Letter to B. Racrasy, continued.
"Jesuits! When will you get to the Jesuits?"
First let us review. First you have the diocesan hierarchy; bishop, priest, deacon, laity. You have the diocesan hierarchy of the diocese of Rome; popes, cardinals and so forth, but still essentially bishop, priest, deacon. Then you have the monastic orders. Men and/or women who live in cloisters and take solemn vows.
Now, we need to explain canons and canons regular. Canons are priests or clergy who live a communal life in order make sure the liturgy of the hours (also called the breviary or the divine office) is prayed properly. They form a sort of middle ground between the cloistered monastic orders and the diocesan or secular clergy (secular here means living in the present age ”saeculum” in Latin) they don’t take solemn vows or live in a cloister. They exercise their ministry in the wider church but live communally. Some follow the rule of life that is almost monastic proposed by St. Augustine in the fourth century, which includes poverty. These are called Canons Regular. Regular comes form the Latin word “regulum’ or “rule.” They live by a rule of life, hence they are regular or regulated. It does not imply that they are “regular” or “normal.” Heaven forfend. They became popular in the 700's and have been around since.
The next group to deal with are the mendicant orders. These are orders who live by the charity of others and usually preach and teach such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Servites, Carmelites and Augustinians, all founded in the 1200's at a time when the Church was struggling with its identity as a religious/political body. They were founded with an eye to restoring the Church to holiness by the witness of a holy and simple life. They are not usually priests, though some of their number are ordained as needed for the life and the work of the order. We diocesan priests don’t have much time for actual holiness because we have to make sure the hall is locked and that there is toilet paper in the ladies’ room. They take vows of poverty and the men in the orders are called friars, derived from the Latin word “frater” or “brother.” Women mendicants are usually called sister.
Add to these, the religious congregations which are communities of men or women who live according to a rule of life, take simple vows and are pretty much indistinguishable from the mendicant orders. The important thing about them is that they are oriented around a particular work, such as teaching, or hospital work or the missions. To these, add the third orders, which are usually lay men and women who are trying to live holy lives by association with the spirituality and rule of one of the religious orders.
So there you have it. Monastic orders that live cloistered lives of prayer and work and the Religious Orders. Count with these the mendicant order and religious congregations that live a more public life in a specific work for the good of the church.
The Jesuits! You didn’t mention the Jesuits!
I’m getting to that. The Jesuits, more precisely the Society of Jesus, are a religious order of priests and brothers who work in education and missionary evangelism. They were founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in 1534. St Ignatius was wounded in the battle of Pamplona in Spain and, while convalescing, he experienced a religious conversion. Ignatius gathered six young men with whom he vowed poverty, chastity, and obedience to the pope. They arrived at a pivotal moment in Christian history when much of the Catholic world had broken apart after Luther’s revolt. The Jesuits won much of Europe back to Catholic Christianity by their dedication to education, holiness of life and the obedience to the papacy.
So that’s it! 1)The diocesan structure of Bishop, Priest and Deacon 2) the Cloistered Monks and Nuns and 3) the Religious Congregations of Brothers (also called Friars) and Sisters. All the different flavors of Monks, Nuns, Friars, Sisters, Bishops, Popes, Priests, Deacons, Third Order Members, protonotaries apostolic, monsignors and Associations of the Faithful fit into one of these three categories. Simple, in a complicated sort of way.
Rev. Know-it-all
PS There is no truth to the irreverent old joke “How many Jesuits does it take to screw in a light bulb?” Answer: “It takes two. One to call the electrician and one to make the martinis.” This is patently false. It depends entirely on the quantity of martinis to be made.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Monks and nuns...
Letter to B. Racrasy, continued
Well, what about things like Franciscans and nuns and third order Carmelites? Also simple. These groups aren’t part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. They began as popular movements. It seems that from the earliest days of the Church, women would sometimes live communally, especially widows and young unmarried women who had decided to forego marriage for the sake of the Gospel.
In the 200's, men started getting into the act. There were already Jewish desert communities in Egypt. Even before the time of Christ, the Judean desert had been home to Jewish groups that fled what they saw as the corruption of the temple in Jerusalem. The first notable Christian hermit in Egypt was St. Paul of Thebes (228-341). He fled the Roman persecution of Christians in the Nile Valley and took up life alone in the desert.
Believe it or not, this sort of thing caught on. People started going out to the desert to live the simple life in union with God. They were called “monachoi,” a Greek word that meant “loner’ or “solitary person,” hence “monk.” The next big name in desert lonerness, monasticism that is, was St. Anthony the Abbot. (a quick definition: abbot means “papa” or “dad” from the Aramaic word “abba”) An abbot is the leader of a monastery, not to be confused with the Swedish pop-rock group of the seventies that some people love and some do not love so much.
Where was I? Oh, yes. Anthony the Abbot (251-356). When he was just a lad of 18, his parents died and left him their fortune and the care of his little sister. He was in church one sunny Egyptian day and heard the words of the Gospel “Sell what you have and give to the poor” so he did, stuck his sister in one of the women’s communities already mentioned and ran off to the desert. There he lived in an old tomb and then in an abandoned Roman fort, did battle with the devil and acquired a great reputation for holiness. People flocked to hear his teaching, making it a little difficult to be solitary.
At one point, he went to Alexandria hoping to be martyred by the Roman government, but they were full up with martyrs at the time and turned him down. He went back to the desert and organized the other monks into communities with a more defined way of life because, frankly, all the solitude in the Egyptian desert can make one a little wacky. St Athanasius, (293-373) bishop of Alexandria wrote a life of St. Anthony (still in print). It sold like hotcakes in the west and soon monasticism became all the rage, people renouncing the comforts and indoor plumbing of Roman life to go off and live in desserts, swamps and mountaintops in an attempt to be martyrs after the Roman government had stopped martyring people. In fact, the Roman government had become mostly Catholic by that time.
Monasticism was pretty disorganized. Wandering holy men could be rather strange, and sometimes less than holy. There were some interesting ascetic practices among early monks. My favorite were the “stylites” (Greek for pole-sitters.) They would spend years living on small platforms on top of high poles in an attempt to get away from it all and, quite literally, draw closer to heaven. The crowds would come to admire their holiness and the pillar sitters, in turn would harangue the multitudes for their worldliness and a good time was had by all.
The next two big names in monasticism were St. Basil of Caesarea in Turkey (335-379) and St. Benedict of Nursia in Italy (480-547). They did something about the wackiness of monasticism by writing rules of life for monks, Basil for the east, and Benedict for the west. No more wandering around, sitting on poles, taking up collections and going to dinner parties. They lived secluded lives of prayer, work and study in monasteries. These are the origins of Benedictine and Basilian monks, and most subsequent forms of monasticism. Monks still tried to live far from corrupt society, and in the process they drained swamps, cleared forests, cultivated land, preserved the learning of the Greek and Roman world, maintained hospices for the poor, hospitals for the sick, schools for the young and in general created Western Civilization. You remember Western Civilization, don’t you? It flourished until people like Freud, Darwin, Ted Turner, Madonna and Elvis trashed it.
Now you understand monasticism. All orders of monks are variations on the theme. There are men and women monks. The women monks are usually called nuns. They live in monasteries, sometimes called convents. The are cloistered, a Latin word meaning “enclosed.” Thus, a cloister is an enclosure. They have limited contact with outsiders and even with one another. In traditional monastic life there are sometimes long periods of silence during the day or even for extended periods of time.
They are not ordained as bishops or priests except for specific purposes. A monastery will ask a local bishop to ordain some men for the need of community, and sometimes bishops are chosen from among monks, but the monk is essentially a lay man or woman who has taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and lives in a monastic community. Regular diocesan priests don’t take vows. We make promises of celibacy and obedience, but they are not part of our primary calling.
The penitential life is the monastic calling. The priestly and diaconal calling is devotion to the public prayer of the Church, sustained by a life of personal prayer and holiness. Our calling is to assist the bishop in offering of the Liturgy and the Sacraments. Celibacy is useful in the west, though not necessary in all forms of ordained ministry. Deacons are commonly married and in certain cases, especially in Eastern Catholicism, priests are married. Obedience to the bishop is certainly necessary and implied by the very nature of the priests and the deacon. If our job is to assist the bishop, how can we help him without obeying him? However, obedience is not the same for ordained diocesan clergy as it is for monks. Monks are supposed to live a life of self denial. Poverty, chastity and obedience are the very heart of their prayer and penance.
For diocesan clergy, celibacy and obedience are part of our service. We do not take vows of poverty. I have to buy my own car, pay for my own retirement, clothes etc. though I am provided room and board as long as I am working in an assignment. My money, or the lack thereof, is my own. If a monk needs new shoes, he asks the abbot for money to buy them. As a diocesan priest, I ask the credit card company. A monk is not supposed to have money or property of his own. He asks his superior. He forgoes financial decisions as part of his penitential life. There is an old proverb that monastic orders take a vow of poverty. Diocesan priests live it. But of course, that is just an old proverb.
