Willful ignorance can be as sinful today as it was centuries ago.  Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) had it right,  “vincible [willful] ignorance is a sin, if it is of those things which someone is obliged to know, but not if it is of those things which he is not obliged to know.”[1]  In a deposition October 24, 2011, former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert George Weakland said “We were probably all of us naïve in thinking that it [priestly pedophilia] was a question of will power and a question of self-discipline” in the 1980s.[2]  By “we,” Weakland was referring to the Roman Catholic bishops. 

 

Weakland was excusing lack of leadership among bishops.  That excuse does not work in courts of law.  Bishops are obliged to know and react appropriately to protect the Faithful.  Local pastors also have a similar obligation to show leadership, rather than ignorance.

 

At the parish level, using a prayer written by the Confederate General Robert E. Lee, as part of a “Patriotic Rosary,” fits the same bill of ignorance.[3]  Robert E. Lee is especially insulting because this is the sesquicentennial anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.  Robert E. Lee broke an oath he gave at West Point to support the United States of America.  “The nation” for which he expects the Faithful to pray, in 1863, is the Confederacy still in the middle of the Civil War. 

 

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, I called this Patriotic Rosary prayer to the attention of both my pastor and the Office of Black Catholics for the Diocese of Richmond.  As of Wednesday, July 3, a full week later, the Patriotic Rosary pamphlets remained, on the table, below the holy water fountain at the entrance to the Daily Mass Chapel.  The prayer only disappeared after the Fourth of July.  Ignorance as a legitimate excuse is beyond comprehension, unless there is something like a need to keep big donors happy.

 

A year later, July 4, 2014, that so-called Patriotic Rosary was back in church at Our Lady of Mount Carmel (OLMC) in Newport News, Virginia.  After I called this return to the attention of my Pastor, Father John David Ramsey, he responded the next day, on Saturday, July 5, 2014.  He announced that he expected me to assume that he is not approving the Patriotic Rosary.  May this internet announcement help his effort to stop any such assumption concerning distribution of the Patriotic Rosary year after year at OLMC and elsewhere.

 

The Gospel for this Sunday is about the Prodigal Son repenting.  Such repentance is badly needed by the hierarchy in the present church crises.  What is happening at OLMC, year after year, at best, is a tempest in a teapot. 

 

Readings

First Reading                     Exodus 32:7-11, 13-14

Responsorial Psalm:          Psalm 51:3-4, 12-13, 17, 19 (Luke 15:18)

Second Reading:               1 Timothy 1:12-17

Alleluia:                             2 Corinthians 5:19

Gospel:                             Luke 15:1-32

 

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.

 

Exodus 32:7-11, 13-14

Exodus 32—34

John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-Une Dynamic of the Christian Life[4]

Ramsey writes,

 

But, while this covenant of trust never fails from God’s side, for both Israel and the church a failure of trust on the part of God’s people is a common feature of the landscape, from the time of the establishment of the covenant throughout the succeeding generations and into the future.  A turning away to other gods is a betrayal of trust in the one true God, for which God’s people ultimately always suffer, even as they are being led to repentance.  Very often in Israel’s story the betrayal comes in the stunning event of a moment, such as Israel’s creation and worship of the golden calf at the very moment that Moses is receiving the terms of the covenant from God on Mount Sinai.  The people are punished—nearly destroyed—and the consequences of this single act significantly alter the relationship between God and Israel, but God remains faithful to his stiff-necked people:  “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”

 

Exod 32:7-14

Mark A. O’Brien, O.P., review of Vincent Sénéchal, Rétribution et intercession dans le Deutéronome[5]

O’Brien reports that the thesis, “Its focus is Deut 9:1—10:11, unique in Deuteronomy because of the absence of divine retribution for the golden calf apostasy at Horeb.”  Sénéchal is using the Deuteronomic version of the golden calf.  Ramsey uses the Exodus version.  O’Brien also reports, “The role of Moses as intercessor in Deut 9:26-29* was subsequently enhanced by Exod 32:7-14 [used here] and Num 14:11-25.

 

Exod 32:8

John T. Willis, review of J. Gerald Janzen, At the Scent of Water:  The Ground of Hope in the Book of Job[6]

Willis reports,

 

 . . . computer lingo.  J. compares the customized default setting with Yhwh’s covenant with Israel first established at Sinai, a fatal system error with Israel’s idolatry toward the golden calf (Exod 32:8), and the original default setting with Yhwh’s covenant with the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Deut 9:26-29).

