HE Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now HH Pope Benedict XVI, wrote:


There is much debate going on about this at present, with the recent execution of Saddam Hussein.

In response to an article back in November on the Catholic News Agency website, two Catholic blogs have taken different sides, and a third given lengthy commentary on both.

Jimmy Akin's blog
Evangelical Catholicism
Against the grain

Pray for the soul of Saddam Hussein, 28 April 1937 - 30 Dec 2006

A group of monkeys attacked the Orthodox monastery at Mount Athos in Greece with crowbars and sledgehammers on Wednesday.

A group of rebel monks occupy the Esphigmenou monastery, and have been ordered out by the Greek Orthodox Church as well as the Greek courts, but they won't go.

The rebel monks object, among other things, to the improvement of relations between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.

The monkeys tried to take over the monastery, and were repelled with fire extinguishers and crowbars.

Methodius, the rebel abbott, said "They should be ashamed to call themselves men of the cloth."  Men of the cloth?  More like monkeys.

Monks with crowbars face off over monastery

Quite something.

If Gregorian has been telling the truth about the Bacchiocchi issue, then the outcome is clear - Bacchiocchi will be put in perspective, and Gregorian retains respect.

On the other hand, if Gregorian has NOT been telling the truth ... what then?

Obviously Bacchiocchi gets more ammunition to promote his book.  Gregorian gets embarrassed.  Their students (those who read obscure blogs like this) get disillusioned.

But there are still some negative implications for Bacchiocchi.

The issue of Bacchiocchi's use of the imprimatur has been highlighted.  We know it did not apply to the book it is currently printed in.  Whether or not he knew that it was not acceptable to apply an imprimatur for one work to another, expanded and modified, work is not relevant.  The fact is that his current book does not have an imprimatur.  He now knows this.  Will future printings still contain it?  The imprimatur does not mean what he claims it means in terms of "approval".  He now knows this.  Will he continue to use it out of context?

That's probably the biggest one.  There are other questions that will be asked.

Bacchiocchi's book also ends up as a thesis whose integrity can then be questioned, because it came from a corrupt institution.  Why did they publish it?  Why the praise?  It is clearly not in agreement with Catholic theology.  Was Bacchiocchi given such praise for ecumenical reasons ... religious politics?  Jared comments at the XCG blog on how the atmosphere in the Catholic Church in the 1970s may have influenced the changing attitude towards Bacchiocchi - first admission to Gregorian, then the imprimatur, then publishing the thesis, and then cutting off contact.

To me, it always sounded more like an excessive attempt to pander to the anti-Catholic side of Christianity in the name of ecumenism.  In that world, "an interesting perspective" etc. is just a euphemism for "unorthodox theology".  Who wants to be praised simply because of ecumenical expedience?

(And even if Gregorian is not wrong about Bacchiocchi's credentials, an accusation of political expedience could still be levelled at them on several counts.)

Obviously it would have been more than ecumenical expedience - Bacchiocchi cites various other people commenting on his book.  It is certainly interesting, a different perspective, and, although not really believable imho, certainly a good basis to use to show the errors of this sort of thinking.  So a positive review is not unwarranted.  And certainly, if Bacchiocchi did get the grades he says he got, he did well, and his work is of good quality.  Not that it can't be questioned.  Good grades don't mean historically accurate - they mean the scholarship is good, and good evidence to support the hypothesis has been demonstrated.  But not the end of the story.

I disagree with a lot of the conclusions in "From Sabbath to Sunday", and it comes across to me as if someone went looking for pro-Sabbath evidence that could be used to make a case, for a priori conclusions, that could be promoted as being put together at a Catholic institution.  I find it all very unconvincing.  The outcome of this won’t change that - the credibility of Bacchiocchi and of the Gregorian doesn’t change the content or the arguments.  But knowing who is credible is good.

Comments open ...

The Gregorian controversy about Samuele Bacchiocchi's thesis, "From Sabbath to Sunday," has been going on for some time now.

I commented on the second part of his defence some time ago.

The XCG blog has now got a more detailed commentary on it, which is still continuing.  See comments 80-84, and further on when they come out.

Hobbes' Place has also got a 3rd post on it.

Bacchiocchi says his submission to Gregorian and Bishop Murray will be ready in about 10 days.

When Anglican parishes convert to Catholicism (at least in the USA), they retain their liturgy instead of using the usual liturgy used in most Catholic parishes, as happens when an entire congregation from another denomination converts.

Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church is the first Anglican Use parish, established on August 15, 1983.  They now have a blog, in addition to their website.

Again from the SDA2RC blog, something the Worldwide Church of God splinter groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Adventists, such as Bacchiocchi, need to consider - the evidence that Christmas was not derived from a pagan celebration.  This is an article by William Tighe in Touchstone Magazine.

Bacchiocchi, although antagonistic towards Christmas and other Christian days of worship, gives us some good news about Adventism (although he doesn't consider it to be good news.)

From his Endtime Issues newsletter number 161:



Bacchiocchi forgets that, IF it had a pagan origin, the holiday, as used by Christians, entirely preaches Christ born for us.  Why is replacing something bad with something good a bad thing to do?


That's one personal opinion.  Most Christians through the centuries have felt that Christ's birth was worth decorating with joyful celebration, and physical decorations - candles, a manger, lights - are a fitting expression of this.  Just because Jesus was humble doesn't mean we can't worship him with glory.

Bacchiocchi simply repeats many of the old Worldwide Church of God arguments against Christmas, providing one side of the claims.  For the other side of the evidence, see Touchstone Magazine and Truth or Fables.

Michael Schiefler has been trying to squeeze more water out of a stone on his anti-Catholic website.  I commented on it before.  He seems to think he has the name of the Pope that changed the Sabbath to Sunday nailed down - Pope Sylvester I.

Scheifler is basing his claims on second-hand information based on what are probably spurious documents.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope Sylvester says the following:


In the article on Sunday:


So there we have a formal decree on Sunday from prior to Sylvester, although not a Roman or ecumenical council, but it establishes the formal nature of Sunday in the Christian world.

The same article mentions Tertullian:


Tertullian establishes that Sunday was already used for rest in the early 200's.

The same article says:


So what Laodicea decided was nothing new - it had been going on for ages.  And what Rabanus Maurus reports of Pope Sylvester corresponds with later developments, after some controversy about viewing Sunday in terms of a Sabbath, and is in keeping with the time of the forgeries rather than the time of Sylvester.

There isn't even certainty that the council of Laodicea fell within the lifetime of Sylvester ... and Laodicea is also used by Adventists as the decree which changed the Sabbath to Sunday.  Can they not make up their minds?  If they had real evidence, why are they so confused?

Very little is known about what really happened in the reign of Sylvester, and nothing I can find online confirms this Sunday issue, apart from claims like Scheifler's, either based on simple unsupported claims, or on questionable history.  (As are the Catholic bulletin clippings that Scheifler presents on his site.)

So Scheifler's info is second hand, and probably based on legend derived from those forgeries, which were made to promote the authority of the pope.

That Sunday was being kept as the Lord's Day is well-established by then - in both the Church Fathers and official gatherings of bishops.  That it was used as a day of rest was established in Tertullian's time.  That it replaced the Sabbath as a Sabbath-like concept was not formally accepted for several centuries to come.  So did Sylvester do anything new?

If Sylvester DID simply confirm Sunday observance, it is meaningless in light of a well-established practice, as it would be nothing more than a mere mention, the way later councils and popes (such as HH Pope John Paul II) confirmed it.  Popes and Councils reiterate things many times, for various reasons, and never are repetitions considered to be an establishment of an idea or a rule.  Unless you really need to stretch a point, which is what Scheifler needs to do.

If Scheifler really wants to make his point stick, he'd have to go back in time and film the events or bring back documents for us to look at.  More practically, he'd need to quote Sylvester, not other people quoting later forged works, or he'd need to show that the discussion he quotes is not based on forged works ... and he'd also need to show that Sylvester did more than just mention the day the way later popes/councils did, which in no way established the observance of the day as an official practice.

From the Orthquote list, 19 Nov 2006:

From St. Ambrose (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:Second Series Vol. X; Eerdmans pg. 310):
 
"We ask for what reason our Lord was unwilling to state the time of His coming (cf. Mk. 13:31-32). If we ask it, we shall not find it is owing to ignorance, but to wisdom. For it was not to our advantage to know; in order that we being ignorant of the actual moments of judgment to come, might ever be as it were on guard, and set on the watch-tower of virtue, and so avoid the habits of sin; lest the day of the Lord should come upon us in the midst of our wickedness."

The Eastern Orthodox Churches often object to the western / Catholic concept of original sin.

The SDA2RC blog lists two excellent articles by Orthodox authors about why this may simply be a misunderstanding of terminology, with both sides quite compatible in their beliefs.

