And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4).[1]  The first and most important motion of the Holy Spirit happens within the soul.  Sometimes the Faithful have Faith enough to accept and utter the presence of the Holy Spirit.  At the Annunciation, Mary gives the Faithful a glimpse of what is involved when one accepts fulfillment from the Holy Spirit.  Such fulfillment has continued through the centuries.

 

The second motion of the soul is discerning what will stand empirical testing.  The first witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus had to discern whether they were seeing a ghost.  If the Resurrected Jesus was a ghost, he was best ignored or denounced.  Those witnesses who were unconvinced remained a disbelieving camp.  If, on the other hand, the Resurrected Jesus were real, ignoring Jesus would be dysfunctional.  For believing witnesses, ignoring the Resurrected Jesus is blasphemous. 

 

A third motion of the soul, namely confusion, arises when, for example, in the First Century, institutional religion condemned believers for accepting that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.  Similarly in the Seventeenth Century, institutional religion condemned Galileo for accepting that planet earth is not the center of the universe.  Such condemnation of hardcore empirical science continues to reverberate through institutional religion, often disguising itself in misogynist (War on Women) policies.

 

Twenty-first Century policies of the Roman Catholic Church continue to disparage and condemn findings of hardcore empirical science.  Refusal to admit females to the institutional priesthood reflects refusal to admit the findings of social science, including history.  Ordained Women in the Early Church:  A Documentary History[2] puts the lie to the contention that the Church never ordained females.  With regard to the ordination of females, apparently the Holy Spirit is telling one priest one thing, in the person of Pope Benedict XVI, and another priest the opposite, in the person of Father Roy Bourgeois, S.M.

 

The question remains how to sort through what is from the Holy Spirit.  In this case, there are three tests for the Holy Spirit:  1. transparency, 2. association with the sexual abuse coverup, 3. rationale.  The state of the question is as follows.  The Pope kicked the Reverend Roy Bourgeois, S.M. out of his Church in a letter dated October 4, requested by the news media November 19, but which Bourgeois only received last January 9.  Archbishop Gerhard Müller, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), wrote the Papal letter in Latin.[3] 

 

Testing for the Holy Spirit is the reason for spelling out the dates for delivery of the letter not only to Bourgeois, but, through him, to the Faithful as well.  Papal behavior, outlined in the dates, looks like behavior unwilling to look at facts that do not support papal policy.  Where was the Holy Spirit in the Seventeenth Century at the time of Galileo?  Where is the Holy Spirit in the Twenty-first Century at the time of Bourgeois?  Papal behavior does not pass the first test for the presence of the Holy Spirit, namely transparency.

 

The Papacy does not pass the empirical second test for the presence of the Holy Spirit, namely association through Archbishop Müller with the sexual abuse coverup.  Müller, the author of the letter, succeeded Cardinal William J. Levada, who, in going to Rome avoided prosecution for sexual abuse coverup in the United States.  Personal Notes is keeping track of what Müller is doing at http://www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes/Personal%20Notes.htm “1610 Missal Last Sunday in Ordinary Time_A Catholic Bible Study 121125”. 

 

In the final analysis, there might not be reason to excommunicate and kick Bourgeois out the Papal Church for supporting the ordination of females.  Concerning the letter from Müller, Bourgeois explains, “There’s no mention of what I did . . . There’s no mention . . . of women’s ordination.  What crime did I commit that brought about this serious sentence?  There’s no mention of that.  What did I do?  What am I being charged with?”[4]  The Papacy does not pass the third test for the presence of the Holy Spirit, namely rational behavior.

 

The graces of the Sacrament of Holy Orders enable the Faithful to discern what is of the Holy Spirit.  With the Missal at Mass, the Faithful pray, Christ is risen, creator of all; he has shown pity on all people.  With this antiphon, the Faithful can pray for a way to work through misogynist policies in both Church and State.

 

 

 

Readings

 

First Reading                     Acts 5:27-32, 40b-41

Responsorial Psalm:          Psalm 30:2, 4, 5-6, 11-12, 13 (2a)

Second Reading:               Revelation 5:11-14

Alleluia:                             (Made up, not from Sacred Scripture)

Gospel:                             John 21:1-19

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.

