In the Church bulletin for December 22, Father John David calls attention to the family history of the Faithful.  He writes, “Wrapped in the family history of Scripture, offering our sacrifice of praise in worship, we are shaped to be prophetic witnesses of God’s love in the world.”  Whenever anyone speaks of “family” to me, they never mean that I should be the father.  What is happening with the current Church scandals, from the Protestant disintegration to the sexual cover-ups is that the Faithful are maturing.  To mature, sometimes one must leave the family.  That seems to be the case for some of those who can no longer accept everything the hierarchic Church says, just because the hierarchic Church is saying it.

 

In having to take responsibility for their own decisions, the Faithful cannot afford to go too far adrift in sin.  The Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned (cf. Psalm 51:3a) antiphon helps with prayer.  It also helps to remember with the Black Baptists that Jesus comes to save his people from their sins.

 

 

 

Readings

First Reading:                    Genesis 2:7-9; 3:1-7

Responsorial Psalm:          Psalm 51:3-4, 5-6, 12-13, 14, 17 (cf. 3a)

Second Reading:               Romans 5:12-19

Verse before the Gospel:   Matthew 4:4b

Gospel:                             Matthew 4:1-11

 

 

Annotated Bibliography

Musings above the solid line draw from material below.  Those uninterested in scholarly and tangential details should stop reading here.  If they do, however, they may miss some interesting details.

 

Genesis 2:7-9; 3:1-7

Personal Notes cites members of the Protestant Revolt in the spirit of Gerald O’Collins, S.J., writing,[1]

 

In fact, by allowing the liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular, by stressing “the table of God’s word” along with the importance of the homily (no. 52), and by granting to the laity—although restricted to certain circumstances—communion “under both kinds” (no. 55), Vatican II conceded the demands of Martin Luther and other 16th-century Protestant reformers, albeit in the 20th-century.  In short, while SC [Sacrosanctum concilium [sic]] did not use explicitly the language of “reform” or “reformation,” what it enacted can and should be described in those terms.

 

Gen 2:4-7

James H. Evans [sic] Jr., We have been Believers:  An African American Systematic Theology[2]

Evans speculates,

 

The laboring God can be conceived in another way.  God as creator can be understood as the one who gives birth, issuing forth the fruits of God’s own being.  It might be unusual, but certainly not heretical, to image God straining over the birthing stool to bring the cosmos to life, into being.  In fact, a rereading of the Genesis 2:4-7 account of creation suggests a God who breathes the breath of life into the newborn cosmos, clearing the mucous from its air passages and enabling the created order to breathe on its own.  This is a womanist trope for the bringing into existence that which did not exist before, of giving life, of bonding and caring.  The mark of God upon creation in this understanding is the material manifestation of the imago Dei.  An emphasis on creation and providence as God’s work in history and in the world suggests a God who is not determined by the interests of the leisure class.  It suggests a God who produces genuine faith and gives birth to liberating praxis.

 

Gen 2:4b—3:24

Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Cosmological and Protological Language of Deutero-Isaiah”[3]

Blenkinsopp points out there are “no cosmic overtones” in this passage.

 


 

Genesis 2:4b-25

Joseph E. Jensen, review of Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1[4]

Jensen reports that Smith argues,

 

Genesis 1 is the priestly tradition’s account placed at the head of the Bible as “the account of creation,” while other creation accounts with their alternative views [such as Genesis 2:4b-25] are still preserved.  As the dominant account, Genesis 1 stands in dialogue with these other accounts, so that one can say that “the biblical truth of creation constitutes the range or sum of the truths in all the various accounts in the Bible” (p. 157).

 

 . . . 

 

Smith’s constructive focus on what scholarly study of Genesis 1 offers to faith and understanding for his “wider readership” is a welcome alternative to efforts intent on undermining literal readings of the text.  The book could serve admirably as a textbook for an upper-level college course.  Scholars and teachers will find it a useful addition to their libraries.