You promised to explain Jesuits. What about Jesuits? That, dear reader, will have to wait for next week.
Rev. Know-it-all
Well, what about things like Franciscans and nuns and third order Carmelites? Also simple. These groups aren’t part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. They began as popular movements. It seems that from the earliest days of the Church, women would sometimes live communally, especially widows and young unmarried women who had decided to forego marriage for the sake of the Gospel.
In the 200's, men started getting into the act. There were already Jewish desert communities in Egypt. Even before the time of Christ, the Judean desert had been home to Jewish groups that fled what they saw as the corruption of the temple in Jerusalem. The first notable Christian hermit in Egypt was St. Paul of Thebes (228-341). He fled the Roman persecution of Christians in the Nile Valley and took up life alone in the desert.
Believe it or not, this sort of thing caught on. People started going out to the desert to live the simple life in union with God. They were called “monachoi,” a Greek word that meant “loner’ or “solitary person,” hence “monk.” The next big name in desert lonerness, monasticism that is, was St. Anthony the Abbot. (a quick definition: abbot means “papa” or “dad” from the Aramaic word “abba”) An abbot is the leader of a monastery, not to be confused with the Swedish pop-rock group of the seventies that some people love and some do not love so much.
Where was I? Oh, yes. Anthony the Abbot (251-356). When he was just a lad of 18, his parents died and left him their fortune and the care of his little sister. He was in church one sunny Egyptian day and heard the words of the Gospel “Sell what you have and give to the poor” so he did, stuck his sister in one of the women’s communities already mentioned and ran off to the desert. There he lived in an old tomb and then in an abandoned Roman fort, did battle with the devil and acquired a great reputation for holiness. People flocked to hear his teaching, making it a little difficult to be solitary.
At one point, he went to Alexandria hoping to be martyred by the Roman government, but they were full up with martyrs at the time and turned him down. He went back to the desert and organized the other monks into communities with a more defined way of life because, frankly, all the solitude in the Egyptian desert can make one a little wacky. St Athanasius, (293-373) bishop of Alexandria wrote a life of St. Anthony (still in print). It sold like hotcakes in the west and soon monasticism became all the rage, people renouncing the comforts and indoor plumbing of Roman life to go off and live in desserts, swamps and mountaintops in an attempt to be martyrs after the Roman government had stopped martyring people. In fact, the Roman government had become mostly Catholic by that time.
Monasticism was pretty disorganized. Wandering holy men could be rather strange, and sometimes less than holy. There were some interesting ascetic practices among early monks. My favorite were the “stylites” (Greek for pole-sitters.) They would spend years living on small platforms on top of high poles in an attempt to get away from it all and, quite literally, draw closer to heaven. The crowds would come to admire their holiness and the pillar sitters, in turn would harangue the multitudes for their worldliness and a good time was had by all.
The next two big names in monasticism were St. Basil of Caesarea in Turkey (335-379) and St. Benedict of Nursia in Italy (480-547). They did something about the wackiness of monasticism by writing rules of life for monks, Basil for the east, and Benedict for the west. No more wandering around, sitting on poles, taking up collections and going to dinner parties. They lived secluded lives of prayer, work and study in monasteries. These are the origins of Benedictine and Basilian monks, and most subsequent forms of monasticism. Monks still tried to live far from corrupt society, and in the process they drained swamps, cleared forests, cultivated land, preserved the learning of the Greek and Roman world, maintained hospices for the poor, hospitals for the sick, schools for the young and in general created Western Civilization. You remember Western Civilization, don’t you? It flourished until people like Freud, Darwin, Ted Turner, Madonna and Elvis trashed it.
Now you understand monasticism. All orders of monks are variations on the theme. There are men and women monks. The women monks are usually called nuns. They live in monasteries, sometimes called convents. The are cloistered, a Latin word meaning “enclosed.” Thus, a cloister is an enclosure. They have limited contact with outsiders and even with one another. In traditional monastic life there are sometimes long periods of silence during the day or even for extended periods of time.
They are not ordained as bishops or priests except for specific purposes. A monastery will ask a local bishop to ordain some men for the need of community, and sometimes bishops are chosen from among monks, but the monk is essentially a lay man or woman who has taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and lives in a monastic community. Regular diocesan priests don’t take vows. We make promises of celibacy and obedience, but they are not part of our primary calling.
The penitential life is the monastic calling. The priestly and diaconal calling is devotion to the public prayer of the Church, sustained by a life of personal prayer and holiness. Our calling is to assist the bishop in offering of the Liturgy and the Sacraments. Celibacy is useful in the west, though not necessary in all forms of ordained ministry. Deacons are commonly married and in certain cases, especially in Eastern Catholicism, priests are married. Obedience to the bishop is certainly necessary and implied by the very nature of the priests and the deacon. If our job is to assist the bishop, how can we help him without obeying him? However, obedience is not the same for ordained diocesan clergy as it is for monks. Monks are supposed to live a life of self denial. Poverty, chastity and obedience are the very heart of their prayer and penance.
For diocesan clergy, celibacy and obedience are part of our service. We do not take vows of poverty. I have to buy my own car, pay for my own retirement, clothes etc. though I am provided room and board as long as I am working in an assignment. My money, or the lack thereof, is my own. If a monk needs new shoes, he asks the abbot for money to buy them. As a diocesan priest, I ask the credit card company. A monk is not supposed to have money or property of his own. He asks his superior. He forgoes financial decisions as part of his penitential life. There is an old proverb that monastic orders take a vow of poverty. Diocesan priests live it. But of course, that is just an old proverb.
You promised to explain Jesuits. What about Jesuits? That, dear reader, will have to wait for next week.
Rev. Know-it-all
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Titles in the Church (part 3)
( Letter to B. Racrasy, continued)
Well then, what are auxiliary bishops? Just what the name implies: They help the ordinary bishop in large dioceses. They obey him, because they are not they ordinary bishop of the diocese but they are fully ordained bishops in that they can ordain other clergy. They would only do this at the request of the main or “ordinary bishop.”
What, pray tell are cardinals? That will take a little more history.
The bishop of Rome, better known as the pope, used to be elected by a consensus of the clergy and people of the diocese of Rome. The Church in Rome went through a very dark period from 867 to 1049 during which the powerful aristocratic political families of Rome treated the papacy as their own private football. They made sure that the people would vote the way they were told. In addition, the Holy Roman Emperor did his best to influence the papal election. Finally, Leo the Ninth was elected in 1049 and he begin a comprehensive reform of the Church. A few years later, in 1059, Pope Nicholas the Second and a synod of bishops decided that the election of popes would be limited to the clergy of the dioceses of Rome in order to keep the papacy independent of both Roman civil politics and imperial politics. Most people think of popular elections as a good thing, but most people don’t live in Chicago. (City Mottos: “Vote early, vote often,” and “Ubi est meum”) From that time on, the auxiliary bishops, priests and deacons of the major (or cardinal) churches would elect the pope in a conclave, (conclave is the Latin word for “lock-down.”)
You may have noticed the word “cardinal” snuck into our discussion. The word “cardo” is the Latin word for “hinge.” For instance, the main north-south street in a Roman city was called the “cardo.” The ancient and most important churches of the diocese of Rome were called the cardinal, or “hinge” churches. Their priests and deacons were called cardinal priests and deacons, and the bishops of neighboring (suburbicarian) dioceses were called cardinal bishops. These cardinals of the diocese of Rome elect the pope, the bishop of Rome. They also serve as advisers to the pope.
As things developed, the international mission of the Church was recognized by naming important bishops from other countries, and some priests, and even laymen, as honorary members of the clergy of Rome. For instance, Cardinal George of Chicago is the official (or “titular”) pastor of San Bartolomeo all'Isola, a beautiful old church on a little island in the Tiber river in the heart of Rome. He is the Archbishop of Chicago, but he is also has the honorary title of a pastor of a church in Rome, and has the right to participate in the election of the pope. There are cardinal bishops, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, who are known as cardinals and have different functions and different rank, but their principal tasks are the election and assisting of the pope. They are almost always bishops, but they derive their titles as cardinal from the diocese of Rome.
You just mentioned “archbishop.” What’s an archbishop? The prefix “arch” is a Greek word that means principal, or beginning. An archbishop is the ranking bishop in a province or area. He is responsible to report any abuses or critical situations to the pope and may then be requested by the pope to look into the situation. He doesn’t have direct control over other bishops, but does have a pastoral oversight for his whole district. He is often called a metropolitan. Metropolis is more than home to Superman. It is a Greek word, of course, meaning the area around the big city. For instance, Chicago and its suburbs is a Metropolis. The bishop of the largest or most important city in a district is usually an archbishop. The pope gives an Archbishop a stole called the pallium as a symbol of his office.