That's something I've felt about many Protestant teachings as well.  If people are willing to listen to and try to understand each other, they usually find they agree on more than they realised.  If they only want to disagree, and judge without finding out what is really believed - pre-judge, or prejudice - all we get is a waste of time.

From the Seventh-Day Adventist to Roman Catholic blog, I got the following info:

Adventist church membership grew from 10,939,182 at the beginning of 2000 to 13,936,932 at the end of 2004, according to Bert Haloviak, director of Archives and Statistics for the world SDA Church.

And for every 100 people joining, 35 left.  That's up from the 24 leaving for every 100 joining reported in 2000.

Brandon's comment: "I believe that more and more, people are turning away from the negative carcitures of other Christians and the focus on legal requirements rather than the gospel of Christ."

I believe he's spot on.  Enough is being said about the legalism surrounding health and the Sabbath, and about other teachings that are contrary to the Bible.  Adventism does seem to be changing towards a less aggressive attitude to other Christian faiths, and perhaps that is fuelling the exodus.  Adventism changes slowly, members realise their error in this regard faster, and because Adventism remains vocally opposed to other faiths, there is more awareness of the problem with not enough change, and people leave.

This is an important topic, because if October 22 1844 was a meaningless date in the biblical calendar, then it ruins the whole Adventist theological system.  They got it wrong the first time round, predicting the return of Christ, but they never gave up on the date.  They should.


One of the major reasons why they cannot discard this date is that a prophet of their church has stated that this was the date.  Either they have to acknowledge her error, or they have to stick to their non-date.  To do so, they pretended that the Karaite Jews used this date.

Karaite statements from Truth or Fables:


Documentary evidence from the time confirms this.

For more info, see Day of Atonement of the Karaite Jews in 1844 and When Was the Day of Atonement in 1844? on the Truth or Fables website.

Last year, I wrote about Christmas.  This year too.

The SDA2RC blog has an article on Christmas from the Catholic News Service.

Wikipedia and Truth or Fables also have articles showing that Christmas is truly Christian, not a pagan celebration.

Something worth reading for those who object to "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" and "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" [MIDI source]

The prophecies in Daniel are one part of the Bible that Adventists love to interpret to their heart's content ... and to misinterpret.  Daniel provides Adventism with a lot to fuel their anti-Catholic desires.  And when you don't accept their interpretation of the prophecies, they often want an alternative interpretation.

That is poor logic ... in order to refute an error, one only needs to show why it is an error, and one doesn't necessarily need to provide a new theory to replace it.  Most Christians who study Daniel can see that Adventism's theory is in error, but that doesn't mean they are sure what it means themselves.

To say, "Teaching X is in error, that much is clear, but feel free to develop your own understanding of the passage, because we don't specify what it means, although we do see the clear error in some interpretations." is quite acceptable.  And this is what Adventists need to understand.

Hugo, an ex-Adventist, now Catholic, on the SDA2RC blog, goes into his own understanding of Daniel's prophecies, which he has placed on his Dies Domini website (see his blog post for the direct link to the PDF, but it can be found with a set of related articles here.)  He also gives another link to a similar perspective.  His views are what I find most logical, and in agreement with historical and biblical evidence.  But the Catholic Church does not impose one interpretation of this - and most other - passages on us.  For us, spiritual growth is more important than working out the details about the end of the world ... although that can be an exciting topic.

The Spectrum Magazine blog has the following to say:


Collins led the Human Genome Project to its completion, and is a Christian who believes in evolution.

Adventists typically struggle with this concept - science vs their interpretation of the Bible.  This blog, and the book, would be a good read for them.

The guilty parties?  The City of San Francisco, and Judge Marily Hall Patel.

The terms "liberal fundamentalism" and "progressive bigotry" may appear to be self-contradictory, like the term "military intelligence" - but they describe well those on the political left extreme who can't stomach the toleration of views other than their own.  Freedom of speech?  Freedom of religion?  Yes, if it's theirs.

Original article - Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitutional.

It looks like Gregorian University once again (if Bacchiocchi is right about what they said about his thesis) acts tactlessly, perhaps for political reasons.

Bacchiocchi's Response to False Allegations Pt 2 has been posted online by Bacchiocchi.

The Gregorian University has disagreed with him over what his credentials truly are.  This has come to be known as The Gregorian Controversy.

My previous post in response to his first response can be found here - Bacchiocchi's response to the Gregorian debate

One has to wade through a lot of information, such as recommendations for his book, that really do nothing to prove his side of the story.  If you cut it down to the necessary facts, does he really provide solid evidence?