 

Genesis 2:4-25, 3:1-4

Jeff Cavins, Tim Gray, and Sarah Christmyer, The Bible Timeline:  The Story of Salvation[5]

When Cavins uses the following heading, “The Creation of Mankind,” I see an Opus Dei political reactionary attempt to ignore new feminist perspectives.  I would rather see “The Creation of Humans.”

 

Gen 2:7

Garrett M. Galvin, O.F.M., review of Dale Launderville, O.S.B., Celibacy in the Ancient World:  Its Ideal and Practice in Pre-Hellenistic Israel, Mesopotamia, and Greece[6]

Galvin reports that

 

Launderville connects celibacy with the affirmation of the cosmic household model, which is the matrix of relationships spanning the sphere of heaven, earth, and the nether-world.  Celibacy is a tensive process that can channel the sex drive into creating community.  Female virginity becomes equated with a secure household.  L. connects the vibrancy of this cosmic household with texts from Ezekiel and Genesis that focus on the androgynous characters of the prince of Tyre (Ezekiel 28) and the earth creature of Gen 1:27 and 2:7 [used here].

 

Gen 2:9, 3:5

Robert J. Daly, S.J., “Phenomenology of Redemption?  Or Theory of Sanctification?”[7]

Daly seeks to understand Genesis with the social sciences.

 

Notice how accurately this [original sin] is unveiling what is happening in the Genesis story.  “You will be like God, knowing good and evil,” the serpent temptingly and with perverse irony promises in Genesis 3:5 [used here].  For the culmination of the first creation story in Genesis 1:26 has proclaimed that humankind, male and female, already is in the image and likeness of God.  Adam and Eve already are like God.  But they desire more.  They want to be God.  The use of the Hebrew word chamad in this Adam-and-Eve story (Gen 2:9 and 3:6 [both used here]) is telling:  it is the same word that is translated as covet at the end of the Ten Commandments.  “The verb seems usually to express a desire that strongly impels one toward acquiring the object of attraction.”  That is what is going on “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the  eyes, and that the tree was to be desired (chamad) to make one wise” (Gen 3:6 [used here]).

 

Daly is overly complicated, thinking it is perverse human nature that naturally wants what others cherish.  My explanation is easier to understand.  The basic temptation in the spiritual life is whether to let truth determine how one uses power or to let how one uses power determine how one determines truth.  Daly does not include an email address, thereby inviting a response, which I am not doing.

 


 

Gen 2:9

Kevin L. Hughes, “Bonaventure Contra Mundum?  The Catholic Theological Tradition Revisited”[8]

Hughes sets out the current hierarchic conflict between truth and politics.  That complication explains the lengthy quotations that follow.  Hughes writes that Bonaventure

 

says, “It is fitting to pass over from all things into the truth, so that there be no other pleasure than in God.  Rightly conceived all understanding and all pleasure are transitive—translucent, permeable by the light of wisdom itself.  Vanity, on the other hand, is falling in love with surfaces.  “Of course, everyone wants to be wise and knowledgeable, but it happens to them as it happened to the woman:  “`She saw that the tree was beautiful and sweet to the taste’ (Gen 2:9).  They see the beauty of the knowledge of passing things and, so smitten, they linger, they taste, and they are beguiled.”  To linger in the knowledge of passing things is to end prematurely, to turn off the path and be beguiled.  It is to substitute vain curiosity for true knowledge, and, Bonaventure says, “Curiosity is the first vice—through it Lucifer fell, and Adam fell, and today many still fall to ruin in this way.”

To speak of curiosity in this way should seem to mark Bonaventure as a true “conservative,” “stand(ing) athwart history, yelling Stop” in William F. Buckley’s notorious definition.  But it is important to note that Bonaventure’s counsel is not to refuse to inquire, not at all to stop; instead, he urges his audience to pursue inquiry all the way to its end.

 

Hughes argues that pitting Bonaventure with his Plato against Aquinas with his Aristotle is a false dichotomy, made up in post-modern times.  As the précis puts it,

 

Conventional Catholic interpretations of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure often pose them as dialectical opposites representing two distinct theological traditions.  This article calls these interpretations into question, and, after offering an alternative sketch of each thinker’s theological accomplishment, argues for a Catholic theology of history and tradition that can admit plurality without resorting to binary opposition.