What then are monsignors? That’s easy. Monsignor is just an honorific title, like “Sir.” The word literally means “M’ Lord.” A monsignor is an official member of the papal household (we would probably say “staff” at present) and is named by the pope at the request of a local bishop. The title is conferred to honor a priest who has rendered exceptional service, or who has a significant responsibility in the Church.
So it’s pretty simple: Pope, bishop (some of whom are archbishops and/or cardinals) and priests (some of whom are monsignors) deacons, and the faithful. It’s still the basic structure of bishop, priest and deacon.
Rev. Know-it-all
(Next week monks, nuns and Jesuits)
Well then, what are auxiliary bishops? Just what the name implies: They help the ordinary bishop in large dioceses. They obey him, because they are not they ordinary bishop of the diocese but they are fully ordained bishops in that they can ordain other clergy. They would only do this at the request of the main or “ordinary bishop.”
What, pray tell are cardinals? That will take a little more history.
The bishop of Rome, better known as the pope, used to be elected by a consensus of the clergy and people of the diocese of Rome. The Church in Rome went through a very dark period from 867 to 1049 during which the powerful aristocratic political families of Rome treated the papacy as their own private football. They made sure that the people would vote the way they were told. In addition, the Holy Roman Emperor did his best to influence the papal election. Finally, Leo the Ninth was elected in 1049 and he begin a comprehensive reform of the Church. A few years later, in 1059, Pope Nicholas the Second and a synod of bishops decided that the election of popes would be limited to the clergy of the dioceses of Rome in order to keep the papacy independent of both Roman civil politics and imperial politics. Most people think of popular elections as a good thing, but most people don’t live in Chicago. (City Mottos: “Vote early, vote often,” and “Ubi est meum”) From that time on, the auxiliary bishops, priests and deacons of the major (or cardinal) churches would elect the pope in a conclave, (conclave is the Latin word for “lock-down.”)
You may have noticed the word “cardinal” snuck into our discussion. The word “cardo” is the Latin word for “hinge.” For instance, the main north-south street in a Roman city was called the “cardo.” The ancient and most important churches of the diocese of Rome were called the cardinal, or “hinge” churches. Their priests and deacons were called cardinal priests and deacons, and the bishops of neighboring (suburbicarian) dioceses were called cardinal bishops. These cardinals of the diocese of Rome elect the pope, the bishop of Rome. They also serve as advisers to the pope.
As things developed, the international mission of the Church was recognized by naming important bishops from other countries, and some priests, and even laymen, as honorary members of the clergy of Rome. For instance, Cardinal George of Chicago is the official (or “titular”) pastor of San Bartolomeo all'Isola, a beautiful old church on a little island in the Tiber river in the heart of Rome. He is the Archbishop of Chicago, but he is also has the honorary title of a pastor of a church in Rome, and has the right to participate in the election of the pope. There are cardinal bishops, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, who are known as cardinals and have different functions and different rank, but their principal tasks are the election and assisting of the pope. They are almost always bishops, but they derive their titles as cardinal from the diocese of Rome.
You just mentioned “archbishop.” What’s an archbishop? The prefix “arch” is a Greek word that means principal, or beginning. An archbishop is the ranking bishop in a province or area. He is responsible to report any abuses or critical situations to the pope and may then be requested by the pope to look into the situation. He doesn’t have direct control over other bishops, but does have a pastoral oversight for his whole district. He is often called a metropolitan. Metropolis is more than home to Superman. It is a Greek word, of course, meaning the area around the big city. For instance, Chicago and its suburbs is a Metropolis. The bishop of the largest or most important city in a district is usually an archbishop. The pope gives an Archbishop a stole called the pallium as a symbol of his office.
What then are monsignors? That’s easy. Monsignor is just an honorific title, like “Sir.” The word literally means “M’ Lord.” A monsignor is an official member of the papal household (we would probably say “staff” at present) and is named by the pope at the request of a local bishop. The title is conferred to honor a priest who has rendered exceptional service, or who has a significant responsibility in the Church.
So it’s pretty simple: Pope, bishop (some of whom are archbishops and/or cardinals) and priests (some of whom are monsignors) deacons, and the faithful. It’s still the basic structure of bishop, priest and deacon.
Rev. Know-it-all
(Next week monks, nuns and Jesuits)
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Titles in the Church (part 2)
(Letter to B. Racrasy on Titles in the Church - continued)
Dear “B”,
As I was telling you last week, the hierarchy has a different meaning for Catholics than it does for most people. Hierarchy is usually taken to mean “chain of command.” Though obedience is at the heart of any Christian life, the manner of, and, motive for obedience in the Church is different than, for instance in the army. The Church is meant to be a family, parents and children, just as pastors and faithful are motivated by mutual concern for one another and for the family.
This is how Catholic hierarchy works: in any diocese, you have a bishop who is assisted by deacons and presbyters (priests) and these are tied to the universal Church by their relationship to the Bishop of Rome, (better known as the pope) who is the universal shepherd. This whole structure exists to guarantee the worship of God and to feed and nurture the faith of the people of God, that is the laity. In the earliest days, most churches were very small and probably had only a few hundred members, maybe a thousand. The Bishop offered Mass and the sacraments and instructed the faithful. He was helped in his work by the deacons. When there was a need for more help in sharing the sacraments, especially in large cities like Rome or Alexandria, the bishop might ordain a man, an elder, who would help him in his sacramental and liturgical work.
It is important to remember that the deacon is not the servant of the priest who is in turn the servant of the bishop. From the earliest days, priest and deacon both assisted the bishop in his work of teaching, governing, and leading worship, but in different ways. The bishop is the head presbyter in his diocese and he is also the head deacon. The bishop’s role is twofold. He is a teacher and a servant. He is priest and deacon. He is elder and table waiter. Every priest is first ordained a deacon and every bishop is first ordained a priest. All three dimensions of the sacrament of Holy Orders are present with the bishop. He is supervisor, elder, and servant. I’m just elder and servant. HOWEVER the bishop is a very busy man, so he can’t make it to St. Dymphna’s here in Frostbite Falls every Sunday, so he sent me as his substitute, which in Latin is “Vicar”. I am the vicar for the bishop in the two and a half square blocks that comprise St. Dymphna’s parish. I am not the vicar for the bishop anywhere else. That means I can order our Deacon Igor around when I am at St. Dymphna’s, but I can’t go over to our neighboring parish, St. Euflimsia’s and order Deacon Lurch around.
In the same way, the Bishop of our neighboring diocese, Minniehaha Estates, can’t come to St. Dymphna’s and order me or Deacon Igor around. I would certainly do my best to respect him, but in Frostbite Falls, Bishop Fenwick is the ordinary bishop and I obey him. If I am visiting Minniehaha Estates, I had darn well better obey that bishop. In the military, a sergeant can order any private around anywhere in the world because he outranks any private. I don’t outrank anybody. I don’t outrank a deacon. I am not more ordained than a deacon. I am responsible for the bishop’s presbyteral duties here at St. Dymphna’s and so have some of the bishop’s authority, and the deacon assists me when and where I substitute for the bishop. Where the parish ends, my authority ends.
The bishop is the real pastor of the parish and of the whole diocese. Thus he is called the “ordinary”. I’m just standing in for him. It is interesting to note that when a bishop visits a parish he is the main celebrant of the Mass, not the pastor. If for some reason a bishop does not want to be the main celebrant of the Mass, he kneels at the side and does not concelebrate the Mass. The bishop is the “ordinary” celebrant of the Mass. As a presbyter, I am only a substitute. When the real pastor is able to be present, I take a back seat.
So it’s pretty simple: Pope, bishop and priest/deacon, and the faithful. That’s the basic structure. Everything else fits into it.
Yours,
Rev. Know-it-all
Dear “B”,
As I was telling you last week, the hierarchy has a different meaning for Catholics than it does for most people. Hierarchy is usually taken to mean “chain of command.” Though obedience is at the heart of any Christian life, the manner of, and, motive for obedience in the Church is different than, for instance in the army. The Church is meant to be a family, parents and children, just as pastors and faithful are motivated by mutual concern for one another and for the family.
This is how Catholic hierarchy works: in any diocese, you have a bishop who is assisted by deacons and presbyters (priests) and these are tied to the universal Church by their relationship to the Bishop of Rome, (better known as the pope) who is the universal shepherd. This whole structure exists to guarantee the worship of God and to feed and nurture the faith of the people of God, that is the laity. In the earliest days, most churches were very small and probably had only a few hundred members, maybe a thousand. The Bishop offered Mass and the sacraments and instructed the faithful. He was helped in his work by the deacons. When there was a need for more help in sharing the sacraments, especially in large cities like Rome or Alexandria, the bishop might ordain a man, an elder, who would help him in his sacramental and liturgical work.