 

More importantly, Willis also reports that “God invites Job to abandon deed-consequences logic for a higher life-affirming strategy of risk-reward.”

 

Exod 32:11-14

George L. Parsenios, review of Miera Z. Kensky, Trying Man, Trying God[7]

Parsenios reports that Kensky uses “Why, O LORD, should your wrath blaze up against your own people . . . ” to illustrate how trial scenarios function throughout antiquity in similar ways to discuss and debate the interaction of human and divine justice.”  Parsenios explains,

 

Kensky argues that courtroom scenarios in `the formative literature of Judaism and Christianity’ are intended to `challenge the reader to think critically and judicially about God (p. 9).  Even when a trial was ostensibly that of a human being, readers were themselves judging not only whether the human defendant was guilty but also whether the divine judgment was just.

 

Exodus 32:13

Patrick Regan, “Theology of the Latin Text and Rite”[8]

Regan is commenting on Eucharistic Prayer II, Epiclesis, and Intercessions (OM20089, no. 105, lines 7-31).  Regan writes,

 

The second epiclesis [epiclesis does not appear at http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/ (accessed July 4, 2013).  Epiclesis refers to prayers surrounding the words of Consecration.][9]  asks that all may be gathered or congregated as one in the sharing of the one bread and the one cup, thus highlighting a desire for communion and unity.

The petition beginning with recordare that follows the epiclesis tells us that the congregation asks for God’s remembrance of the people.  In the Vulgate the word is used to denote prayers whereby to ask God to remember those who have served him, even in the face of the weakness and suffering of the people or of their sins.  While in Roman sacramentaries and MR2002 the verb is commonly used of the remembrance of the church or congregation rather than of God’s remembering, EP II employs the sense given the word in biblical Latin [namely asking God to do the remembering].

 


 

Exodus 32:14

David M. Miller, “Seeing the Glory, Hearing the Son:  The Function of the Wilderness Theophany Narratives in Luke 9:28-36”[10]

Miller argues,

 

Scholarly reluctance to associate the transfiguration with the Sinai covenant points to a failure to perceive connecting links between the transfiguration and Exodus 19—20. . . .

 

 . . .  the disastrous worship of the golden calf nearly ruins the reason for building the tabernacle in the first place.  As a result of Moses’ intercession, God agrees not to harm the people (32:14 [used here]) but refuses to accompany them, “lest I consume you on the way (33:3).  Not satisfied, Moses pleads for God to go with them.  God’s consent is sealed by a revelation of divine glory on the mountain (33:17—34:10).  Forty days and forty nights later, Moses reappears with the Ten Commandments in hand (34:29).  This time the Israelites respond to Moses with fear because “his face was glorified (dedoxastau]” (34:29-30).

 

Psalm 51:3-4, 12-13, 17, 19 (Luke 15:18)

Psalm 51, which the liturgy also uses in the Funeral Rites,[11] is a song of the sinful David, rejoicing at finding himself once again in the good graces of God the Father.  David repents, and turns again to his God, the lodestar of life.  David is his own intercessor, but Jesus, his son, intercedes for all.  Reading 35B, the Fifth Sunday in Lent at http://www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes/036C%205th%20Sunday%20in%20Lent_A%20Catholic%20Bible%20Study%20040328.pdf, develops Psalm 51.

 

1 Timothy 1:12-17

1 Tim 1:11-15

Arland J., Hultgren, review of Samuel Ngewa, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Africa Bible Commentary Series; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, HippoBooks, 2009)[12]

Hultgren concludes with a question, “How can anyone, African or otherwise, prescribe what biblical interpretation should entail for that continent as a whole?” 

Hultgren agrees,

That he [Ngewa] and others are involved in such work can be applauded by all who encourage and stress the importance of indigenous African Scholarship.  But this particular commentary raises at least two concerns.  First, it is a case study on how the interpreter’s social location affects the interpretation of texts.  Yet, on the plus side, it should make all readers aware that their own social locations affect their readings as well.  Second, can one speak of an “African context” as though it were monolithic, which the author of this work seems to imply over and again?  He appears to address a particular context within the vast and complex continent that Africa is.

 

1 Tim 1:13

Stephen Bullivant, “Sine Culpa?  Vatican II and Inculpable Ignorance”[13]

Bullivant argues,

 

Strikingly, 1 Timothy imputes to Paul the belief that, “even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor and a man of violence . . . I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1:13).  [The Lectionary translates a man of violence as arrogant.  There are other discrepancies, but this is the most noticeable.]  Paul’s speech at the Areopagus states that “God has overlooked the times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30).