 

Acts 5:27-32, 40b-41

Acts 5:17-41

C. Kavin Rowe, review of Dennis J. Horton, Death and Resurrection:  The Shape and Function of a Literary Motif in the Book of Acts[5]

As I see it, Acts 5:27-32 has the death-resurrection motif, which Horton highlights.  Stop teaching [death]. . . you have filled [resurrection] Jerusalem with your teaching.  Rowe concludes, “to the degree that we destroy the unity of the narrative, we will necessarily divide that which inherently belongs together.”

 

Acts 5:27-32

Daniel A. Smith, “Seeing a Pneuma(tic Body):  The Apologetic Interests of Luke 24:36-43”[6]

Smith argues that Peter . . . said in reply is meant to balance the authority of Paul with the authority of Peter.

 


 

Acts 5:29

Johann Wigand (1523-1587), “Brief Exposition of the Prophet Daniel,” in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith[7]

Wigand wrote the following in 1571, eight years after the Council of Trent (1545-1563).  “The impious and just decree of the king must by no means be obeyed.  The reason is evident:  kings are under the Decalogue, not above it.  God is greater than all rulers are.  Here are the words:  We ought to obey God rather than man [sic] (Acts 5:20).”  This seems to be the basis explaining why the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is so opposed to the Obama administration.  But of course.  Racism and concern for the disadvantaged has nothing to do with it.

 

Acts 5:31

William Greenhill (1591-1671), “An Exposition of Ezekiel,” in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith[8]

Greenhill, a contemporary of Saint Vincent de Paul (1580-1660), writes, “Is not repentance the work and gift of God?  . . . Christ.  He is `exalted to be a prince and savior, to give repentance to Israel’” (Acts 5:31).”  The Faithful will hear to grant Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins from the ambo.  The Lectionary translation highlights the mediating role of the institutional Church in the forgiveness of sins; Greenhill highlights the role of God in that same forgiveness.

 

Acts 5:32

Daniel A. Smith, “Seeing a Pneuma(tic Body):  The Apologetic Interests of Luke 24:36-43”[9]

Smith uses We are witnesses of these things, as is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him to argue,

 

The narrator [Luke] connects the fear of the disciples with their perception that they were seeing a “spirit” (v. 37), and Jesus identifies their internal dialogue as the source of the disturbed state of mind (v. 38).  Resolution comes when Jesus corrects the misperceptions of the Eleven, the authentic resurrection witnesses in Luke-Acts (Luke 42:46-48; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 5:32 [used here]; 10:39-41), who here think they have seen a pneuma (v. 37).

 

Psalm 30:2, 4, 5-6, 11-12, 13 (2a)

 

Revelation 5:11-14

Rev 5:13

Maurice A. Robinson, “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the `Test-Tube’ Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective,” in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.)[10]

Robinson points to the then I heard verse to note nine unsupported variant units.  I do not know exactly which nine, but point to manuscript difficulties to try to leave some room for scholars to work within the bounds of the Papal dictate, Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

John 21:1-19

John 21:4

Maurice A. Robinson, “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the `Test-Tube’ Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective,” in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.)[11]

Robinson points to the Jesus was standing on the shore verse to note five unsupported variant units.

 

John 21:8

Daniel B. Wallace, With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes: Greek Grammar:  Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament[12]

Wallace points out that the net with the fish means a net full of fish, rather than a net made up of fish.  What the Lectionary translates as the other disciples came in the boat, Wallace translates as they [the other disciples] came in a small boat.  The vocabulary means small vessel or boat.[13]  The function of the dative case is to clarify how the other disciples came.  Far in were not far from shore is an adverb, rather than an adjective modifying being, were.

 

John 21:6 and 18

Richard Rohr, Falling Upward:  A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life[14]

Rohr points to cast the net over the right side of the boat and when you were younger . . . but when you grow old . . .  to assert, “Far too many people just keep on doing repair work on the container [of life] itself.”  Rohr goes on, “only when you have begun to live in the second half [of life] can you see the difference between the two.”  Personal Notes lives in the ever-present existential now and has never seen a now-difference between youth and old age.  Repentance and starting anew is basic to both youth and old age.

 

John 21:11-21

Mark D. Matthews, “The Function of Imputed Speech in the Apocalypse of John”[15]

Matthew argues that the narrative of Peter dragging the net ashore and Jesus inviting him and his friends to breakfast

 

John 21:15-17

Gerald O’Collins, S.J., “Peter as Witness to Easter”[16]

O’Collins elaborates on the Feed my sheep commission to Peter.