It is important to remember that the deacon is not the servant of the priest who is in turn the servant of the bishop. From the earliest days, priest and deacon both assisted the bishop in his work of teaching, governing, and leading worship, but in different ways. The bishop is the head presbyter in his diocese and he is also the head deacon. The bishop’s role is twofold. He is a teacher and a servant. He is priest and deacon. He is elder and table waiter. Every priest is first ordained a deacon and every bishop is first ordained a priest. All three dimensions of the sacrament of Holy Orders are present with the bishop. He is supervisor, elder, and servant. I’m just elder and servant. HOWEVER the bishop is a very busy man, so he can’t make it to St. Dymphna’s here in Frostbite Falls every Sunday, so he sent me as his substitute, which in Latin is “Vicar”. I am the vicar for the bishop in the two and a half square blocks that comprise St. Dymphna’s parish. I am not the vicar for the bishop anywhere else. That means I can order our Deacon Igor around when I am at St. Dymphna’s, but I can’t go over to our neighboring parish, St. Euflimsia’s and order Deacon Lurch around.
In the same way, the Bishop of our neighboring diocese, Minniehaha Estates, can’t come to St. Dymphna’s and order me or Deacon Igor around. I would certainly do my best to respect him, but in Frostbite Falls, Bishop Fenwick is the ordinary bishop and I obey him. If I am visiting Minniehaha Estates, I had darn well better obey that bishop. In the military, a sergeant can order any private around anywhere in the world because he outranks any private. I don’t outrank anybody. I don’t outrank a deacon. I am not more ordained than a deacon. I am responsible for the bishop’s presbyteral duties here at St. Dymphna’s and so have some of the bishop’s authority, and the deacon assists me when and where I substitute for the bishop. Where the parish ends, my authority ends.
The bishop is the real pastor of the parish and of the whole diocese. Thus he is called the “ordinary”. I’m just standing in for him. It is interesting to note that when a bishop visits a parish he is the main celebrant of the Mass, not the pastor. If for some reason a bishop does not want to be the main celebrant of the Mass, he kneels at the side and does not concelebrate the Mass. The bishop is the “ordinary” celebrant of the Mass. As a presbyter, I am only a substitute. When the real pastor is able to be present, I take a back seat.
So it’s pretty simple: Pope, bishop and priest/deacon, and the faithful. That’s the basic structure. Everything else fits into it.
Yours,
Rev. Know-it-all
Sunday, June 27, 2010
What's with all the titles in the Church?
Dear Rev. Know it all,
I get very confused by all the titles and names used by Catholics. What is the difference between Cardinals and bishops or archbishops. You’ve got monsignors and pastors and archdeacons and mitred abbesses and protonotaries apostolic. Can you explain?
Thank you,
B. Racrasy
Dear B,
It’s really not that complicated, but, as with most things a little history is important. First let’s define hierarchy. In current language “hierarchy” means “chain of command.” This is not its original meaning. It’s a Greek word that means “sacred leadership.” The first sacred leadership was created by God at the beginning of time. It’s called “Mom and Dad.” They may be in charge, but the center of the household isn’t mom or dad. Ask any parent. It’s the kids. Real leadership is about service and if a hierarchy is doing its job it is serving. The pope is called “the servant of the servants of God.” That’s the sense of the word “hierarchy” in Catholic thought.
From the first century until now, the basic structure of the hierarchy is really very simple: bishop, priest, deacon and laity. “Bishop” comes from the Greek word “episcopos” which literally means supervisor, one who has oversight. “Priest” comes from the word “presbyteros” which means elder, one who is older in the Lord. “Deacon” comes from the Greek word “diakonos” which means table waiter or steward, and finally the word laity (or layman or laywoman) comes from the Greek word “laos” which means “the people.” So there you have it: bishop, priest and deacon, dedicated to the care of the people of God.
Are you ready for more Greek? (What’s with all the Greek? Why don’t you just use English? English!! English changes word meanings faster than Imelda Marcos changes shoes. In a hundred years English will be incomprehensible by today’s standards. Ancient Greek will still be ancient Greek. That’s why!) Where was I? Oh yes, another Greek word: Diocese. Diocese is a Greek word meaning administrative district. The Catholic Church is arranged into administrative districts served by supervisors, elder and stewards.
“Wait a minute. It can’t be that simple. The pope is a pretty big deal in Catholicism, as far as I’ve heard.” Well, the pope is the Bishop of Rome, and Rome is the city where St. Peter and St. Paul served, were martyred and are buried. The first Christians believed the role of St. Peter passed on to his spiritual descendants. Jesus had given him the keys of the kingdom and had told him to strengthen his brethren. (Matt16:19 and Luke 22:32) In particular the phrase “keys of the kingdom of heaven” refers to Isaiah, 22:15-25. In the Old Testament, the king had a kind of prime minister or vizier, called the “Albayit.” It was a hereditary position, but Hezekiah, the king threw Shebna and his family out of the job and replaced him with Eliakim son of Hilkiah. Jesus was referring to a hereditary post when he gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. The first Christians took this to mean that Peter’s successor would continue his ministry of teaching and governing. In 180 AD, St Irenaeus of Lyon, a Greek who was Bishop of a city in what is now Southern France wrote the following in “Adversus Haereses."
“We point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. We point, I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles...which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops...., and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree.”
St. Irenaeus was born around 120AD and had been a disciple of St. Polycarp who had been a disciple of St. John, so this belief that the bishop of Rome had a unique role in the Church goes back to the first days of the faith. “Well,” you may ask, “What is the difference between the pope and the Bishop of Rome?” To which I would respond, “None at all.” The word “Pope,” or “papa” as most languages say it, means exactly that: papa. It derives from the Semitic word “abba” and means “dad,” “pappa.” It is a diminutive for Father. Hence, we call the bishop of Rome the Holy Father or the Pope, just as St. Paul thought of himself a father to the Corinthians. (I Cor.4:14,15) In the same way the Bishop of Rome has been thought of as a father to the whole Church since its first days and thus is called, the Holy Father, and “Papa,” but he is the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter.
The bishop of Rome has jurisdiction over the bishops and faithful of the whole world and appoints bishops in consultation with the local community. He can also remove bishops, but in fact this is almost never done. When a bishop needs to go, the Pope will first call him over to Rome for a chat and suggest that, for the good of the Church, he resign. If he refuses, there will be canonical process to remove the bishop (“canonical” means having to do with Church law.) If a bishop does anything that excommunicates him, automatically he loses all his status and his powers immediately without a process. One thinks of the wacky bishop a few years back who joined the Moonies and got married.)
The pope is the visible source of the unity of the bishops and of the faithful. Vatican II reaffirmed everything Vatican I taught about the papacy and infallibility, but taught that bishops are not “vicars of the Roman Pontiff," but in their local dioceses they are “vicars (representatives)... of Christ." So, it would seem that the pope is the universal representative of Christ and bishops are the local vicars of Christ. He has this role, quite simply because he is the Bishop of Rome.
Two interesting side notes: What does it mean that the pope is the bishop of Rome and why do popes change their name when they become pope?
Though the pope is the diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, he delegates most of the day-to-day work of leading the diocese to the Cardinal Vicar, who has direct oversight of the diocese's pastoral needs. The Cathedral of Rome is not St. Peter’s, it is St. John Lateran. St Peter’s is where the pope lives and works as the universal shepherd.
Originally the popes used their baptismal names. In AD 533, a man named Mercurius was elected pope. He decided that it would be wrong for a pope to be named after a Roman god, so he changed his name to John and was known as Pope John II. From that time on some popes took a new name and some kept their baptismal name. The symbolism of taking a new name at Baptism or Confirmation is the same. In Christ we become new, thus a new name. As soon as the new pope is elected, and accepts the election, he is asked, “By what name shall you be called?" The senior Cardinal Deacon, or Cardinal Protodeacon, (believe it or not, a lower ranking cardinal. I’ll explain later) comes out onto the balcony of Saint Peter's and says "I announce to you a great joy: We have a Pope! The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord, (“Lord ," is used here in the medieval sense of “Lords and Ladies," not in the biblical sense) Lord (first name), Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church (last or family name) who takes to himself the name (name as pope)" It's quite an exciting moment. I still remember when Pope John Paul II was elected. I still remember thinking," Wotyla? That doesn't sound very Italian." And it wasn't!!!
A pope usually chooses his new name to indicate whom he wants to imitate in his papacy. The current pope chose the name Benedict, because the last Pope Benedict struggled through the crisis in Europe between the wars. Benedict XVI has a heart for the re-conversion of Europe and the revival of Christian culture. Interestingly Pope Benedict published the book “Jesus” (a wonderful bible study book) under both his baptismal and papal names. He implied by doing this that this was a book he had started as Joseph Ratzinger, and it was not to be taken as papal teaching.
(Much, much more to follow.)
Rev. Know-it-all
I get very confused by all the titles and names used by Catholics. What is the difference between Cardinals and bishops or archbishops. You’ve got monsignors and pastors and archdeacons and mitred abbesses and protonotaries apostolic. Can you explain?