He provides a good case.  But a lot of it remains unverified.  His explanation of the process of publishing his thesis is convincing.  Does anyone out there have a copy of the original abridged version?

His explanation of the Imprimatur leaves me feeling uneasy.  While the Imprimi Potest usually comes from the head of the order the writer belongs to, it may well come from the rector of the university.  But it would say "Imprimi Potest."  Bacchiocchi's Imprimi Potest doesn't say Imprimi Potest.  So what is it?

He admits something quite fascinating about the Imprimatur:


Firstly, Prof Monachino was not in a position to decide what was and not appropriate regarding the Imprimatur.  That was clearly an inappropriate decision.  The protocols regarding the Imprimatur require a new one for every new edition, each new language a text is published in.  It certainly does not apply to an expanded version of a text that contains new information and new assertions regarding the subject at hand.

So I think it is quite clear - the Imprimatur on the current books printed by Bacchiocchi do not apply to the books it is printed in, and it never applied to his thesis as a whole.  It is being used inappropriately, and he should stop.  It is misleading.

The comes the fact that the Imprimatur still is not what he claims it is - approval of the contents by the Catholic Church.  The contents are not in agreement with the Catholic faith, and nobody ever thought they were.  Bacchiocchi admits it was a lengthy and difficult process, involving a number of favours, to get it.  So, assuming it ever existed, it is still not approval from the Catholic Church.  As Bacchiocchi admits elsewhere in his part 2, Imprimatur means "It can be printed".  For my discussion of the subsections of the Imprimatur, of which Bacchiocchi obtained the least important in terms of approval of contents, see my previous post.

Bacchiocchi says:


Actually, if it had been approved, it would have stated so, with a Nihil Obstat.  Bacchiocchi's thesis lacks that.

I also still want to know why "Gregorian University Press" is placed in a prominent position on his book, even so long after when they clearly no longer print it.  I feel it is misleading.


Finally.  Apparently that is what Bishop Murray has been waiting for for 2 years now.  It seems there was some confusion there, as Murray waited for Bacchiocchi to submit a written report, and Bacchiocchi waited for a personal interview with Murray.

Taken from the website of the Diocese of Kalamazoo, here are contact details for Bishop Murray's people:

Write letters to:
Most Reverend James A. Murray
Diocese of Kalamazoo
215 N. Westnedge Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3760

E-mail:
Most Reverend James A. Murray  |  Diocese of Kalamazoo

Telephone:
+1 269 349 8714

Contact them and encourage them to deal with this.

The Gregorian University can be contacted:

By post:
The Rector
Pontifical Gregorian University
Piazza della Pilotta, 4
00187 Roma

By e-mail:
Segreteria Generale

By phone:
Centralino: Tel. +39 06 6701 5295
Segretario Generale: Tel. +39 06 6701 5117; Fax +39 06 6701 5419

It's time for them to respond.

From the Orthquote list, 18 Nov 2006:

From St. John of Kronstadt (My Life in Christ; Holy Trinity Monastery pg. 174):
 
"Prayer is spiritual breathing; when we pray we breathe in the Holy Spirit; “praying in the Holy Spirit� (Jd. 1:20). Thus, all church prayers are the breathing of the Holy Spirit; as it were spiritual air and also light, spiritual fire, spiritual food and spiritual raiment."

For the answers to these questions, see Dies Domini: Is Saturday the True Sabbath? on Lumen Gentleman's site.

Six Imprisoned Health-Care Workers in Libya Are Pawns in a Far Larger Strategic Game

The repercussions are enormous

Author: Laurie Garrett

Source: PLoS Medicine

PDF (56K)
HTML

Certainly something to read in the current politically tense world.

Foxnews.com has published a photoessay of HH Pope Benedict XVI's trip to Turkey.  It can be found here.

Common Declaration by Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I

This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God’s work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. May our meeting be a sign and an encouragement to us to share the same sentiments and the same attitudes of fraternity, cooperation and communion in charity and truth. The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it. Then we shall truly be able to rejoice and be glad.

1. We have recalled with thankfulness the meetings of our venerable predecessors, blessed by the Lord, who showed the world the urgent need for unity and traced sure paths for attaining it, through dialogue, prayer and the daily life of the Church. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I went as pilgrims to Jerusalem, to the very place where Jesus Christ died and rose again for the salvation of the world, and they also met again, here in the Phanar and in Rome. They left us a common declaration which retains all its value; it emphasizes that true dialogue in charity must sustain and inspire all relations between individuals and between Churches, that it “must be rooted in a total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for their own traditions� (Tomos Agapis, 195). Nor have we forgotten the reciprocal visits of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Dimitrios I. It was during the visit of Pope John Paul II, his first ecumenical visit, that the creation of the Mixed Commission for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was announced. This has brought together our Churches in the declared aim of re-establishing full communion.

