is of the whole people, and this in Kings, which benefice God grants to them. Ezekiel 16.13: ‘And you were adorned with gold and silver.’ For these books, according to Jerome, are placed in the rank of prophets.

In other books which are commonly said to be of the prophets, the prophets posed divine edicts for the observance of the law. And this is said,

• first, in general, in the major prophets who were sent to the whole people and called for the observance of the whole law; 
• second, in particular, and this in the minor prophets, different ones of whom were sent for different reasons to special tribes, as Hosea to the ten tribes, Joel to the old men of Israel, Jonah to the Ninevites, and so with the rest.

The major prophets differ according to the different ways the prophets sought to lead the people to observance of the law, namely, cajoling by the promise of benefits, frightening with the threat of punishment, arguing by condemnation of sins. Although each of these is found in every prophet,  

• Isaiah chiefly cajoles, as is said in Sirach 48-27: ‘With a great spirit he saw the things that are come to pass at last, and comforted the mourners in Sion.’  
• Jeremiah chiefly warns, hence Jeremiah 3 8-4: ‘He weakened the hands of the men of war that remain in this city.’ 
• But Ezekiel argues and scolds. Ezekiel 16-3: ‘Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.’

They can be distinguished in another way, insofar as  

• Isaiah chiefly foretells the mystery of the Incarnation, which is why he is read during the time of Advent by the Church, 
• and Jeremiah the mystery of the Passion, hence he is read in Passiontide, 
• and Ezekiel the mystery of the Resurrection, hence his book finishes with the raising of the bones and the repair of the temple.  
• Daniel, however, is included among the prophets insofar as he predicted future events in a prophetic spirit; although he did not speak to the people in the person of the Lord, he dealt with the divinity of Christ. Thus the four prophets answer to the four evangelists, and also to the call to judgement.

The third part, which contains the hagiographic and the apocryphal books, is subdivided according to the two ways fathers instruct their sons in virtue, namely, by word and deed, since in morals examples are no less important than words.

• Some teach by deed alone, 
• some by word alone, 
• some by word and deed.

By deed, however, in two ways.

• One, instructing about the future by warning, and this in Joshua, whom Jerome places among the hagiographs. For although one is a prophet because of the gift of prophecy, this is not his office, because he was not sent by God to prophesy to the people. Hence what is said in Wisdom 8:8 can be applied to the prophet: ‘She knows signs and wonders before they are done.’ 
• In another way, speaking of past events as examples of virtue. There are four principal virtues, namely 
• justice, which serves the common good, an example of which is given in Chronicles, in which the condition of a whole people who were governed with justice is described. 
• The second is temperance, an example of which is given in Judith, which is why Jerome says, ‘Take Judith as an example of the chaste widow.’ Judith 15. 11: ‘For you have acted manfully, and your heart has been strengthened, because you loved chastity.’ 
• Third is fortitude, which has two attributes. 
• To attack, and an example of this is found in the Book of Maccabees; 
• and to endure, and an example of this is found in Tobit 2:12: ‘Now this trial the Lord therefore permitted to happen to him, that an example might be given to posterity of his patience.’ 
• The fourth is prudence, 
• by which dangers are avoided, and an example of this is given in Ezra. For in that book we are shown how Ezra and Nehemiah and other princes prudently guarded against the plots of enemies wishing to impede the building of the temple and the city. 
• It also pertains to prudence wisely to repel the violent, and an example of this is given in Esther, where it is shown how Mordecai and Esther handled the deceptions of the most powerful Haman.

The hagiographical and apocryphal books which instruct by word, are divided insofar as words work in a twofold way to instruct,

• in one way, by asking for the gift of wisdom. Wisdom 7:7: ‘Wherefore I have wished, and understanding was given me, and I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came upon me.’ This is how the Psalter instructs, speaking to God in prayer. 
• In another way, by teaching wisdom, and this in two ways according to the twofold work of wisdom, 
• one of which is to expose the liar, and Job who drove out errors by way of disputation exhibits this. Job 13.3-4: ‘But yet I will speak to the Almighty and I desire to reason with God, having first shown that you are forgers of lies and maintainers of perverse opinions.’ 
• The other work is not to lie about what it knows, and thus we are instructed in a twofold way, because either wisdom is commended to us, and this in the book of Wisdom, or the precepts of wisdom are proposed, and this in the three books of Solomon, which indeed differ according to the three grades of virtue that Plotinus, in Enneads 1.1.2.2-7, distinguishes, since the precepts of wisdom ought to concern only the acts of virtue. 
• In the first grade, according to him, are political virtues, whereby a man moderately uses the things of this world and lives among men, and this in the Proverbs. 
• In the second grade are the purgative virtues, whereby a man regards the world with contempt, and this in Ecclesiastes, which aims at contempt of the world, as is clear from Jerome’s prologue. 
• In the third grade are the virtues of the purged soul, whereby a man, wholly cleansed of worldly cares, delights in the contemplation of wisdom alone, and this is found in the Song of Songs. 
• In the fourth grade are the exemplar virtues existing in God, concerning which precepts of wisdom are not given but are rather derived from them.