Thank you,
B. Racrasy
Dear B,
It’s really not that complicated, but, as with most things a little history is important. First let’s define hierarchy. In current language “hierarchy” means “chain of command.” This is not its original meaning. It’s a Greek word that means “sacred leadership.” The first sacred leadership was created by God at the beginning of time. It’s called “Mom and Dad.” They may be in charge, but the center of the household isn’t mom or dad. Ask any parent. It’s the kids. Real leadership is about service and if a hierarchy is doing its job it is serving. The pope is called “the servant of the servants of God.” That’s the sense of the word “hierarchy” in Catholic thought.
From the first century until now, the basic structure of the hierarchy is really very simple: bishop, priest, deacon and laity. “Bishop” comes from the Greek word “episcopos” which literally means supervisor, one who has oversight. “Priest” comes from the word “presbyteros” which means elder, one who is older in the Lord. “Deacon” comes from the Greek word “diakonos” which means table waiter or steward, and finally the word laity (or layman or laywoman) comes from the Greek word “laos” which means “the people.” So there you have it: bishop, priest and deacon, dedicated to the care of the people of God.
Are you ready for more Greek? (What’s with all the Greek? Why don’t you just use English? English!! English changes word meanings faster than Imelda Marcos changes shoes. In a hundred years English will be incomprehensible by today’s standards. Ancient Greek will still be ancient Greek. That’s why!) Where was I? Oh yes, another Greek word: Diocese. Diocese is a Greek word meaning administrative district. The Catholic Church is arranged into administrative districts served by supervisors, elder and stewards.
“Wait a minute. It can’t be that simple. The pope is a pretty big deal in Catholicism, as far as I’ve heard.” Well, the pope is the Bishop of Rome, and Rome is the city where St. Peter and St. Paul served, were martyred and are buried. The first Christians believed the role of St. Peter passed on to his spiritual descendants. Jesus had given him the keys of the kingdom and had told him to strengthen his brethren. (Matt16:19 and Luke 22:32) In particular the phrase “keys of the kingdom of heaven” refers to Isaiah, 22:15-25. In the Old Testament, the king had a kind of prime minister or vizier, called the “Albayit.” It was a hereditary position, but Hezekiah, the king threw Shebna and his family out of the job and replaced him with Eliakim son of Hilkiah. Jesus was referring to a hereditary post when he gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. The first Christians took this to mean that Peter’s successor would continue his ministry of teaching and governing. In 180 AD, St Irenaeus of Lyon, a Greek who was Bishop of a city in what is now Southern France wrote the following in “Adversus Haereses."
“We point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. We point, I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles...which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops...., and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree.”
St. Irenaeus was born around 120AD and had been a disciple of St. Polycarp who had been a disciple of St. John, so this belief that the bishop of Rome had a unique role in the Church goes back to the first days of the faith. “Well,” you may ask, “What is the difference between the pope and the Bishop of Rome?” To which I would respond, “None at all.” The word “Pope,” or “papa” as most languages say it, means exactly that: papa. It derives from the Semitic word “abba” and means “dad,” “pappa.” It is a diminutive for Father. Hence, we call the bishop of Rome the Holy Father or the Pope, just as St. Paul thought of himself a father to the Corinthians. (I Cor.4:14,15) In the same way the Bishop of Rome has been thought of as a father to the whole Church since its first days and thus is called, the Holy Father, and “Papa,” but he is the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter.
The bishop of Rome has jurisdiction over the bishops and faithful of the whole world and appoints bishops in consultation with the local community. He can also remove bishops, but in fact this is almost never done. When a bishop needs to go, the Pope will first call him over to Rome for a chat and suggest that, for the good of the Church, he resign. If he refuses, there will be canonical process to remove the bishop (“canonical” means having to do with Church law.) If a bishop does anything that excommunicates him, automatically he loses all his status and his powers immediately without a process. One thinks of the wacky bishop a few years back who joined the Moonies and got married.)
The pope is the visible source of the unity of the bishops and of the faithful. Vatican II reaffirmed everything Vatican I taught about the papacy and infallibility, but taught that bishops are not “vicars of the Roman Pontiff," but in their local dioceses they are “vicars (representatives)... of Christ." So, it would seem that the pope is the universal representative of Christ and bishops are the local vicars of Christ. He has this role, quite simply because he is the Bishop of Rome.
Two interesting side notes: What does it mean that the pope is the bishop of Rome and why do popes change their name when they become pope?
Though the pope is the diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, he delegates most of the day-to-day work of leading the diocese to the Cardinal Vicar, who has direct oversight of the diocese's pastoral needs. The Cathedral of Rome is not St. Peter’s, it is St. John Lateran. St Peter’s is where the pope lives and works as the universal shepherd.
Originally the popes used their baptismal names. In AD 533, a man named Mercurius was elected pope. He decided that it would be wrong for a pope to be named after a Roman god, so he changed his name to John and was known as Pope John II. From that time on some popes took a new name and some kept their baptismal name. The symbolism of taking a new name at Baptism or Confirmation is the same. In Christ we become new, thus a new name. As soon as the new pope is elected, and accepts the election, he is asked, “By what name shall you be called?" The senior Cardinal Deacon, or Cardinal Protodeacon, (believe it or not, a lower ranking cardinal. I’ll explain later) comes out onto the balcony of Saint Peter's and says "I announce to you a great joy: We have a Pope! The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord, (“Lord ," is used here in the medieval sense of “Lords and Ladies," not in the biblical sense) Lord (first name), Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church (last or family name) who takes to himself the name (name as pope)" It's quite an exciting moment. I still remember when Pope John Paul II was elected. I still remember thinking," Wotyla? That doesn't sound very Italian." And it wasn't!!!
A pope usually chooses his new name to indicate whom he wants to imitate in his papacy. The current pope chose the name Benedict, because the last Pope Benedict struggled through the crisis in Europe between the wars. Benedict XVI has a heart for the re-conversion of Europe and the revival of Christian culture. Interestingly Pope Benedict published the book “Jesus” (a wonderful bible study book) under both his baptismal and papal names. He implied by doing this that this was a book he had started as Joseph Ratzinger, and it was not to be taken as papal teaching.
(Much, much more to follow.)
Rev. Know-it-all
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Did Mary have other children?
Dear Rev. Know it all,
A question came up at Bible Study last night. One of the group insisted that the Bible says Mary had other children than Jesus, and that, though Jesus was miraculously conceived, Mary and Joseph were just like any other married couple. Also, I noticed that there is no genealogy of Mary in the Bible, and that the genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke seem to contradict each other. If Joseph wasn’t actually the father of Jesus, how can Jesus be descended from David?
Yours,
Gene E. O’Lojey
Dear Gene,
These are two important and interrelated questions. It is true that the Bible says Jesus had brothers. It doesn’t say that Mary had other children. One thing is not the same as the others.
The first question asks about something usually called “the perpetual virginity of Mary.” We believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. This is emphatically believed by both Catholic and Orthodox Churches and even by the first Protestant reformers, Zwingli, Luther and Calvin. Since it’s not directly mentioned in the Bible, it was not included in Protestant creeds. Only modern evangelical Protestants insist that Mary and Joseph were the parents of other children. In doing this, they try to de-emphasize the reverence that traditional Christians have for the Blessed Mother.
Well, what does the Bible say? James and Joses are mentioned in Mark 6:3. "Is he (Jesus) not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him." This would make it seem that Mary had children. However James and Joses are mentioned again in Mark 15:40, which mentions among the women present at Jesus' crucifixion a "Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joses". This would make it seem that they are cousins of Jesus, by a different Mary. Catholic tradition favors the “cousins” approach. It was taught by St. Jerome and other Church fathers that the term "brother" in biblical times had a broader meaning and included cousins and other more distant relatives as well.
The Greek and Eastern Churches follow a different but very ancient tradition that’s first recorded in the Protevangelion of St. James. It was probably written around 150AD. Here is a quote from the Protoevangelion (Book I chapter 7. Vs12,13)
“And the high-priest said, ‘Joseph, you are the person chosen to take the Virgin of the Lord, to keep her for him. But Joseph refused, saying, I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear, for fear that I should appear ridiculous in Israel.”
Some traditions even say that Salome was the name of Joseph’s first wife who had died, leaving him a widower. This tradition was held by all the Western Church fathers until after St. Ambrose, as well as the Greek fathers.
Fr. Bargil Pixner, the great, recently deceased Benedictine scholar and archeologist has some interesting ideas that tie together the Protoevangelion and the archeology of the Holy Land. Many authorities maintain that a vow of celibacy was unheard of at the time of Christ, and thought the Pharisees certainly didn’t believe in permanent celibacy, there were some Jewish who did.
In the Qumran “Great Temple Scroll,” (11QMiq), we read, “When a young woman makes a vow of continence to the Lord.... and her father hears about it....and says nothing about it.... the vow will be binding on both father and daughter. The same holds true for a married wife in respect to her husband. If he confirms the vow, both spouses will be obligated to it.”