 


 

1 Timothy 1:13

Martin Bucer (1491-1551), “Lectures on Ephesians”[14]

The Protestant revolutionary, Bucer, cites 1 Timothy 1:13 three times to claim Paul called himself “the chief of sinners.”  Bucer is using hyperbole.  Bucer is a contemporary of Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556).

 

1 Tim 1:15a-b

Jeffrey R. Asher, review of Mark M. Yarbrough, Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy:  An Evaluation of the Apostle’s Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics[15]

Asher reports,

 

Yarbrough offers a detailed examination of early materials incorporated in 1 Timothy, to which he refers as “performed tradition.”  He argues that this tradition consists of three principle types:  catechetical, confessional, and hymnic, and that the pericopes in question function within the epistle in a threefold way:  (1) they contribute to its literary cohesion; (2) they facilitate rhetorical leverage on the part of the author; and (3) they reset theological prescriptions that can be used to combat heretics and to provide instruction on community responsibilities.  This threefold functionality contributes to the overall purpose of the letter, which is “to combat the counter-mission doctrine” of the community’s opponents (p. 143).  As Y. states explicitly in chaps. 1 and 5, this understanding of the purpose of 1 Timothy is his primary thesis. 

 

Yarbrough concludes that 1 Timothy 1:15a-b, 17 is one of twelve passages that fit his criteria.  Yarbrough is persuasive, though with incomplete academic rigor.

 


 

1 Timothy 1:15

Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “The Pastoral Epistles and Hellenistic Philosophy:  1 Timothy 5:1-2, Hierocles, and the `Contraction of Circles’”[16]

Ramelli argues from Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners to the proposition that 1 Timothy is grounded in Hellenistic Stoic philosophy.  The meaning is that individual humans relate to all other categories of humans.

 

1 Timothy 1:17

Daniel B. Wallace, With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes: Greek Grammar:  Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament[17]

First, Wallace describes

 

“Attributive Genitive (Hebrew Genitive, Genitive of Quality)”

a.       Definition

The genitive substantive specifies an attribute or innate quality of the head substantive.  It is similar to a simple adjective in its semantic force, though more emphatic:  it “expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness.”  The category is very common in the NT, largely due to the Semitic mindset of most of its authors.

 

In a footnote, Wallace explains,

 

“”Hebrew usage is . . . reflected, in that this construction compensates for the nearly nonexistent adjective . . . .”

 

Wallace goes on,

 

Now to the king of the ages (= “eternal” king)

The problem with taking this as attributive is that the gen. is plural.  However, if it were put in the singular, the meaning would not be “eternal king” (king of the age” would be a temporal king).  [sic] RSV, NRSV take it as king of the ages”; ASV et al. take it as “eternal king.” 

 

Wallace goes on,

 

Now to the king of the ages (=the one who rules over the ages)

The problem with taking this as attributive (as ASV et al. do) is that the gen. is plural.  However, if it were put in the singular, the meaning would not be ‘‘eternal king” (“king of the age” would be a temporal king).  RSV, NRSV treat it as a gen of subordination-“king of the ages [which Wallace prefers and the Lectionary uses].”

 

2 Corinthians 5:19

 

Luke 15:1-32

Luke 15:2, 4-10

Mary Collins and Edward Foley, “Mystagogy:  Discerning the Mystery of Faith”[18]

Collins and Foley offer the following:

 

Jesus as Mystagogue

The foundational reason that Mystagogy is considered a potential theological method in Christianity must be the memory of Jesus as both a frequent and adept ritualizer, especially evident in his table ministry.  Robert Karris captures this ritual propensity when noting that, in the Gospel of Luke, “Jesus is either going to a meal, at a meal, or coming from a meal.”  This waggish characterization supports a serious theological point:  “in Luke’s Gospel Jesus got himself crucified by the way he ate.”  Besides the Gospel of Luke, Edward Schillebeeckx demonstrates that Jesus’ practice of eating with sinners extends across the gospel landscape.  Joachim Jeremias realized early on that this practice was a key psychological factor in turning the Pharisees against Jesus.  Sallie McFague, among others, considers Jesus’ eating and drinking with sinners as illustrative of the enacted parable of Jesus’ own life in which he is revealed as “parable of God.”  Beyond eating and drinking with sinners, meal-sharing [sic] is generally recognized as a key practice of the historical Jesus.

