Sunday Meditation: The Way of Love

I’m going to take today from the second reading, everyone’s favorite Bible passage for weddings.  We had this read at our wedding as well.  Of course I give my dear wife credit for choosing it.  It’s one of the most beautiful passages in all the Bible, the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.

 

If I speak in human and angelic tongues,

but do not have love,

I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

And if I have the gift of prophecy,

and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge;

if I have all faith so as to move mountains,

but do not have love, I am nothing.

If I give away everything I own,

and if I hand my body over so that I may boast,

but do not have love, I gain nothing.

 

Love is patient, love is kind.

It is not jealous, it is not pompous,

It is not inflated, it is not rude,

it does not seek its own interests,

it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,

it does not rejoice over wrongdoing

but rejoices with the truth.

It bears all things, believes all things,

hopes all things, endures all things.

 

Love never fails.

If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing;

if tongues, they will cease;

if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

For we know partially and we prophesy partially,

but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

When I was a child, I used to talk as a child,

think as a child, reason as a child;

when I became a man, I put aside childish things.

At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror,

but then face to face.

At present I know partially;

then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

So faith, hope, love remain, these three;

but the greatest of these is love.

-1 Cor 13:1-13

 

Now, if you want a great explanation of this passage, listen to Brant Pitre.

 

I have a long way to go too to live up to that passage.  How about you?

Notable Quote: “A Poor, Dotty Irishman Called James Joyce” by Evelyn Waugh

This is just an amazing quote by Evelyn Waugh on James Joyce.  You have to know a little bit of literature.  You have to know that Evelyn Waugh, author of Brideshead Revisited, which I’ve posted on here, was a curmudgeon of the highest order.  You have to know that James Joyce is the great modernist writer of Dubliners, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and, relevant to the subject here, Ulysses.  I don’t know if it’s probably not accurate to say that Joyce was the founder of modernist literature, but he certainly is its greatest devotee.  And in modernism we find that the stream of consciousness narrative is its most difficult to device for the reader to grasp.  James Joyce is “the major pioneer of stream of consciousness” as the Wikipedia entry says.

So now the quote: Waugh is asked about James Joyce’s influence on Waugh as a young man.  He replies with this.

 “A poor, dotty Irishman called James Joyce—if you’ve heard about him—he was thought to be a great influence in my youth. . . . and he wrote absolute rot, you know. He began writing quite well and you can see him going mad as he wrote, and his last books—only fit to be set for examinations at Cambridge.”

At this Waugh was asked: “He didn’t always write gibberish, did he?”

 His response: “No, you could watch him going mad sentence by sentence. If you read Ulysses, it’s perfectly sane for a little bit, and then it goes madder and madder.”

That's just too funny.

March For Life, 2022

After not having a March for Life last year because of the pandemic, the pro-life people came back with a strong march this year.  I was there again, my sixth attendance.  Let me share some pictures and video clips.

The day for me started with Mass at St. Charles Catholic Church on Staten Island.  It’s not my parish but the trip coordinator’s parish and that is where we would meet the bus.  The priest—I never caught his name—gave a wonderful homily on how forty years prior a Fr. Walter Ciszek, S.J. described right there at St. Charles his experience incarcerated in the Siberian gulag.  He had been captured by the Soviets during WWII and sent to Siberia as a spy, all on trumped up charges and spent twenty-two years there.  Fr. Ciszek had written several books on his life before he passed away, but on that particular day forty years ago he explain to the gathered congregation how in all those years in the gulag he had not converted one soul in Russia.  But he had borne witness.  The point of the pastor’s homily at St. Charles the day of the March was that just like Fr. Ciszek we may not convert one soul with our March in Washington this day, but we would be there to bear witness to the injustice and evil of abortion.  He was quite inspirational.

By the way, do a search for “Bible quote bear witness” and see how rich a Biblical phrase “to bear witness” is.  But when I hear it my thoughts always rush to John 18:37 with the words of Christ, “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth.” 