Fr. Pixner points out that Royal Davidic family was late in returning to the Holy Land after the Babylonian exile. They only returned in the century before the time of Christ, and when they returned and settled in places that had associations with radical sects of Judaism, such as the Essenes, that preached the immanent coming of the Messiah. The traditional place of Mary’s early childhood in Jerusalem adjoins the temple and was an Essene neighborhood. The traditional site of the Last Supper and Pentecost are in the Essene quarter in southwest Jerusalem. John the Baptist, a close relative of Jesus seems to have been involved in one these groups, and was quite possibly the leader of one.
Fr. Pixner pays serious attention to the old stories of Mary’s childhood that are found in the Protoevangelion because they reflect the beliefs and practices of the Messianic sects like the Essenes. The Davidic family would have had common cause with these groups who longed for the Messiah to purify the temple, the priesthood and the monarchy. It only makes sense. After all, job prospects would certainly have looked brighter if the Herod/Maccabee family were tossed out of the monarchy and the Davidic family restored. That is certainly the backdrop of the Gospel, and explains Jesus’ strained relation with some members of His family. They wanted revolution. Jesus preached conversion.
So, the story may go something like this. Mary was raised in the shadow of the temple and served as some young Jewish girls did with the traditional women’s tasks of sewing and weaving. (Please no politically correct grumbling. History is history and I would never dream of asking women to do that sort of thing for the Church in this enlightened age.) She may have taken a vow of virginity, with the permission of her father, Joachim and when it came time to arrange her marriage, Joachim may have found an older, widowed relative to marry her and thus protect her vow. None of that is inconsistent with the Gospel or the customs of the time.
Though the Protoevangelion has a lot of fanciful material in it, it does seem to reflect very old stories. These traditions seem what the relatives of Jesus believed in the first century, and there were quite a few relatives around. Julius Africanus was a Christian historian born in the Holy Land around 160AD. He claims to have gotten his information from the family of Jesus, who were called the “desposyni,” that is “the family of the master.” Their identities were well known in the ancient world. Some of the relatives of Jesus claimed special distinction in the early Church. The bishops of Jerusalem all seem to have been relatives of Jesus up until 135AD when the city was destroyed by the emperor Hadrian. (By the way, none of these relatives of Jesus ever claimed descent from Him, no matter what the DaVinci Code claims.)
The family of Jesus and the first believers didn’t forget these things. The memory of families in the traditional societies goes back centuries, even in families without famous members. Certainly, Jesus would have been well remembered and the stories about Him cherished by His relatives. These old stories don’t die out.
It always amazes me that we in the 21st century think we know better than those who were Jesus’ close relatives in the first years of Christianity. We have received these things from them. It is the consistent tradition of Christianity until very recent times that the relationship between Mary and Joseph was not a typical marriage, and that Mary was perpetually a virgin. The Bible witnesses to this too, when Jesus asks John to care for His mother. The Scriptures say that she lived with him from that day on. (John 19:26,27) If she had other children, custom and family feeling would certainly have dictated that she live with them, but the evidence of Scripture is clear that Mary stood alone at the foot of the cross. Thus, we have the witness of both Scripture and very strong tradition that Mary was Ever-Virgin.
Your second question is also very important and actually related to your first question, “Why do the Gospels not have a genealogy of Mary and why do the genealogies of Joseph seem to contradict each other?” the answer is really quite simple. The same Julius Africanus mentioned above learned it from the relatives of Jesus. (Look in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History Chapter 7.) The Jews, as many other cultures, have a way to keep family lines from dying out, if a man dies leaving no sons to keep his name alive. This is called a levirate marriage. Deuteronomy 25:5-6 says that a brother should marry the widow of his deceased brother if his brother has no sons. The firstborn child is considered the firstborn son of the deceased brother. (In certain cases in the Middle East, adoption rather than actual marriage, is also used to keep families from dying out.) Julius Africanus claims that he was told by Jesus’ relatives Joseph’s lineage comes such levirate relationships. The Gospel of Matthew records the biological genealogy of Joseph and the Gospel of Luke records the legal genealogy of Joseph. Eusebius of Caesarea in this same chapter 7 points out that Mary’s genealogy is essentially the same as Joseph’s because people married within families, and they still do in much of the Near East.
How are these two things related? Simple. Your friend at the Bible study said that “The Bible says....” the Bible doesn’t say that Mary had other children. It says that Jesus had brothers named James and Joses. The text no where says that Mary was their mother. Your friend thinks he knows the bible, but he doesn’t know it very well.
The Bible when taken alone and out of its context does say that Joseph is the son of both Eli and Matthan. Look at the genealogies. They don’t match at all! The Church could have edited out difficult passages, but she never has. She kept them and guarded them as family treasures passed down through the ages. The Bible is our book. By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we wrote it, (at least the later parts) we compiled it and we have faithfully passed it on from generation to generation. It can only be read and understood in the light of the traditions we have received and that the Church has studied since the very beginning. Modern arrogance is no substitute for the authority Christ gave His Bride, the Church.
Yours,
Rev. Know-it-all
A question came up at Bible Study last night. One of the group insisted that the Bible says Mary had other children than Jesus, and that, though Jesus was miraculously conceived, Mary and Joseph were just like any other married couple. Also, I noticed that there is no genealogy of Mary in the Bible, and that the genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke seem to contradict each other. If Joseph wasn’t actually the father of Jesus, how can Jesus be descended from David?
Yours,
Gene E. O’Lojey
Dear Gene,
These are two important and interrelated questions. It is true that the Bible says Jesus had brothers. It doesn’t say that Mary had other children. One thing is not the same as the others.
The first question asks about something usually called “the perpetual virginity of Mary.” We believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. This is emphatically believed by both Catholic and Orthodox Churches and even by the first Protestant reformers, Zwingli, Luther and Calvin. Since it’s not directly mentioned in the Bible, it was not included in Protestant creeds. Only modern evangelical Protestants insist that Mary and Joseph were the parents of other children. In doing this, they try to de-emphasize the reverence that traditional Christians have for the Blessed Mother.
Well, what does the Bible say? James and Joses are mentioned in Mark 6:3. "Is he (Jesus) not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him." This would make it seem that Mary had children. However James and Joses are mentioned again in Mark 15:40, which mentions among the women present at Jesus' crucifixion a "Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joses". This would make it seem that they are cousins of Jesus, by a different Mary. Catholic tradition favors the “cousins” approach. It was taught by St. Jerome and other Church fathers that the term "brother" in biblical times had a broader meaning and included cousins and other more distant relatives as well.
The Greek and Eastern Churches follow a different but very ancient tradition that’s first recorded in the Protevangelion of St. James. It was probably written around 150AD. Here is a quote from the Protoevangelion (Book I chapter 7. Vs12,13)
“And the high-priest said, ‘Joseph, you are the person chosen to take the Virgin of the Lord, to keep her for him. But Joseph refused, saying, I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear, for fear that I should appear ridiculous in Israel.”
Some traditions even say that Salome was the name of Joseph’s first wife who had died, leaving him a widower. This tradition was held by all the Western Church fathers until after St. Ambrose, as well as the Greek fathers.
Fr. Bargil Pixner, the great, recently deceased Benedictine scholar and archeologist has some interesting ideas that tie together the Protoevangelion and the archeology of the Holy Land. Many authorities maintain that a vow of celibacy was unheard of at the time of Christ, and thought the Pharisees certainly didn’t believe in permanent celibacy, there were some Jewish who did.
In the Qumran “Great Temple Scroll,” (11QMiq), we read, “When a young woman makes a vow of continence to the Lord.... and her father hears about it....and says nothing about it.... the vow will be binding on both father and daughter. The same holds true for a married wife in respect to her husband. If he confirms the vow, both spouses will be obligated to it.”
Fr. Pixner points out that Royal Davidic family was late in returning to the Holy Land after the Babylonian exile. They only returned in the century before the time of Christ, and when they returned and settled in places that had associations with radical sects of Judaism, such as the Essenes, that preached the immanent coming of the Messiah. The traditional place of Mary’s early childhood in Jerusalem adjoins the temple and was an Essene neighborhood. The traditional site of the Last Supper and Pentecost are in the Essene quarter in southwest Jerusalem. John the Baptist, a close relative of Jesus seems to have been involved in one these groups, and was quite possibly the leader of one.
Fr. Pixner pays serious attention to the old stories of Mary’s childhood that are found in the Protoevangelion because they reflect the beliefs and practices of the Messianic sects like the Essenes. The Davidic family would have had common cause with these groups who longed for the Messiah to purify the temple, the priesthood and the monarchy. It only makes sense. After all, job prospects would certainly have looked brighter if the Herod/Maccabee family were tossed out of the monarchy and the Davidic family restored. That is certainly the backdrop of the Gospel, and explains Jesus’ strained relation with some members of His family. They wanted revolution. Jesus preached conversion.