 

Hughes gives his argument contemporary concern.

 

The reception of Vatican II in the Catholic Church, as numerous recent publications have shown, is still a matter of significant dispute.  Two books published in 2008 were sometimes reviewed together because they clearly illustrated the issues at stake in this question.  John O’Malley’s What Happened at Vatican II focused on the council as a watershed event, a turning point in Catholic history, wherein the church came out from behind the battlements of its anti-Modernist fortress and turned its face toward the modern world.  For O’Malley, this fundamental change in orientation is the most significant dimension of the council, and it becomes for him the basic lens through which the council documents have to be read.  The other book, Vatican II:  Renewal within Tradition, edited by Mathew Lamb and Matthew Levering, offers a different perspective, as its subtitle indicates.  It argues for a hermeneutics [the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation][9] of reform within continuity,” most pointedly in the address of Benedict XVI marking the council’s 40th anniversary.  The book offers studies of each of the significant council documents in light of the church’s wider tradition.  The coincidence of these two books and the commentary surrounding them illuminate fault lines that have characterized Catholic theological culture since the council and perhaps even before it.  These lines have been drawn with arguable utility, in various ways:  Lumen Gentium Catholics[10] vs. Gaudium et Spes Catholics; Communio vs. Concilium; conservative vs liberal, Augustinian vs. Thomist.  A specific variant of the last designation, namely, Bonaventure vs. Aquinas, gained new life with the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI.  In this case, Bonaventure is taken to be the last lion of the “Augustinian synthesis,” resistant to Aquinas’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy into Christian thought.  In this reading [sic] Bonaventure becomes a kind of archetype for the conservative Augustinian theological impulse, and Aquinas represents a more progressive, open, liberal counterarchetype.

 

The Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis 1-11 has 459 pages, too many to explore here.  The following comments focus on what Protestant revolutionaries said, rather than who said it.

 

Gen 3:2-5[11]

Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), writes, “The woman, having neglected the voice of the most holy Father, listens to his foe.”  John Calvin (1509-1564) writes, “Eve erred, however, by not conforming the manner of her knowing to the will of God.”  Luther (1483-1546) has, “Satan’s cleverness is perceived also in this, that he attacks the weak part  and puts her valor to the test, for he sees that she is so dependent on her husband that she thinks she cannot sin.”  Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther are all Protestant revolutionaries.

 

Gen 3:1-7[12]

Calvin answers his own question,

 

But the question is still unanswered as to why Moses has passed over the name of Satan in silence.  I myself freely subscribe to the opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit deliberately used obscure figures at that time, because it was fitting that the full and clear light should be reserved for the kingdom of Christ.

 

Peter Riedemann (1506-1556) explains, “The lie, sin, injustice, or the spirit of lying are in the image of the devil.  With such things, the devil clothes his children, whereas God adorns his children with truth.”  Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) offers, “But no matter how they regarded him, surely they should have discussed these things more carefully together before they obeyed the promptings of Satan”. 

 

Andrew Willet (1562-1621) offers a lengthy exegesis on Original Sin.

 

Adam’s  . . .  was not the greatest sin of all committed in the world:  neither in respect of the kind of the sin, as adultery is greater than fornication, for we hold blasphemy and idolatry to be greater sins than Adam’s was; nor in respect of the affection of the offender, for many are given over with a more ungodly, violent and sinful desire than Adam was in this temptation; neither was it the greatest in respect of the quality of the sin, for it was pardonable in Adam, whereas sin against the Holy Ghost is impardonable [sic].  But it may yet truly be said to be the greatest:  in regard to the fruits and sequel of that sin, the contagion and infection of all humankind; in respect of Adam’s person, who in consideration of his excellent gifts might have more easily resisted; in regard to the ease of the commandment, which required no hard or difficult things; and also the place itself being considered, namely in paradise, where there was no provocation or allurement into sin.