In word and in deed Sirach instructs. Hence the precepts of wisdom in praise of fathers close his book, as is clear in Chapter 44 and after.

The New Testament, which is ordered to eternal life not only through precepts but also through the gifts of grace, is divided into three parts.

• In the first the origin of grace is treated, in the Gospels. 
• in the second, the power of grace, and this in the epistles of Paul, hence he begins in the power of the Gospel, in Romans 1:16 saying, ‘For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.’ 
• In the third, the execution of the aforesaid virtues is treated, and this in the rest of the books of the New Testament.

Christ is the origin of grace. John 1:16-17: ‘And of his fullness we have all received, grace for grace. For the Law was given through Moses: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’ In Christ a twofold nature is to be considered,

• a divine, and the Gospel of John is chiefly concerned with this, hence he begins, ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ 
• And a human, and the other Gospels treat chiefly of this, and they are distinguished according to the threefold dignity that belongs to the man Christ. 
• With respect to his royal honour, Matthew speaks. Hence in the beginning of his Gospel he shows that Christ descended from kings and was adored by the Magi kings. 
• With respect to his prophetic honour, Mark speaks, hence he begins with the preaching of the Gospel. 
• With respect to his priestly dignity, Luke speaks, and he begins with the temple and the priesthood and ends his Gospel in the temple, and frequently returns to the temple, as the Gloss says about Luke 2.46: ‘And they found him sitting in the temple in the midst of the teachers.’

In another way,

• Matthew might be said to speak of Christ chiefly with respect to the mystery of the Incarnation, and thus he is depicted in the figure of a man.  
• Luke, with respect to the mystery of the Passion, and therefore he is depicted as a bull, which is an animal to be immolated.  
• Mark, with respect to the victory of the Resurrection, and thus he is depicted as a lion. 
• But John, who soars to the heights of his divinity, is depicted as an eagle.

[The part dealing with the power of grace as exemplified in the epistles of Paul is missing from the text, but this outline is given at the beginning of his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.]
The execution of the power of grace is shown in the progress of the Church, in which there are three things to consider.

• First, the beginning of the Church, and this is treated in the Acts of the Apostles, hence Jerome says, in his preface to the Pentateuch, that ‘The Acts of the Apostles seem to give the bare history of the birth and to clothe the infant Church.’ 
• Second, the progress of the Church, and to this is ordered the apostolic instruction of the canonical epistles. 
• Third, the end of the Church, with which the whole content of Scripture concludes in the Apocalypse, with the spouse in the abode of Jesus Christ sharing the life of glory, to which Jesus Christ himself conducts, and may he be blessed for ever and ever. Amen.

The four senses of Scripture

I found what I was looking for. Words like anagogical are intimidating most of the time (thankfully tropological doesn't show up here), but the more I read Scripture, the more I see that these senses are really present. They help manifest the unity of Scripture in pointing to Christ.

Original text here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."⁸³

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

• 1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.⁸⁴
• 2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".⁸⁵
• 3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.⁸⁶

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.⁸⁷

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."⁸⁸

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.⁸⁹

Dei Verbum notes

Preface

• "Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love."
• Principle of continuity.
• Purpose of faith, hope and charity.

Chapter 1 - Revelation itself

• Deeds and words of God have inner unity.
• Deeds manifest and confirms words.
• Words proclaim and clarify mystery of the deeds.
• [Summary of divine revelation of from Adam to Christ, who is the fullness thereof.]
• "Obedience of faith" is necessary for receiving divine revelation.
• God can be known by light of human reason.
• Yet with revelation such truths "can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race."

Chapter 2 - Transmission of Divine Revelation

• Prophets looked forward to Gospel.
• Christ fulfilled it and taught it.
• Then Apostles and the bishops after them were commissioned to teach it.
• "Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes."
• Everything must be handed on from one generation to the next.
• Tradition can develop through understanding, study, contemplation.
• "Both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."
• They form one sacred deposit.
• Only the living teaching office of the Church authentically interprets this sacred deposit.
• All three of these together lead to the salvation of souls.

Chapter 3 - Divine Inspiration and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture

• "The books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
• "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation"
• Interpreter must attend to literary form.
• "Serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out.