So, the story may go something like this. Mary was raised in the shadow of the temple and served as some young Jewish girls did with the traditional women’s tasks of sewing and weaving. (Please no politically correct grumbling. History is history and I would never dream of asking women to do that sort of thing for the Church in this enlightened age.) She may have taken a vow of virginity, with the permission of her father, Joachim and when it came time to arrange her marriage, Joachim may have found an older, widowed relative to marry her and thus protect her vow. None of that is inconsistent with the Gospel or the customs of the time.
Though the Protoevangelion has a lot of fanciful material in it, it does seem to reflect very old stories. These traditions seem what the relatives of Jesus believed in the first century, and there were quite a few relatives around. Julius Africanus was a Christian historian born in the Holy Land around 160AD. He claims to have gotten his information from the family of Jesus, who were called the “desposyni,” that is “the family of the master.” Their identities were well known in the ancient world. Some of the relatives of Jesus claimed special distinction in the early Church. The bishops of Jerusalem all seem to have been relatives of Jesus up until 135AD when the city was destroyed by the emperor Hadrian. (By the way, none of these relatives of Jesus ever claimed descent from Him, no matter what the DaVinci Code claims.)
The family of Jesus and the first believers didn’t forget these things. The memory of families in the traditional societies goes back centuries, even in families without famous members. Certainly, Jesus would have been well remembered and the stories about Him cherished by His relatives. These old stories don’t die out.
It always amazes me that we in the 21st century think we know better than those who were Jesus’ close relatives in the first years of Christianity. We have received these things from them. It is the consistent tradition of Christianity until very recent times that the relationship between Mary and Joseph was not a typical marriage, and that Mary was perpetually a virgin. The Bible witnesses to this too, when Jesus asks John to care for His mother. The Scriptures say that she lived with him from that day on. (John 19:26,27) If she had other children, custom and family feeling would certainly have dictated that she live with them, but the evidence of Scripture is clear that Mary stood alone at the foot of the cross. Thus, we have the witness of both Scripture and very strong tradition that Mary was Ever-Virgin.
Your second question is also very important and actually related to your first question, “Why do the Gospels not have a genealogy of Mary and why do the genealogies of Joseph seem to contradict each other?” the answer is really quite simple. The same Julius Africanus mentioned above learned it from the relatives of Jesus. (Look in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History Chapter 7.) The Jews, as many other cultures, have a way to keep family lines from dying out, if a man dies leaving no sons to keep his name alive. This is called a levirate marriage. Deuteronomy 25:5-6 says that a brother should marry the widow of his deceased brother if his brother has no sons. The firstborn child is considered the firstborn son of the deceased brother. (In certain cases in the Middle East, adoption rather than actual marriage, is also used to keep families from dying out.) Julius Africanus claims that he was told by Jesus’ relatives Joseph’s lineage comes such levirate relationships. The Gospel of Matthew records the biological genealogy of Joseph and the Gospel of Luke records the legal genealogy of Joseph. Eusebius of Caesarea in this same chapter 7 points out that Mary’s genealogy is essentially the same as Joseph’s because people married within families, and they still do in much of the Near East.
How are these two things related? Simple. Your friend at the Bible study said that “The Bible says....” the Bible doesn’t say that Mary had other children. It says that Jesus had brothers named James and Joses. The text no where says that Mary was their mother. Your friend thinks he knows the bible, but he doesn’t know it very well.
The Bible when taken alone and out of its context does say that Joseph is the son of both Eli and Matthan. Look at the genealogies. They don’t match at all! The Church could have edited out difficult passages, but she never has. She kept them and guarded them as family treasures passed down through the ages. The Bible is our book. By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we wrote it, (at least the later parts) we compiled it and we have faithfully passed it on from generation to generation. It can only be read and understood in the light of the traditions we have received and that the Church has studied since the very beginning. Modern arrogance is no substitute for the authority Christ gave His Bride, the Church.
Yours,
Rev. Know-it-all
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Who wrote the Bible?
Dear Rev. Know it all,
Who wrote the Bible?
Sincerely,
Solomon “Sol” A. Scriptura
Dear Sol,
First, the simple answer. A lot of people wrote the Bible, because the Bible is not a book. It’s a library. The word Bible comes from a Greek word (of course) “biblia.” Biblia is plural. It means “books.” (Biblion = one book, biblia =2 or more books) There are seventy-three books in the Bible, (unless you are Protestant, in which case you only have 66 books. Pity.)
There are a lot of sacred books in the world. Perhaps you are really asking “How did some books come to be regarded as uniquely inspired by Christians?” It starts with the Jews, or rather with the Israelites, somewhere in the Sinai Desert. Sometime between 1450 and 1250 years before the birth of Jesus. A fellow named Moses led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt through the sea to an encounter with God at the foot of His holy mountain. Moses went up the mountain and came back with the law given by God. So it seems that God, through the agency of Moses wrote the first the sacred books of the Hebrews, as the Israelites were also called.
Over the next thousand plus years, books of history, prophecy and religious poetry and parables were added to those first books of Moses. They were a loose collection of about forty or fifty books that were respected as inspired, some more than others. About 200 years before the birth of Jesus many, perhaps a majority of Israelites — now called Judeans, from which we get the word Jew — lived outside the Holy Land and no longer spoke their ancestral language, Hebrew.
Alexandria, a Greek speaking city on the Mediterranean coast of Egypt, had a large population of Jews. The king of Egypt commissioned a Greek translation of the Hebrew holy books. It was called the “Septuagint”, or the “Books of the Seventy.” The name comes from the legends surrounding the translation, something about 70 or seventy-two scholars, or perhaps 70 days necessary for the work of translation. We really know very little about the origin of the Septuagint. Still, the Septuagint became the authoritative canon of Scripture for Greek-speaking Jews, who quite possibly outnumbered the Jews who spoke Aramaic, a language close to Hebrew. (Just a word about “canon.” Canon originally meant a measuring rod. It is related to the English word “cane.” Anything that is a canon or canonical is considered normative, something against which other things can be measured.)
The first disciples of Jesus seem to quote the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew original when they use the Hebrew Scripture and even the Qumran documents seem often to rely on the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew originals. So the Septuagint was very popular at the time of Christ. When the disciples went out into the Greek-speaking world, both Jewish and Gentile, they used the Septuagint as normative. The majority of Jews at the time of Jesus were probably Greek speakers, just as now the largest single group of Jews are English speakers.
There were more than a million Greek-speaking Jews living in Egypt, while less than a million lived in the Holy land. There were perhaps 4 or 5 million Jews alive at them time of Christ, and practically none used Hebrew as a first language. For many of them, the Septuagint was the Bible, and when Christianity moved out of the Greek-speaking Jewish world into the Roman empire, they regarded the Septuagint as the Scriptures.
The first followers of Jesus didn’t have a defined New Testament, but the phrase used by St. Justin Martyr around 160 AD is interesting. He speaks of the “memoirs of the apostles.” It seems that what we regard as the 27 books of the New Testament took a while to develop, though they seem to have been in place a hundred years after Jesus. They were the texts that were commonly read at Mass by the early Christians along with the Septuagint. That’s probably how they came to be regarded as Scripture.
At this same time, (@140 AD) a man named Marcion began to teach that the God of the New Testament was not the same as the savage God of the Old Testament. He also taught that the Old Testament Scriptures were not valid. He recognized only a shortened Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul's epistles. All other writings were rejected. This is interesting in itself because it implies that as early as 140 AD, certain books were held to be uniquely inspired. In response to Marcion, the first Christians started to list the books that they held sacred.
By the early 200's, Origen of Alexandria probably used the same 27 books we now regard as the New Testament editions. The Muratorian fragment indicates a New Testament with four gospels. The Muratorian fragment is perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament from perhaps 170 AD. It claims to be a list of all the works that were accepted by the churches. There was still debate about the New Testament canon, but the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by 200-250 AD.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, listed the same books that we regard as the New Testament canon, calling them “canonized" along with the Septuagint, though he rejected the book of Esther. The Synod of Hippo, in northern Africa, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, as did the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. St. Augustine regarded the scriptural canon as closed, as did Pope Damasus I and the Council of Rome in 382. Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the Latin speaking world.
There is however, a fly in the biblical ointment. Christians were not the only ones worrying about the nature of the biblical canon. As early as Rabbi Akiba who died in 135 AD, the Jews were worrying about the exact text of scripture. Rabbi Akiba also believed that Simon bar Kochba was the Messiah and seems to have encouraged his revolt against Rome in 132 AD. In the Bar Kochba revolt, all Jews who professed Jesus as Messiah were expelled from the territory controlled by the revolutionaries.
Thus began the split between Judaism and Christianity that endures to this day, though at the time a great percentage, possibly the majority of Christians were ethnically Jewish or Samaritan. The Jewish scriptures and the Christian scriptures also seem to begin their rift at this time. The Christians accepted the larger Septuagint canon, but the followers of Akiba and the rabbinic Judaism he helped to found, rejected any book for which the Hebrew original was no longer in existence. These are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, (also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus) Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees and sections of Daniel and Esther, 7 books plus the non Hebrew sections.