 

Psalm 51:3-4, 5-6, 12-13, 14, 17 (cf. 3a)

Funerals uses Psalm 51:3-21, 347#4 in Part III: Texts of Sacred Scripture, 16. Antiphons and Psalms and 376 in Part IV: Office for the Dead, 17. Morning Prayer.[13]

 

Psalm 51:16-17

Jeff Cavins, Tim Gray, and Sarah Christmyer, The Bible Timeline:  The Story of Salvation[14]

I have no idea which scholarship is worse, the Lectionary claiming to use Psalm 51:13 for verse 51:14 or Cavins using Psalm 51:17-18 for Psalm 51:16-17.

 

The Opus Dei, monarchial approach to religion is evident in both in the cavalier approach to quoting Sacred Scripture and the intimation that the king is an effective stand-in for the Faithful accepting its own responsibility.

 


 

Psalm 51:4,5[15]

Calvin argues in such a way that I miss the relationship with Psalm 51:5.  The Lectionary has, For I acknowledge my offense, and my sin is before me always, against which Calvin writes, “If then we are children of wrath, it follows that we are polluted from our birth; this provokes God’s anger and renders him hostile to us:  in this sense David confesses himself conceived in sin (Ps 51:5).”

 

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), “Commentary on the Prophet Daniel,” is more reasonable, writing, “And Psalm 51, `Against you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment’” (Ps 51:4).  At verse 6, the Lectionary has, Against you only have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight.  It looks as if Melanchthon cited the wrong verse.  Melanchthon goes on,  “It is necessary to diligently inculcate the church with this doctrine of contrition so that they truly acknowledge sins, truly understand the punishments and calamities inflicted on us because of our sins.”

 

Romans 5:12-19

Funerals uses Romans 5:17-21, 345#3 in Part III: Texts of Sacred Scripture, 13. Funerals for Adults.[16]

 

Rom 5:12-21

Russell Morton, review of Kar Yong Lim, “The Sufferings of Christ Are Abundant in Us” (2 Corinthians 1:5):  A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Suffering in 2 Corinthians[17]

Morton clarified the argument Lim makes.  “While Paul emulates Christ’s sufferings as a faithful apostle, he is not the Suffering Servant of Isa 49:8; only Christ is.   L.’s monograph, however, can provide a beginning step to examine further the role of suffering in Paul’s thought.”

 

Romans 5:12, 17

Rudolf Gwalther (1519-1586), “Sermons on Galatians” [18]

Gwalther writes, referring to Jesus Christ, “. . . as he became a slave to sin, so all those who were born from him were born sinners, and as Paul writes to the Romans, sin and death came into the world through him.  . . . ”  Alluding to Romans 5:17, Gwalther also writes, “`But faith offers us in Christ what we do not have, namely, righteousness, and with it, eternal life.’”

 

Rom 5:12-13[19]

Four of the Protestant revolutionaries comment on Through one man sin entered the world and the following verse.  Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), “Commentary; on Genesis 3:1-7,” writes, “It is rightly judged that the destruction of our race stems from this:  that Adam became the slave of sin through his disobedience and spread the toxin of sin into all of his offspring by carnal propagation.”  Zwingli also writes in the same vein as below.

 

Rom 5:12

Richard Rohr, Falling Upward:  A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life[20]

Rohr has a take-it-easy approach to life.  Rohr argues, “You cannot avoid sin or mistake anyway (Romans 5:12), but if you try too fervently, it often creates even worse problems.  This was developed last year in readings 132C and 150C.  It will come up again in 94A.