Now this year we arrived earlier than the past and the rally speeches may have started later than in the past.  In the past I was never there to hear the speeches, but this time I was there and was able to hear about half the speeches.  They were fantastic.  The personal testimonies were so moving.  Several had me in tears.  If you have time, watch the speeches.  Here is the video for the entire rally.  The actual speeches start at just before the 36 minute mark, and make sure you listen to the National Anthem performed by Matthew West at the 37:30 mark.  Super performance.

 

The speeches end at around the 2 hour mark with a God Bless America beautifully again performed by Matthew West. I would say I was there for the last forty minutes of the speeches. 

I must embed the Keynote speech, Fr. Mike Schmidt’s speech.  If you’re only going to watch one speech, watch his.  It was terrific.  Now if you’re not familiar with Fr. Mike, he has one of the top podcasts in the country, the Bible in a Year Podcast.  I think everyone is amazed at how his podcast has zoomed to the top, but as you will see Fr. Mike is very charismatic.  And very smart.

 

It really was freezing.  Low 20’s and with a steady wind.  I was off camera, off to the left of the stage.

So at the conclusion of the speeches we were dismissed to March up Constitution Avenue toward the Capital Building, then pass behind it and in front of the Supreme Court Building.  Just like every year.

Here is a picture of my view of the stage.

 

And then our group from Staten Island collected itself and marched on. 

 

You may remember (or go back to my previous posts “March for Life” posts) the sign with the infant with the crown of thorns.  He’s our sign post for us to keep together. 

And we’re off.

 

I spoke to a young fellow with the group with that green flag up ahead.  They were from a high school in Savannah, Georgia.  It took them over 10 hours of bus ride to get to D.C. and they were going back later that afternoon.  It’s amazing the commitment of people that come.  I love the signs.  Here are a few new ones that I was able to photograph.

 

 

 

That last one is from a group from the Dominican Sisters of Mary in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  I didn’t ask but gosh that must have been a fourteen hour ride for them.  Obviously the young lady is still a novice since she is not wearing a habit.  There was about six in their group there and we got into a little conversation about me being a Lay Dominican. 

Let’s check out some sounds in a video.

 

“Sweet Caroline!”  Lots of singing along the trail.  I have to apologize.  My phone doesn’t take the best videos.  I did take my camera but unfortunately the batteries died early.  Here’s a very lively cheerleader group.

 

I have no idea what their chanting or where they’re from, but what an energetic bunch.  To be young again!

I always like to include a picture of the journey toward the Capital Building. 

 

No we were not like the Jan 6, 2020 riots.  We were peaceful. 

And here then from on top of Capital Hill looking back toward the rest of the marchers.

 

Then we turn the corner to behind the Capital.

 

And then the final destination in front of the Supreme Court.

 

Pray that the justices this year decide to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

There is always some sort of action by the Supreme Court.  Usually there are a handful of pro-abortion activists that station themselves there to attempt to counter the Pro-Lifers.  Though I don’t think I captured the pro-abort’s in the video, you can hear the Pro-Lifers overcome them with chants.

 

“Hey hey, ho,ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go. 

Hey hey, ho ho, Roe . Wade has got to go.”

It’s always nice to see a time lapse video of the entire March.

I try to look for something to tip me off of where I am in that mass of humanity, but no such luck.  We all bore witness.  They estimated the marchers to be at around 150,000 this year.  I think that’s a little down from other years, but with Covid and the cancelling of the march last year, I think that’s to be expected.  But that time lapse video sure makes it look impressive.  I didn’t feel it was less than other years.

The Development of the Bible, Post 5

This is the fifth and final post based on my discussion of the development of the Bible.  You can read Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here.  

Post #3 here.  

Post #4 here. 

 

 

The conversation continued.

Manny:

I believe the exact claim was that when there was a reference to the OT in the NT, 20% would have matched either the LXX and the Masoretic.  80% they differed.  Of the 80%, 90% matched the LXX and only 10% agreed with the Masoeretic.  So to be precise it’s 10% of the 80%.  So I think that’s a grand total of 8%.  That’s a very small amount.