St Jerome did not think these books canonical, but he included them in the Vulgate, (Latin Bible) because the Church regarded them as canonical and had done so for three centuries. The current Jewish text called the Masorah, or Masoretic text (a Hebrew word meaning handed down), was finally completed and accepted predominantly between the 7th and 11th centuries.
Martin Luther rejected the Catholic Canon of the Septuagint/Old Testament, in favor of the Masoretic text and attempted to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament because they contradicted certain Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. His changes to the New Testament weren’t generally accepted among his fellow reformers. But, these books are still ordered last in the Luther Bible.
There are more problems with the text of Scripture. Manuscripts have variant readings and there are disputes about translation and so on. What can one do to get the “true text” of the Bible? If you believe the reformation rule of Sola Scriptura, (Bible alone), you are up the proverbial creek without a text. But if you understand that these books are written by many human beings who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, you don’t really have a problem.
The question you asked at the beginning, “who wrote the Bible?” is really very easy to answer. Around a hundred people wrote it. The more important question is "who chose these books as unique and sacred?" The Holy Spirit working through the ministry of the Church did that. She recognized these particular books as being uniquely “God-breathed” (which is what inspired means) and useful for learning the ways of God. The real author of the whole library is the Holy Spirit.
Remember what St. Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 3:15 “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth,” not the Bible. When there is a variant text, or translation, we have the unbroken tradition of two thousand years to tell us the exact meaning of those things that are doubtful. We had already been saying Mass for almost fifty years when the last parts of the New Testament were set down on paper, and, in a certain sense, it was Mass that created the Bible. It was at Mass that these books were publicly read and found to be uniquely filled with the Holy Spirit.
When you think about it, for Catholics, the Church is the mother of the Bible. For Protestants, the Bible is the Mother of the Church.
I hope this helps,
Rev. Know-it-all
Who wrote the Bible?
Sincerely,
Solomon “Sol” A. Scriptura
Dear Sol,
First, the simple answer. A lot of people wrote the Bible, because the Bible is not a book. It’s a library. The word Bible comes from a Greek word (of course) “biblia.” Biblia is plural. It means “books.” (Biblion = one book, biblia =2 or more books) There are seventy-three books in the Bible, (unless you are Protestant, in which case you only have 66 books. Pity.)
There are a lot of sacred books in the world. Perhaps you are really asking “How did some books come to be regarded as uniquely inspired by Christians?” It starts with the Jews, or rather with the Israelites, somewhere in the Sinai Desert. Sometime between 1450 and 1250 years before the birth of Jesus. A fellow named Moses led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt through the sea to an encounter with God at the foot of His holy mountain. Moses went up the mountain and came back with the law given by God. So it seems that God, through the agency of Moses wrote the first the sacred books of the Hebrews, as the Israelites were also called.
Over the next thousand plus years, books of history, prophecy and religious poetry and parables were added to those first books of Moses. They were a loose collection of about forty or fifty books that were respected as inspired, some more than others. About 200 years before the birth of Jesus many, perhaps a majority of Israelites — now called Judeans, from which we get the word Jew — lived outside the Holy Land and no longer spoke their ancestral language, Hebrew.
Alexandria, a Greek speaking city on the Mediterranean coast of Egypt, had a large population of Jews. The king of Egypt commissioned a Greek translation of the Hebrew holy books. It was called the “Septuagint”, or the “Books of the Seventy.” The name comes from the legends surrounding the translation, something about 70 or seventy-two scholars, or perhaps 70 days necessary for the work of translation. We really know very little about the origin of the Septuagint. Still, the Septuagint became the authoritative canon of Scripture for Greek-speaking Jews, who quite possibly outnumbered the Jews who spoke Aramaic, a language close to Hebrew. (Just a word about “canon.” Canon originally meant a measuring rod. It is related to the English word “cane.” Anything that is a canon or canonical is considered normative, something against which other things can be measured.)
The first disciples of Jesus seem to quote the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew original when they use the Hebrew Scripture and even the Qumran documents seem often to rely on the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew originals. So the Septuagint was very popular at the time of Christ. When the disciples went out into the Greek-speaking world, both Jewish and Gentile, they used the Septuagint as normative. The majority of Jews at the time of Jesus were probably Greek speakers, just as now the largest single group of Jews are English speakers.
There were more than a million Greek-speaking Jews living in Egypt, while less than a million lived in the Holy land. There were perhaps 4 or 5 million Jews alive at them time of Christ, and practically none used Hebrew as a first language. For many of them, the Septuagint was the Bible, and when Christianity moved out of the Greek-speaking Jewish world into the Roman empire, they regarded the Septuagint as the Scriptures.
The first followers of Jesus didn’t have a defined New Testament, but the phrase used by St. Justin Martyr around 160 AD is interesting. He speaks of the “memoirs of the apostles.” It seems that what we regard as the 27 books of the New Testament took a while to develop, though they seem to have been in place a hundred years after Jesus. They were the texts that were commonly read at Mass by the early Christians along with the Septuagint. That’s probably how they came to be regarded as Scripture.
At this same time, (@140 AD) a man named Marcion began to teach that the God of the New Testament was not the same as the savage God of the Old Testament. He also taught that the Old Testament Scriptures were not valid. He recognized only a shortened Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul's epistles. All other writings were rejected. This is interesting in itself because it implies that as early as 140 AD, certain books were held to be uniquely inspired. In response to Marcion, the first Christians started to list the books that they held sacred.
By the early 200's, Origen of Alexandria probably used the same 27 books we now regard as the New Testament editions. The Muratorian fragment indicates a New Testament with four gospels. The Muratorian fragment is perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament from perhaps 170 AD. It claims to be a list of all the works that were accepted by the churches. There was still debate about the New Testament canon, but the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by 200-250 AD.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, listed the same books that we regard as the New Testament canon, calling them “canonized" along with the Septuagint, though he rejected the book of Esther. The Synod of Hippo, in northern Africa, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, as did the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. St. Augustine regarded the scriptural canon as closed, as did Pope Damasus I and the Council of Rome in 382. Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the Latin speaking world.
There is however, a fly in the biblical ointment. Christians were not the only ones worrying about the nature of the biblical canon. As early as Rabbi Akiba who died in 135 AD, the Jews were worrying about the exact text of scripture. Rabbi Akiba also believed that Simon bar Kochba was the Messiah and seems to have encouraged his revolt against Rome in 132 AD. In the Bar Kochba revolt, all Jews who professed Jesus as Messiah were expelled from the territory controlled by the revolutionaries.
Thus began the split between Judaism and Christianity that endures to this day, though at the time a great percentage, possibly the majority of Christians were ethnically Jewish or Samaritan. The Jewish scriptures and the Christian scriptures also seem to begin their rift at this time. The Christians accepted the larger Septuagint canon, but the followers of Akiba and the rabbinic Judaism he helped to found, rejected any book for which the Hebrew original was no longer in existence. These are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, (also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus) Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees and sections of Daniel and Esther, 7 books plus the non Hebrew sections.
St Jerome did not think these books canonical, but he included them in the Vulgate, (Latin Bible) because the Church regarded them as canonical and had done so for three centuries. The current Jewish text called the Masorah, or Masoretic text (a Hebrew word meaning handed down), was finally completed and accepted predominantly between the 7th and 11th centuries.
Martin Luther rejected the Catholic Canon of the Septuagint/Old Testament, in favor of the Masoretic text and attempted to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament because they contradicted certain Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. His changes to the New Testament weren’t generally accepted among his fellow reformers. But, these books are still ordered last in the Luther Bible.
There are more problems with the text of Scripture. Manuscripts have variant readings and there are disputes about translation and so on. What can one do to get the “true text” of the Bible? If you believe the reformation rule of Sola Scriptura, (Bible alone), you are up the proverbial creek without a text. But if you understand that these books are written by many human beings who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, you don’t really have a problem.
The question you asked at the beginning, “who wrote the Bible?” is really very easy to answer. Around a hundred people wrote it. The more important question is "who chose these books as unique and sacred?" The Holy Spirit working through the ministry of the Church did that. She recognized these particular books as being uniquely “God-breathed” (which is what inspired means) and useful for learning the ways of God. The real author of the whole library is the Holy Spirit.
Remember what St. Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 3:15 “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth,” not the Bible. When there is a variant text, or translation, we have the unbroken tradition of two thousand years to tell us the exact meaning of those things that are doubtful. We had already been saying Mass for almost fifty years when the last parts of the New Testament were set down on paper, and, in a certain sense, it was Mass that created the Bible. It was at Mass that these books were publicly read and found to be uniquely filled with the Holy Spirit.
When you think about it, for Catholics, the Church is the mother of the Bible. For Protestants, the Bible is the Mother of the Church.
I hope this helps,
Rev. Know-it-all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