Chapter 4 - Old Testament

• "The plan of salvation foretold by the sacred authors, recounted and explained by them, is found as the true word of God in the books of the Old Testament: these books, therefore, written under divine inspiration, remain permanently valuable."
• "The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, 
• to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), 
• and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12)."
• "These same books, then, 
• give expression to a lively sense of God, 
• contain a store of sublime teachings about God, 
• sound wisdom about human life, 
• and a wonderful treasury of prayers, 
• and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. 
• Christians should receive them with reverence."
• "God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New."

Chapter 5 - New Testament

• Common knowledge: The Gospels have preeminence among all the Scripture.
• The fourfold Gospel is of apostolic origin.
• Other parts of New Testament strengthen and support this Gospel.

Chapter 6 - Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church

• "All the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture."
• "Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful."
• "She also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies."
• "This should be so done that as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able effectively 
• to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God, 
• to enlighten their minds, 
• strengthen their wills, 
• and set men's hearts on fire with the love of God."
• Prayer must accompany reading so that it becomes a divine conversation.
• Bishops are to give the faithful instruction in reading Scripture, especially the New Testament, and most of all the Gospels.

I had thought that this document contained information on the various senses of Scripture, and how to read it through attending to those senses. That is probably in the Catechism, so I'll have to look at that later. Still, there are many wonderful principles here. The unity of the whole of divine revelation and the primacy of the Gospels. Also the work of teaching the faithful how to read Scripture is emphasized toward the end, something which must be further encouraged. How one is to read the Old Testament is said here briefly: by looking at prophecy and types which point to Christ. That's a fair summary, but how to discern such types would require a more thorough explanation. Hopefully the Catechism will have more..

Here is Dei Verbum: http://bit.ly/4oFnXe

Honey and Wisdom

"My son, eat honey, for it is good, and the drippings of the honeycomb are sweet to your taste. Know that wisdom is such to your soul; if you find it, there will be a future, and your hope will not be cut off." (Prov. 24:13-14)

So wisdom is great, just like honey! But then a few verses later...
"If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you be sated with it and vomit it." (Prov. 25:16)

Taking our mystical knowledge that honey can be interpreted as wisdom, we can learn from that latter verse that one should only take in so much lest sating and vomiting come. That's probably also why the previous verse says to take "drippings", and not heaping handfuls. 

Unless you're Samson... Judg. 14:8-9. "He scraped it [the honey] out into his hands, and went on, eating as he went; and he came to his father and mother, and have some to them, and they ate. But he did not tell them that he had taken the honey from the carcass of the lion."

Christ is the lion of Judah. By his death, we have received the sweetest wisdom of all. We must scrape as much of this as we can and be quick to share it with others, being careful to reveal its source at the proper time.

Land flowing with milk and honey. If honey is wisdom, what then is milk? St. Paul talks about having to feed with milk instead of meat. Milk is the food of a child. It is due to a child as it were. I'm thinking of Judges again. When Sisera asked Jael for water, she gave him milk instead--she gave him justice. So the land flowing with milk and honey, is it full of justice and wisdom? And again! St. Paul says they need milk, which is for newborns. Is not justification (making just) the beginning of our Christian life? So the milk is the justice which Christ offers. I hope that is not too absurd, and I am willing to hear other interpretations. Until then, I look forward to the land of milk and honey, the fullness of justice and wisdom.

Bible in 90 Days

Bible in 90 Days

I didn't realize it was a thing, but apparently there is a Protestant out there who read the Bible in three months and then developed what he calls the "Bible in 90 Days Challenge," and then many using his advice successfully finished this challenge. Well, I'm a little late to make it. I started my current read on April 26, so that leaves me about 4 days to finish...all the historical books after 2 Chr, all the prophets, all the wisdom books besides Psalms, and half of the New Testament. I'm also Catholic, so there are 7 more books in there than most are reading. My current goal is to finish by the end of August, when I will enter seminary. That means I will have to read a twelfth of the Bible each week, pretty much the same rate as the 90 day challenge (90/12=7.5).

Chronicles flew by, and with more understanding than ever, but I am not so sure the prophets will. I want especially to understand Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. I plan to get commentaries on these soon by Jerome, Cyril, and Gregory, but probably not until I finish my read-through. After I finish this and read handfuls of commentaries, I want to write a more formal instruction for reading Scripture. Augustine's is excellent but dated and difficult for many readers. I want everyone to read the Bible, the written word of God. Scott Hahn and many like him have done wonders for making it more intelligible for many, but I want to find a way that is closer to prayer. A lectio divina.