 

Rom 5:12-21

John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-Une [sic] Dynamic of the Christian Life[21]

My pastor at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Newport News, Virginia, Father John David, writes,

 

 . . . an exploration of the roles played by Abraham, Adam, and Christ in the life of faith . . . Paul lays out a complex set of inter-relationships between these three figures as they testify in very different ways to the way of God in the world, and if he has not already provided enough concreteness to his argument through his dialogical interaction with his readers on a rhetorical level, then this discussion underscores in a more narrative, historical way the precise shape of relationship, and lack of relationship, with God.   . . . Adam as the exemplar of faith (Romans 4:1-13) is juxtaposed with Christ who makes that faith possible (4:24—5:11).  Adam as the exemplar of faithlessness (5:12-21) is also juxtaposed with Christ who heals brokenness wrought by Adam (5:21—6:14).   . . . Paul underscores the fact that knowledge of the law is only a logically secondary aspect of righteousness, which is always, and always has been, the product of faith, as Abraham proves . . . 

 

Rom 5:13

Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), “Commentary on Genesis 3:7”[22]

The Protestant revolutionary, Zwingli, explains,

 

And what do they [Adam and Eve] see now that they hadn’t seen before?  Their nakedness.  They were naked beforehand, too, but nudity was not regarded as nudity, sin was not considered as sin, before the law came; indeed the law is knowledge of sin according to Romans 3 and 5.  Nakedness was not recognized, therefore, until they noticed their lack of clothing.  Yet that recognition arrived just as soon as they departed from their creator, the storehouse of all good.

 

This explanation by Zwingli helps me understand why some have thought Original Sin was sexual.

 


 

Rom 5:17-18[23]

Henry Airay (c. 1560-1616), “Notes on Paul’s Letters—Philippians 3:8-9”

The Protestant revolutionary, Airay, writes, “This righteousness, which is from faith, is also a righteousness from God.  The apostle considers it to be gain, while all other things he considered to be defeat and excrement.”

 

Alluding to Romans 5:18, the Protestant revolutionary Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), “Lectures on Philippians,” asserts, “But God who is rich in mercy, does not treat us according to our sins but reconciled us through Christ.”

 

Alluding to Romans 5:20, the Protestant revolutionary, Melanchthon, “Notes on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians 2:17,”  writes, “but the law at the same time reminds us that God does not condemn us in order to destroy.  His purpose is to have mercy on us and to justify us for Christ’s sake.”

 

Rom 5:19

Johannes Brenz (1499-1570), “Commentary on Genesis 3:6”[24]

Brenz comments on for just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners . . .  

 

But this word disobedience contains both inescapable errors and serious crimes.  Indeed, the first is that when the man ate the prohibited apple, he turned himself away from God’s word and concluded that this word was not seriously uttered by the Lord.  Therefore he turned himself from true and eternal wisdom to external foolishness.  And when he desired to be made as completely wise as God, he became the most foolish of all.

 

I think the Papacy needs to fear desiring to be as completely wise as God.

 

Personal Notes gave up systematically examining the illiterate 2011 Missal November 25, 2012.  On April 7, 2013, with Reading 045C 2nd Sunday of Easter_A Catholic Bible Study 130407, Personal Notes systematically began to incorporate material from A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal:  A New English Translation:  Developed under the Auspices of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, Edward Foley (ed.) (Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2011).  The hope is that this approach will help pray with the new Missal, despite itself.

 

Rom 5:19

Patrick Regan, “Theology of the Latin Text and Rite”[25]

Regan sets out the Missal

 

In speaking of the shedding of his blood pro multis, the Pauline contrast between the one and the many (e.g., Rom 5:19) is in mind:  the sin and disobedience of many is redeemed through the One, who is God’s appointed servant and mediator of the New Covenant.

 

Rom 5:19

Francis Watson, “Mistranslation and the Death of Christ:  Isaiah 53 LXX and Its Pauline Reception”[26]

Examining how Paul uses the Septuagint, Watson argues,

 

Whether we prefer to speak of `free translation,’ or `mistranslation,’ or a combination of the two, the Septuagintal translator goes his own way, producing a text whose semantic content overlaps with the original Hebrew but by no means coincides with it.   . . . In the light of such momentous discoveries as this, it is unsurprising that the Septuagint could be viewed as an inspired text in its own right.

 

Matthew 4:4b

 

Matthew 4:1-11

Matthew 4:10

Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary:  Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations[27]

One of the King James versions has “Get behind me, Satan” to harmonize with Matthew 16:23, where Jesus told Peter (who had tried to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross), Get behind me Satan (=adversary).”