 


 

Luke 15:3-7

John P. Meier, “Is Luke’s Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflected in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas?”[19]

Meier argues that, unlike Matthew, Luke provides introductions to the parables.  “In 15:2, the criticism of the Pharisees and the scribes moves Jesus to tell the parable of the Lost Sheep (15:3-7).”  Interestingly, Meier finds three parables, where the Greek and the Lectionary only refer to one parable, in the singular.

 

Luke 15:4-7

Michael Witczak, “History of the Latin Text and Rite”[20]

Under a heading “Intercessions for the Living (OM2008, no. 113, lines 23-34”  

Witczak explains:

 

The attention to those astare (literally, “standing present”) continues the consideration that the Roman canon gives to the gathered assembly of believers (circumstantes).  The attention to “this family” (huius familiae) flows from the concern of Vatican II to vitalize the particular church and the local community.  The contrast between “this family” and “all your children” (omnes filios) is striking:  the image of a family gathered and wherever dispersed (ubíque disperses) also hints at the image of the flock and the shepherd who goes out to gather the lost (see Luke 15:4-7 [used here]; Matt 18:12-147; esp. John 11:52).  In the context of this language about family, God is called Pater (Father) rather than Dominus (Lord) here.

 

Luke 15:4-7

Rudolf Gwalther (1519-1586), “Sermons on Galatians”[21]

Recalling the Good Shepherd, the Protestant revolutionary, Gwalther, concludes, “Therefore those who would call themselves pastors ought to copy his example and be more concerned to gather the sheep than to shut them out.”  Gwalther was a contemporary of John Calvin (1509-1564).

 

Luke 15:4, 8

Brian J. Wright, “Greek Syntax as a Criterion of Authenticity:  A New Discussion and Proposal”[22]

Wright uses the Greek for until he finds it and until she finds it to argue that it is more probable that the Gospel of Thomas borrowed from Luke, than the other way around.  Wright also speculates that these Greek words are authentic Jesus-speak.

 

Luke 15:11-32

Richard E. McCarron, “Theology of the Latin Text and Rite”[23]

This article is on “Eucharistic Prayer for Use in Masses for Various Needs” in subsection “Form IV:  Jesus pertransiens benefaciendo:  Preface (OM2008, appendix, IV:1, lines 12-28).”  McCarron writes,

 

This extension of mercy verbo et opere (line 22) reveals God as Father (line 23).  The Latin here follows the Italian original.  The French and German texts stress first God’s action of care for all people, modified by the example of a father’s care for his children.  Given the Lukan allusions in the section immediately prior, this metaphor might best be read through the lens of Luke’s parable of the lost son (15:11-32).

 

Luke 15:11-32

Richard Rohr, Falling Upward:  A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life[24]

Rohr writes that “Jesus loves to tell stories like . . . the famous one about the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), in which one character does his life totally right and is, in fact, wrong; and the other who does it totally wrong ends up God’s beloved!  Now deal with that!” 

 

Rohr also argues,

 

The loyal soldier is similar to the “elder son” in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son.  His very loyalty to strict meritocracy, to his own entitlement, to obedience and loyalty to his father, keeps him from the very “celebration” that same father has prepared, even though he begs him to come to the feast (Luke 15:25-32).  We have no indication he ever came!  What a judgment this is on first-stage religion, and it comes straight from the boss.

 

Luke 15:11-32

Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., review of Bruce Chilton, The Way of Jesus:  To Repair and Renew the World[25]

Harrington reports,

 

At some points, however, he [Chilton] seems to let his rich scholarly /pastoral imagination run away from sound interpretation.  For example, in treating Luke 15:11-32, he identifies Jesus as the younger son returning home to Nazareth after his time with John the Baptist, the loving parent as his mother Mary/Marian, and the grudging elder son as James the “brother of the Lord” (pp. 152-53).  While this might be an effective homiletic application, it is dubious as history.

 

Luke 15:11-32

James Swetnam, S.J., review of Matteo Crimella, Maria, Marta!  Quattro esempli di “triangolo drammatico” nel “grande viaggio di Luca:  Presentazione di Alain Marchadour[26]

On the positive side, Swetnam reports,

 

C. defines a “dramatic triangle” thus:  “two persons on the same level are placed in contrast, while the third has the role of arbiter” . . . According to C., Luke uses this device to enable readers to become interpreters of a narrative and in so doing to reshape their point of view and make their own the Gospel’s theological point of view.