Sent from my iPhone

Boethius and the 10 Commandments

Boethius and the 10 Commandments

Today I was reading 1 Corinthians, thinking about how things in this world distract from God, and then I thought of Boethius! It seems that the 5 false happinesses he names in Book 3 of the Consolation correspond to the middle commandments.

Honor - Honor your father and mother
Power - Thou shall not kill
Pleasure - Thou shall not commit adultery
Riches - Thou shall not steal
Fame - Thou shall not bear false witness

While thinking, honor was the one I forgot, collapsing it with fame. Honor is what pertains to a politician or military hero, whereas fame would pertain more to a celebrity.

The first 3 commandments require that God be our end, and that we reverence him in speech and with our time. The next 5 commandments keep us from 5 idols, false beatitudes. Honor, by requiring that we honor another; power, by forbidding us from taking the life of others; pleasure, by limiting and ordering the most intense animal pleasure; riches, by commanding we respect the goods of other; and fame, by forbidding that we lie (for we often do this for the sake our reputation, so we can control how others esteem us).

The last 2 commandments are about coveting, which teaches us that the heart is essential. It does not matter what you do or don't do, unless the Lord be present to your heart. The heart, a mystery.

(I'm reading Proverbs: I will share later what it says about the heart.)


Sent from my iPhone

Merit and Redemption, drawing mostly on St. Thomas

After reading St. Thomas on questions related to merit and redemption, I can give a partial answer to what the word "Co-redemptrix" means when applied to Mary.

Here are some preliminaries:

1. No creature can merit anything from God without God himself determining that some created action deserves a reward. This is because God is infinitely greater than any creature and the source of all its goodness, so God never owes man anything in the strictest sense.
2. There are two ways of meriting often referred to by St. Thomas and other doctors: de condigno and de congruo.
3. To merit de condigno, is to merit worthily, to really in some way deserve the reward that is given.
4. To merit de congruo, is to receive a reward due to a kind of fittingness, but not according to justice in the strict sense. For example, a friend may have reason to expect a gift on his birthday (one might even say he deserves it), but this exceeds the realm of justice. The one giving the reward is not bound to do so, but is reasonable in doing so.

So the question: How can a man merit anything from God?

1. Before grace enters the soul, man cannot merit this grace. The first grace is wholly gratuitous.
2. In a righteous action, there are two principles to consider: the human will and grace.
3. As far as the human will goes, there can be no meriting de condigno, no meriting according to justice. The human will is a creature infinitely unequal to God.
4. Yet the human will can merit de congruo, if by it man does some action for which God has designated a reward.
5. With regard to grace as principle, man can merit de condigno. This is because grace is really a participation in divine life. Since God himself deserves all the glory that agrees with his nature, so also we inasmuch as we participate in his divinity deserve all that is becoming to him.

So can one person merit from God something for another?

1. We know the answer to this question must be yes, at least in the case of Christ.
2. Christ, by his death, merits that removal of our sins and the sharing of divine life within us.
3. Since Christ is divine, he deserves all things according to justice, and therefore he merits eternal life for us de condigno.
4. As for other men, they cannot merit eternal life for others de condigno. God does not owe anything to any man according to strict justice.
5. Yet, "You are my friends if you do what I command." Those who possess the grace of God become his friends, and it is fitting that friends answer requests when it is possible to do so. And all things are possible for God.
6. So a man merit eternal life for another de congruo, insofar as he is friends with God and asks him this favor.

So then the question, what about Mary?

1. Although grace is present in her in a super-eminent way (for she is full of grace and the Almighty has done great things for her), she possesses divine life only by participation.
2. Just as with other men, it is also the case that she cannot merit eternal life for other men de condigno. She is a creature, so there is an infinite distance between her and God.
3. Yet on account of grace, she can merit for other de congruo, and more so than anyone else on account of her closeness to her own Son.
4. So when Mary is called "co-redemptrix", this is meant to refer to her role in meriting eternal life for us de congruo, in a manner exceeding any other creature.
5. This may seem misleading, as it seems to indicate an equality with the redemptive action of Christ. Such a position is not tenable.

There are still plenty more questions to ask, but this is meant to be a starting place. Another question I want to look into is the kind of justice that exists between Christ and Mary on account of their relationship as parent and child. Christ submitted to political authority in his time, and the Gospel of Luke is clear about him being obedient to his parents. What sort of justice is this between God and man? A mystery.

Places to look at:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm (all of the articles here)
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4049.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article11  (article about merit)
There are more related articles. Just about anything related to justice or grace will be relevant in some way.
Another note: This may seem Thomas-heavy, but he often returns to Scripture and a more thorough understanding of this whole question will require returning to Scripture and seeing what is presented for our benefit.