St. Augustine:

Is it not possible that the norm in NT quotations is to quote from the Hebrew OT that they had?

 

We don’t have the same Hebrew OT, but we have three excellent representations of it, and they align to an astonishing degree despite their disadvantages–one is not complete, and one is in another language, and one is newer. We don’t have exactly the same Hebrew, but we are amazingly close.

 

And it turns out that when the newer one differs from the one in another language, the newer one looks less reliable.

 

But that is not evidence that quotes agreeing with the one in another language are quotes from it instead of from the original Hebrew.

Manny:

Yes it is possible and probably certain because the Hebrew OT they had was what the Septuagint was translated from.  The Septuagint in Greek is the original Hebrew OT.

Saint Augustine:

But, more importantly for this conversation: No, reverse translating is a lousy way of figuring out what the Hebrew Word of G-d says.

 

Using the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the LXX together to get back to the original Hebrew is a good way, and the only viable way.

 

If you really care about scholarly consensus, you should know that this is the scholarly consensus.

Manny”

Yes, I just don’t trust Liberal scholars.

St. Augustine:

Nor do I, but this isn’t a liberal thing.  This is liberals, conservatives, Barthians, Protestants, Catholics.

 

I guess I haven’t personally checked on all of those categories.  But I’ve personally heard this stuff from conservatives (and not from liberals).

 

(I studied this under William E. Bell of DBU, an author and signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.)

Manny:

The Holy Spirit allowed the original Hebrew to be destroyed.

St. Augustine:

No. He did not. He allowed the original manuscripts to be destroyed, for the OT as well as the NT. But the original text of them both is still going strong.

 

Not that we have either in more than an approximate form. But that is just how textual history works, and it’s not a problem, and it is an amazingly accurate approximation. (# 109.)

Manny:

It does appear they are amazingly accurate. But where the LXX and the Masoretic differ, it sticks in my throat.

St. Augustine:

Ok. And I’m totally ok with preferring the LXX to the Masoretic.

 

But did you just agree with me that NT authors are quoting from the Hebrew even when they use the LXX?

Manny:

I said it’s possible and probable.  But I don’t know if it’s definitive.  You’re talking to me as if I’m a PhD scholar on this!  I thank you for the compliment but I’m basically an amateur on this subject.

Saint Augustine:

Of course, if the LXX is itself inspired (and not just a reliable translation of the inspired Hebrew), then the NT should never once disagree with it. Very small isn’t enough. Only none is enough.

Manny:

Good point, but the Holy Spirit has His motivations!  He may have multiple objectives!  ;)  He may want this ambiguity, just as in God’s ambiguity.  You hear atheists ask frequently why doesn’t God just come out and show us He exists in a definitive way?  Well that ambiguity is part of His plan.  Perhaps the ambiguity with the scriptures is part of His plan too. 

St. Augustine:

I wasn’t trying to [talk to a PhD scholar]. I’m no more than a B.A. scholar myself, and you’re plainly better than many professional scholars.  [Grumble, grumble.  Scholars these days. Mumble, grumble.]

Manny:

I just thought of another reason why the Septuagint should be the authoritative text for Christians. I don’t think I mentioned this. The New Testament writers all wrote in Greek, which I did mention, but the continuity of language implies a continuity of text. Why did the New Testament writers write in Greek? Because I would maintain (with no way to prove it) that they intended to build on the Septuagint with the new texts fulfilling the old texts. I think the intent was one continuous Bible.

I don’t know if that causes you to reevaluate (I doubt it) but it’s something else to consider in your future Biblical endeavors.

St. Augustine:

Of course it implies a continuity of text.  That text is the Old Testament–a text written in Hebrew.

 

Or by “language” do you just mean Greek as opposed to Hebrew, Latin, Swahili, etc.?  In that case, no: The continuity of language only implies that they were writing in the same language.  And they wrote in Greek because they wanted people to be able to read it.  The intent was one continuous Bible–with the last bits in Greek.