 

On the negative side, Swetnam reports,

 

I would take just the opposite view, that a request to be treated as a slave would be a smarmy tactic, whereas the request to be treated as a hired hand is an implicit recognition by the prodigal that he has thrown away his legal rights of sonship.  That is, he takes responsibility for what he has done, a key part of true repentance.  Much more could be said of C.’s unfortunate interpretation of Luke 15, one of the most subtly written and most instructive chapters in the entire Gospel.

 

Luke 15:20

Daniel A. Smith, “Seeing a Pneuma(tic Body):  The Apologetic Interests of Luke 24:36-43”[27]

Smith argues,

 

Although the traditional view holds that Marcion used an edited version of canonical Luke, Joseph B. Tyson has recently taken up the proposal of John Knox [1514-1572] that canonical Luke is the result of an anti-Marcionite revision of a “pre-Marcionite gospel,” and that Marcion’s Gospel was an edited form not of canonical Luke but of this Proto-Luke.

 

Luke 15:28

Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “The Pastoral Epistles and Hellenistic Philosophy:  1 Timothy 5:1-2, Hierocles, and the `Contraction of Circles’”[28]

What the Lectionary translates as his father came out and pleaded with him, Ramelli points to the difference between “to rebuke severely” and “to console, to exhort.”  Ramelli finds a sign of Hellenistic Stoic philosophy in the use of the Greek.

 

Luke 15:30

Callie Callon, “Adulescentes and Meretrices:  The Correlation between Squandered Patrimony and  Prostitutes in the Parable of the Prodigal Son”[29]

Meretrices means prostitutes.  Callon argues, “Luke, in telling a story that featured prodigality, could also avail himself of one of the stereotypical features of prodigality common in Greco-Roman comedy:  expending one’s patrimony on love interests, particularly prostitutes.”  While linking patrimony and prostitutes seems strange in Western Civilization, it did not seem strange in the Greco-Roman world of Luke and his audience.

 


 

Luke 15:3-23

Luke Timothy Johnson, “Narrative Perspectives on Luke 16:19-31”[30]

Johnson also refers to “the `three parables’ of the lost and found (sheep, coin, son) in 15:3-32.”

 

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 the Faithful pray with the new Missal, despite itself.

 

 

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 I will rise and go to my father [sic] Luke 15:18.[31]

 

In the gobbledygook, prayer at Sunday Mass immediately following the forgiveness of sins, the Faithful hearing the 2011 Roman Missal can listen for “that we may feel the working of your mercy.”[32]



[1] Quoted in Stephen Bullivant, “Sine Culpa?  Vatican II and Inculpable Ignorance” Theological Studies, Vol. 72, No. 1 (March 2011) 75.

 

[2] Kate Simmons, July 2, 2013, n.p., “Weakland:  Milwaukee bishops didn’t disclose accused abusers,”  http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/weakland-milwaukee-archbishops-didnt-disclose-accused-abusers (accessed July 3, 2013).

 

[3] Author:  A Friend of Medjugorje, Available through:  Caritas of Birmingham – www.medjugorje.comhttp://www.medjugorje.com/search.html?q=Patriotic+Rosary (accessed July 4, 2013).  General Robert E. Lee appears on page 18/28.  One sheet of material contained Patriotic Rosary at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

[4] Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002, 33.

 

[5] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3 (July 2011) 595-596.

 

[6] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 353.

 

[7] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 2013) 157.

 

[8] 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) 324 n 26.

 

[9] The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, general editor, Richard P. McBrien (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco: A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1995) 471.

 

[10] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (July 2010) 507, 515.

[11] 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, 304.

 

[12] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (July 2010) 608.

 

[13] Theological Studies, Vol. 72, No. 1 (March 2011) 74.

 

[14] 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) 310.

 

[15] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2013) 409-410.

 

[16] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3 (July 2011) 580.

 

[17] Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan, 1996, 86-88, 103-104.

 

[18] 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) 83-84, 84 n30.

 

[19] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 3 (July 2012) 535-536.

 

[20] 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) 361.

 

[21] 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) 15.

 

[22] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 1 (January 2012) 98.

 

[23] 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) ??

 

[24] San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass:  A Wiley Imprint, 2011, xx, 45.

 

[25] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 375.

 

[26] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 377.

 

[27] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 4 (October 2010) 764.

 

[28] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3 (July 2011) 571.

 

[29] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 2 (July 2013) 259 ff.

 

[30] 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) 210.

 

[31] 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) 833.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Lectionary.

 

[32] 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) 484.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Missal.