 

Matthew 4:1-11

Frank J. Matera, The Sermon on the Mount:  The Perfect Measure of the Christian Life[28]

Matera makes two points.  “When the devil tempts Jesus to use his messianic power to save himself, Jesus trusts in God’s power to rescue him (Matt 4:1-10).”  That behavior flows from being “pure in heart” (Matthew 5:8).  The other point concerns fasting.  Matera elaborates, “Fasting played an important role in Israel’s life as a way of expressing sorrow, penitence, or preparing for prayer or some other important task.  At the beginning of his ministry, for example, Jesus fasts for forty days before inaugurating his ministry” (Matt 4:2).

 

Matt 4:1-4

Jeff Cavins, Tim Gray, and Sarah Christmyer, The Bible Timeline:  The Story of Salvation[29]

Cavins calls attention to a relationship between Matthew 4:14, where Jesus rebuffs Satan using Moses’ words from Deuteronomy 8:3.  Cavins then asks, “What parallels do you see between these stories, concerning One does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.  Cavins misses the whole point.  The point is that before Jesus told Satan where to go, Jesus listened to Satan.  As it turns out, since 1990, the American Association of University Professors has had the administration of The Catholic University of America under censorship for not listening to one of its professors before removing him from his position.[30]

 


 

Matt 4:10

Daniel B. Wallace, With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes: Greek Grammar:  Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament[31]

kurion ton qeon sou proskunhseiV

You shall worship the Lord your God

 

Jesus is refuting the tempter with scripture.  He quotes Deut 6:13, which has fobhqhsh for proskunhseiV.  Thus the use of the acc. with proskunew is not due to the LXX.  Rather, it seems that a personal application of this text to the tempter is being made.  Although only the Lord God is the true God, the devil will have no chance for a personal relation with him, though he does have an obligation (cf. Phil 2:10 for a similar theme).

 

Matt 4:8

Hellen Mardaga, “The Repetitive Use of uyow in the Fourth Gospel”[32]

 

The adjective in question is very high, the devil took him up to a very high mountain.  Mardaga argues,

 

Louw and Nida place uyow [very high] in the semantic fields indicating a “spatial dimension (to lift up)” as well as “a high status or rank (to exalt).”  In the field “a high status or rank (to exalt)” Louw and Nida list, along with uyow, the following verbs and words that also occur in John:  auxanw (“to increase in status”; 3:30), doxa (“a state of being great and wonderful” (greatness, glory; cf. Matt 4:8 [used here]; Luke 12:27)), doxazw (“to cause someone to have glorious greatness”; John 17:5), and epanw (“a marker of superior status, suggesting an additional factor of degree”; John 3:31).  These words and verbs may well belong to the same semantic domain, but this does not necessarily make them synonyms of uyow.

 

For more on sources see the Appendix file.  A complete set of Personal Notes, dating from the Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time, July 14, 2002 to the present, is on the web site at www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes

 

 

 

The Responsorial Antiphon for this Sunday is Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned (cf. Psalm 51:3a).[33]

 

In the gobbledygook prayer at Sunday Mass immediately following the forgiveness of sins, the Faithful hearing the 2011 Roman Missal can listen for “yearly observances of holy Lent.”[34]

 

This is a call for grace that some Black Baptists bring to mind with And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the lord by the prophet (from Matthew 1:21-22).[35] 

 

 



[1] Theological Studies, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2012) 772.

 

[2] second edition (Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 2012) 87-88.

 

[3] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3 (July 2011) 495, 499.

 

[4] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 366.

 

[5] West Chester, Pennsylvania:  Ascension Press, 2004, 2011 Session 2 Page 18, 19.

 

[6] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3 (July 2011) 590.

 

[7] Theological Studies, Vol. 74, No. 2 (June 2013) 356.

 

[8] Theological Studies, Vol. 74, No. 2 (June 2013) 372, 388.