Manny:

Yes, the Greek language.  Because the Septuagint was written in Greek, the New Testament writers felt obligated to continue in Greek.  That’s my theory.  Apparently there was no compunction to return to the Hebrew.  They must have been so steeped in the Septuagint Greek that they felt no obligation to write in Hebrew.  Actually as I think on it, by the first century A.D. Hebrew may have already been a dead language.  Jews spoke in Aramaic or Greek.

St. Augustine:

It wasn’t dead.  Plenty of Rabbis (at least) knew it, and Aramaic is (so I understand) not exactly a different language.

 

But anyway . . .

 

It’s an interesting theory, and I have a better one: Paul and all the Palestinian writers knew the Hebrew OT, and they wrote in Greek so that Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews could read what they were writing.  They had no obligation to write in Hebrew because they had no obligation to write in a language most people could not read.  In a different context, they would have used Latin or English.

Manny:

Yes that’s possible too. Given that most people did not read in any language, I wonder who they were writing for. Paul was writing letters to be read in churches of Greek speakers, so that’s understandable. But who were the Gospel writers writing for?  Something to think about.

St. Augustine:

They were also writing for things being read in churches of Greek-speakers.

 

Most people didn’t read, but they lived books. They were text-based people. Reading was an out-loud activity, and reading as a communal activity was normal.

Manny:

I just thought of another reason why the Septuagint should be the authoritative text for Christians.  I don’t think I mentioned this.  The New Testament writers all wrote in Greek, which I did mention, but the continuity of language implies a continuity of text.  Why did the New Testament writers write in Greek?  Because I would maintain (with no way to prove it) that they intended to build on the Septuagint with the new texts fulfilling the old texts.  I think the intent was one continuous Bible.

 

I don’t know if that causes you to reevaluate (I doubt it) but it’s something else to consider in your future Biblical endeavors.

St. Augustine:

Of course it implies a continuity of text.  That text is the Old Testament–a text written in Hebrew.

 

Or by “language” do you just mean Greek as opposed to Hebrew, Latin, Swahili, etc.?  In that case, no: The continuity of language only implies that they were writing in the same language.  And they wrote in Greek because they wanted people to be able to read it.  The intent was one continuous Bible–with the last bits in Greek.

Manny:

Yes, the Greek language.  Because the Septuagint was written in Greek, the New Testament writers felt obligated to continue in Greek.  That’s my theory.  Apparently there was no compunction to return to the Hebrew.  They must have been so steeped in the Septuagint Greek that they felt no obligation to write in Hebrew.  Actually as I think on it, by the first century A.D. Hebrew may have already been a dead language.  Jews spoke in Aramaic or Greek.

 

St. Augustine:

It wasn’t dead.  Plenty of Rabbis (at least) knew it, and Aramaic is (so I understand) not exactly a different language.

 

But anyway . . .

 

It’s an interesting theory, and I have a better one: Paul and all the Palestinian writers knew the Hebrew OT, and they wrote in Greek so that Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews could read what they were writing.  They had no obligation to write in Hebrew because they had no obligation to write in a language most people could not read.  In a different context, they would have used Latin or English.

Manny:

Yes that’s possible too. Given that most people did not read in any language, I wonder who they were writing for. Paul was writing letters to be read in churches of Greek speakers, so that’s understandable. But who were the Gospel writers writing for?  Something to think about.

St. Augustine:

They were also writing for things being read in churches of Greek-speakers.

 

Most people didn’t read, but they loved books. They were text-based people. Reading was an out-loud activity, and reading as a communal activity was normal.

Manny:

Thanks for a great conversation!  Maybe the best extended conversation I’ve ever had on Ricochet. 

 

 

†

 

Sunday Meditation: The Wedding Feast at Cana

Another of my favorite passages, and not just because I love wine.

 

There was a wedding at Cana in Galilee,

and the mother of Jesus was there.

Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.

When the wine ran short,

the mother of Jesus said to him,

“They have no wine.”

And Jesus said to her,

“Woman, how does your concern affect me?

My hour has not yet come.”

His mother said to the servers,

“Do whatever he tells you.”

Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings,

each holding twenty to thirty gallons.

Jesus told them,

“Fill the jars with water.”