O’Collins goes on,

 

From his primary role as Easter witness I draw five conclusions for the ministry of the bishop of Rome: . . . (3)(b) Among all the bishops, the bishop of Rome, like Peter, has a special role of leadership to serve the whole church with love (Jn 21:15-17) and through suffering (Jn 21:18-19).  His special service aims at maintaining the true faith and unity of all Christians.

 


 

John 21:15-17

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, Priests for the Third Millennium:  The Year for Priests[17]

Cardinal Dolan uses John 21:15-17 to head Chapter 3, “Love.”  Dolan proclaims, 

 

And, very practically and powerfully, dependence upon the sacrament of penance (or reconciliation),  [sic] My first pastor always told a married couple at the wedding, “The six most important words in a good marriage are `I love you’ and `I am sorry’.  Say those frequently and your love will be enduring. 

 

To the contrary, the married octogenarians I know consistently reduce the number of words to two, which have nothing to do with the sacrament of reconciliation, namely, “Yes Dear.”

 

John 21:17

Harvey D. Egan, S.J., “In Purgatory We Shall All Be Mystics”[18]

Eagan explains,

 

Although some scholars have embraced Ratzinger’s view of purgatory as the postmortem encounter with Christ, his emphasis on the entire communion of saints has been undeservedly neglected . . . .It is both disappointing and surprising that little thinking has been done about the communion of saints in connection with purgatory [sic] .

 

In other words, Purgatory will consist of making up to others in the next life the love denied them in this life.

 

While 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 (today) Personal Notes 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 intention is to call attention to what is taken from the Commentary to incorporate in Reading 1610 Missal:  The Last Sunday in Ordinary Time.  My hope is that this systematic approach will help the faithful pray with the new Missal, despite itself.

 

Saint Jerome explained my anger with the illiterate, dysfunctional, 2011 Missal when he said, “If I translate word by word, it sounds absurd; if I am forced to change something in the word order or style, I seem to have stopped being a translator.”  The Commentary cites this quote at least twice.[19]  The Commentary explains, “When grappling with the real meaning of the English text, they cannot make the excuse that `this is what the Latin text says.’  It is possible that the Latin has not been properly translated.”[20] 

 

On January 12, 2013, Personal Notes added the above paragraph to page 35/45 in Reading 1610 Missal:  The Last Sunday in Ordinary Time.

 

 

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. 

 



[1] UMI Annual Commentary 2012-2013:  Precepts for Living: Based on the International Uniform Lessons, Vincent E. Bacote, Ph.D., (ed.) (Chicago, IL  60643: UMI (Urban Ministries, Inc., 2012), 393-394.  The 2011 Missal uses Acts 2:4 Pentecost Sunday.

 

[2] Edited and Translated by Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek.  (Baltimore, Maryland:  The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.  Pp. xvi, 220.  $48.00).  Reviewed by William Tabbernee, Phillips Theological Seminary in The Catholic Historical Review, January 2007, pages 127-128.

 

[3] This paragraph was added to page 25/46 in 1610 Missal Last Sunday in Ordinary Time_A Catholic Bible Study 121125 January 13, 2013.

 

[4] Joshua J. McElwee, “Bourgeois receives official Vatican letter dismissing him from priesthood,” January 10, 2013, http://ncronline.org/node/42596  (accessed January 10 and 13, 2013).

[5] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 4 (September 2010) 829.

 

[6] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 4 (September 2010) 771.

 

[7] Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012, 320. 

 

[8] Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012, 72. 

 

[9] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 4 (September 2010) 753.

 

[10] Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, 60.

 

[11] Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, 60.

 

[12] Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan, 1996, 93, 155, 201.

 

[13] William D. Mounce, Zondervan Greek Reference Series: The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House: A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1993) 379.

 

[14] San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass:  A Wiley Imprint, 2011, 1, 2.

 

[15] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2012) 336.

 

[16] Theological Studies, Vol. 73, No. 2 (June 2012) 264, 266, 268-270, 275, 282-283 (for the quote).

 

[17] Huntington, IN 46750:  Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division:  Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000, 41.

 

[18] Theological Studies, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2012) 887.

 

[19] Keith Pecklers and Gilbert Ostdiek, “The History of Vernaculars and Role of Translation” and Anscar J. Chupungco, “Excursus on Translating OM2008,”

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) 59, 133.

 

[20] Anscar J. Chupungco, “Excursus on Translating OM2008”, 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) 135.