As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries had a negative effect on our Churches. We have not yet drawn from this act all the positive consequences which can flow from it in our progress towards full unity, to which the mixed Commission is called to make an important contribution. We exhort our faithful to take an active part in this process, through prayer and through significant gestures.

2. At the time of the plenary session of the mixed Commission for theological dialogue, which was recently held in Belgrade through the generous hospitality of the Serbian Orthodox Church, we expressed our profound joy at the resumption of the theological dialogue. This had been interrupted for several years because of various difficulties, but now the Commission was able to work afresh in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. In treating the topic “Conciliarity and Authority in the Church� at local, regional and universal levels, the Commission undertook a phase of study on the ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church. This will permit us to address some of the principal questions that are still unresolved. We are committed to offer unceasing support, as in the past, to the work entrusted to this Commission and we accompany its members with our prayers.

3. As Pastors, we have first of all reflected on the mission to proclaim the Gospel in today’s world. This mission, “Go, make disciples of all nations� (Mt 28:19), is today more timely and necessary than ever, even in traditionally Christian countries. Moreover, we cannot ignore the increase of secularization, relativism, even nihilism, especially in the Western world. All this calls for a renewed and powerful proclamation of the Gospel, adapted to the cultures of our time. Our traditions represent for us a patrimony which must be continually shared, proposed, and interpreted anew. This is why we must strengthen our cooperation and our common witness before the world.

4. We have viewed positively the process that has led to the formation of the European Union. Those engaged in this great project should not fail to take into consideration all aspects affecting the inalienable rights of the human person, especially religious freedom, a witness and guarantor of respect for all other freedoms. In every step towards unification, minorities must be protected, with their cultural traditions and the distinguishing features of their religion. In Europe, while remaining open to other religions and to their cultural contributions, we must unite our efforts to preserve Christian roots, traditions and values, to ensure respect for history, and thus to contribute to the European culture of the future and to the quality of human relations at every level. In this context, how could we not evoke the very ancient witnesses and the illustrious Christian heritage of the land in which our meeting is taking place, beginning with what the Acts of the Apostles tells us concerning the figure of Saint Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles? In this land, the Gospel message and the ancient cultural tradition met. This link, which has contributed so much to the Christian heritage that we share, remains timely and will bear more fruit in the future for evangelization and for our unity.

5. Our concern extends to those parts of today’s world where Christians live and to the difficulties they have to face, particularly poverty, wars and terrorism, but equally to various forms of exploitation of the poor, of migrants, women and children. We are called to work together to promote respect for the rights of every human being, created in the image and likeness of God, and to foster economic, social and cultural development. Our theological and ethical traditions can offer a solid basis for a united approach in preaching and action. Above all, we wish to affirm that killing innocent people in God’s name is an offence against him and against human dignity. We must all commit ourselves to the renewed service of humanity and the defense of human life, every human life.

We take profoundly to heart the cause of peace in the Middle East, where our Lord lived, suffered, died and rose again, and where a great multitude of our Christian brethren have lived for centuries. We fervently hope that peace will be re-established in that region, that respectful coexistence will be strengthened between the different peoples that live there, between the Churches and between the different religions found there. To this end, we encourage the establishment of closer relationships between Christians, and of an authentic and honest interreligious dialogue, with a view to combating every form of violence and discrimination.

6. At present, in the face of the great threats to the natural environment, we want to express our concern at the negative consequences for humanity and for the whole of creation which can result from economic and technological progress that does not know its limits. As religious leaders, we consider it one of our duties to encourage and to support all efforts made to protect God’s creation, and to bequeath to future generations a world in which they will be able to live.

7. Finally, our thoughts turn towards all of you, the faithful of our two Churches throughout the world, Bishops, priests, deacons, men and women religious, lay men and women engaged in ecclesial service, and all the baptized. In Christ we greet other Christians, assuring them of our prayers and our openness to dialogue and cooperation. In the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, we greet all of you: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ� (2 Cor 1:2).

At the Phanar, 30 November 2006

Benedict XVI     Bartholomew I

Source - The Ecumenical Patriarchate website