So they filled them to the brim.

Then he told them,

“Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.”

So they took it.

And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine,

without knowing where it came from

— although the servers who had drawn the water knew —,

the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him,

“Everyone serves good wine first,

and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one;

but you have kept the good wine until now.”

Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs at Cana in Galilee

and so revealed his glory,

and his disciples began to believe in him.  

-Jn 2:1-11

 

This is a great explanation of the passage by Dr. Brant Pitre, whose book on the Virgin Mary I will be posting on shortly.

 

In Memorial, Alice von Hildebrand

I don’t know how many people who come here know of Alice von Hildebrand.  She’s probably better known as the wife of the more famous 20^th century philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand, but she was a philosopher in her own right.  She taught at Hunter College in New York City where in an age of relativism and deconstructionism insisted on the philosophic principle that objective truth existed.  She passed away today.  This is a fine article from Aleteia, “Alice von Hildebrand, Catholic philosopher and critic of moral relativism, dies at 98.”  Here is how they describe her relationship within the left wing academy:

She found it difficult to get a teaching position, even at Catholic colleges, which told her at the time that they did not hire women to teach philosophy. Finally hired at Hunter College, part of the City University of New York, she became the first woman to teach philosophy there. She also found herself in a secular world for the first time. Her dedication to objective truth raised the hackles of professors who were materialistic, liberal and communist, she said.

I went to a couple of City University of NY colleges and I know from personal experience they were filled with left wing radicals.  And still are!  Here from the article is what I would say is at the heart of her philosophy:

“The crucial question in teaching philosophy is whether there is an objective truth and whether man’s mind can find it,” she said in a 1996 interview with Catholic New York, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of New York. “Relativism and subjectivism inevitably block the way to God, who is truth itself. … The moment you recognize that there is an objective truth, independent of man’s mind, you look for it, and, if you’re honest, you find God.”

Here she describes the seed that perhaps shaped her heart for life.  Jourdain was her maiden name:

 

Growing up in Belgium, French was Alice Jourdain’s mother tongue. She wrote that at the age of 11, she discovered Blaise Pascal while taking a course on 17th-century French literature. His Pensées overwhelmed her, especially “with the beauty of his style. [He] awakened in me a profound philosophical interest. I started memorizing many of his most beautiful thoughts, and I recall reciting them over and over again as I walked along the Belgian seashore where my parents had a summer home.”

I assume she considered herself a conservative.  When I searched on line for some of her notable quotes, they all have a conservative bent.  Here are a few.

A woman by her very nature is maternal -- for every woman, whether ... married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother -- she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them -- for maternity implies suffering -- is infinitely more valuable in God's sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.

By the way, Alice did not have any children herself.  But I wonder if this next quote is an amplification of the above:

 

Do you think that the Lord gave them to me for a decoration?

LOL, I’m guessing at what she’s referring to.  But I love this quote:

 

The diabolical work that has taken place since the legalization of abortion is that it has destroyed, in those tragic women who have allowed their child to be murdered, their sense for the sacredness of maternity. Abortion not only murders the innocent; it spiritually murders women... the wound created in their souls is so great that only God's grace can heal it. The very soul of a woman is meant to be maternal.

She held such a high value to femininity that it led to this quote:

By living up to their calling, women will succeed in guaranteeing a proper recognition of the unique value of femininity and its crucial mission in the world.

And she had a fighting spirit in defending that femininity, as in this challenge to feminists:

 

Unwittingly, the feminists acknowledge the superiority of the male sex by wishing to become like men.

And finally one more on her faith and her perspective of the transitory nature of this life:

 

One thing is certain: When the time has come, nothing which is man-made will subsist. One day, all human accomplishments will be reduced to a pile of ashes. But every single child to whom a has given birth will live forever, for he has been given an immortal soul made to God's image and likeness.

May her immortal soul be now with God and her beloved husband.   Eternal rest grant unto this good woman, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen

EDIT (Jan 16th, 2022 at 11:45 PM:

If anyone is still interested, this is one of Alice's last interviews.