 

[9] http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/hermeneutics (accessed January 5, 2014).

 

[10] My computer uses Lumen Gentium 32 times, Gaudium et Spes 45 times.  (Windows 7, Microsoft 2009 operating system,  Professional Search Programs and Files, December 24, 2013).

 

[11] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis I—II, (ed.) John L. Thompson (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) Zwingli, “Annotations on Genesis 3:6,” 121; Calvin, Commentary on Genesis 3:5,” 121-122; Luther “Lectures on Genesis 3:1,” 122-123.

 

[12] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis I—II, (ed.) John L. Thompson (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 91, 112, 116, 117, Calvin, “Commentary on Genesis 3:1,” 118; Riedemann, “Confession of Faith,” 119; 120, 121, 123, 124, 127, Brenz, “Commentary on Genesis 3:6,” 128; 129, “Commentary on Genesis 3:1” 130; 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140, 150, 151, 171, 232?,

 

[13] International Commission on English in the Liturgy: A Joint Commission of Catholic Bishops’ Conferences, The Roman Ritual: Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and published by Authority of Pope Paul IV: Order of Christian Funerals: Including Appendix 2: Cremation: Approved for use in the Dioceses of the United States of America by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (New Jersey: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1998)271-272, 304-305.

 

[14] West Chester, Pennsylvania:  Ascension Press, 2004, 2011, Session 12, page 2.

 

[15] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) Calvin, 103; Melanchthon, 363.

 

[16] International Commission on English in the Liturgy: A Joint Commission of Catholic Bishops’ Conferences, The Roman Ritual: Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and published by Authority of Pope Paul IV: Order of Christian Funerals: Including Appendix 2: Cremation: Approved for use in the Dioceses of the United States of America by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (New Jersey: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1998) 214.

 

[17] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 398.

 

[18] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  New Testament X: Galatians, Ephesians, (ed.) Gerald L. Bray (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2011) 21, 102.

 

[19] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis I—II, (ed.) John L. Thompson (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 93, 126, Musculus, 138; Zwingli, 139.

 

[20] San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass:  A Wiley Imprint, 2011, xx.

 

[21] Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002, 215, 216

 

[22] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis I—II, (ed.) John L. Thompson (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 139.

 

[23] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  New Testament XI:  Philippians, Colossians, Graham Tomlin (ed.) in collaboration with Gregory B. Graybill, general editor, Timothy George, associate General editor, Scott M. Manetsch, (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic:  An imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2013) Airay, 78; 96, Bullinger, 160; 200.

 

[24] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis I—II, (ed.) John L. Thompson (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 129.

 

[25] in A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal:  A New English Translation:  Developed under the Auspices of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, Edward Foley (ed.) (Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2011) 270.

 

[26] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 231, 233, 247.

 

[27] Carol Stream, Illinois:  Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008,

 

[28] Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2013, 10, 41, 84.

 

[29] West Chester, Pennsylvania:  Ascension Press, 2004, 2011, Session 8, pages 60 and 2.

 

[30] http://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-freedom/censure-list  (accessed December 28, 2013).

 

[31] Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan, 1996, 68, (source of the quote) 173, 453, 529, 570, 576, 717, 718.

 

[32] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 1 (January 2012) 110-111.

 

[33] National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Roman Missal Restored by Decree of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI: Lectionary for Mass:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Second Typical Edition:  Volume I:  Sundays, Solemnities, Feasts of the Lord and the Saints (Collegeville, Minnesota:  The Liturgical Press, 1988) 143.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Lectionary.

 

[34] n.a., The Roman Missal:  Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II:  English Translation According to the Third Typical Edition:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (Washington, DC, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011) 216.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Missal.

 

[35] UMI Annual Sunday School Lesson Commentary:  Precepts for Living ®: 2013-2014:  International Sunday School Lessons:  Volume 165:  UMI (Urban Ministries, Inc.), a. Okechuku Ogbonnaya, Ph.D., (ed.) (Chicago, IL  60643: UMI (Urban Ministries, Inc.), 2013) 319-320.