Spurious Claims
In the February 2002 issue Dwight Longenecker wrote an article on the apostolic church (“Believing and Belonging”) in which he said, “In other words, only those churches that have bishops who claim historical succession from the apostles may share in this third level of apostolicity. The Orthodox and some other Catholic-minded Christian denominations make this claim. Even if their claims to apostolic succession are spurious . . .”.
Am I to understand that Mr. Longenecker believes that (Eastern) Orthodoxy is not apostolic? If this is the case, he might like to inform the current bishop of Rome.
Ian K. Hughes
Fairfax, California
Dwight Longenecker responds: I did not write that the Eastern Orthodox churches are non-apostolic, although I admit it may look like that is the implication. (See the qualifying phrase “Even if”—meaning the claims of some of them might not be spurious.) The various Anglican schism churches would claim apostolic succession as would the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schisms with vagrant bishops. I was thinking of these sorts of churches and not of the Orthodox when I suggested the claims of such churches might be spurious.
Good Morning, Beautiful
James Akin makes a valid point when he says in essence not by Douay alone do we read (“Uncomfortable Facts about the Douay-Rheims,” February 2002). However, the current rage for equivalency translations leaves much to be desired.
Case in point: Luke 1:28. The Greek word used, kecharitomene, as I understand conveys the meaning of an absolute, unique fullness of sanctity and grace. The Douay version translates this as “full of grace,” thus rendering the verse as “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” This is the translation used by the Confraternity Version and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
The New American Bible (NAB) translates this line as “Rejoice, O highly favored daughter!” Another equivalency rendering is “Congratulations, favored lady!” (The Way). The Catholic Study Bible (also an NAB version) reads “Hail, favored one.” The American Bible published by the University of Chicago Press translates Luke 1:28 as “Good morning, favored woman.”
Look where this can lead us. Checking out equivalent words for greeting we can come up with hi, hello, greetings, et cetera. One dictionary defines favored as “nice in appearance, good looking, pleasing to the eye.” In other words, what the archangel Gabriel said to Mary was “Yo, good-looking chick!”
Judy Winter
Platteville, Wisconsin
James Akin responds: I’m with you on the need for formal equivalence translations as opposed to the dynamic equivalence ones that are the rage. While they have their uses, serious Bible study isn’t one of them.
On the subject of kecharitomene, “full of grace” is an excellent translation of the word, though it isn’t the only one possible. It conveys more than many of the alternatives you list. While one cringes to think of it, some of the slang translations that were produced in the 1960s (such as God Is for Real, Man) conceivably could have rendered Gabriel’s greeting along the lines of “Yo, foxy momma!”
Uncomfortable
James Akin’s article “Uncomfortable Facts about the Douay-Rheims” (“Brass Tacks,” February 2002) is disappointingly uninformative. I assume this article is a criticism of Thomas A. Nelson’s booklet Which Bible Should You Read? However, the article addressed none of the translational issues raised by Nelson nor did it address any other passages that differ between the Vulgate and the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Akin’s last sentence states that his purpose in writing the article was to knock the Douay-Rheims translation off its pedestal. This purpose is similar to the post-Vatican II self-criticisms of the Church where the sole intent was to destroy.
Apologetics, This Rock’s mission, was one victim of the post-Vatican II self-destruction. Please write a more useful article in which the translations for passages in dispute are compared.
Frederick A. Costello
Herndon, Virginia
James Akin responds: I said that the Douay-Rheims translaton should not be put on a pedestal, not that it’s my job to knock it off one. I like the Douay-Rheims. Regarding the booklet that is currently making the rounds, I chose not to address it directly because it is my general policy to address issues rather than individuals, though I do make exceptions. Had I done so, it would be easy to show that many of the booklet’s arguments regarding translation are without substance. The author does not seem to have a knowledge of Greek nor much of an idea of how translation works nor an understanding of what the Church has actually said regarding translation and the Vulgate. The booklet is irresponsible and a disservice to faithful Catholics.
Child Molesters Aren’t Monsters
A well-known Protestant preacher reportedly told the men at another Georgia prison that God had forgiveness and a wonderful plan for their lives—except for child molesters. They were monsters.
When I quit Baptist seminary to become a Catholic, I wondered if I’d encounter this distortion of the gospel in the Church as well. Russell L. Ford, whose writings I highly regard, gave me my first taste of it in his article “Shouting Down Satan” (February 2002): “Most men who do time for rape are not sex-crazed perverts who wait behind trees for every woman who comes along. The only exceptions are child molesters—most are incurable sociopaths who will always tend to prey on kids.” In my opinion, this statement is inaccurate, damaging to the work of Christ, and irrelevant to an otherwise first-rate article.
During my eighteen years in prison I have observed that most prisoners minimize their crimes, justify them, or at least view them as morally superior to other crimes. They see themselves as regular Joes who simply made a “mistake.” It is in this attitude that we find indifference akin to that of the sociopath.
Child molesters, nearly always the victims of early abuse, are more often aware of the corruptness of their souls. Is it not such a desperate need as this that brings us to repentance and to Christ? And yet we drive these men away.
Our tiny congregation of eight men now faces this scourge of spiritual pride. One lifelong Catholic seems determined to run off these scum-of-the-earth molesters and homosexuals that show up at our services. Another convert and I keep bringing them back to catechism and Mass despite the hostility. These men are learning forgiveness and the limitless love of God.
I don’t expect all my Catholic brothers to understand this power of God to transform lives—only those who have experienced it themselves.
Charles Oliver
Macon, Georgia
Editor’s reply: Russell Ford’s point is that the compulsion to molest children is more deep-seated and difficult to heal than the compulsion to commit heterosexual adult rape, a point that seems to be supported by psychological research. In the next sentence after the passage cited above, Ford goes on to say, “Yet grace has been sufficiently given that even some of them [child molesters] are cured of their compulsion.”
Wager My Soul on a Sixteenth-Century Heretic
While reading your January 2002 issue, I came across the article by Bill Rutland titled “Come Out from under the Roman Catholic Church!” that touched on the subject of sola scriptura. Since I am an ex-Baptist and once believed that the Bible was the sole rule of faith, this article caught my attention.
As I read Mr. Rutland’s words, I recalled learning over two years ago while in prison the history of sola scriptura and realizing that if I was to remain a Baptist I would have to be willing to wager my soul on a sixteenth-century heretic by the name of Martin Luther. Because until he came along, nobody believed in sola scriptura—nobody. And we’re talking over fifteen hundred years and many millions of believers.
Once educated, I found it impossible to believe that our unchangeable God would change divine revelation that had stood for fifteen hundred years by telling a lone monk to instruct Christians to disregard the Church and that the Bible (minus the seven books Luther disliked personally) was all they needed.
Thanks to books donated by Catholic Charities in Mobile, Alabama, including Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism; our priest, Fr. Michael Sreboth; and my godfather, Thomas Black, a third-order Carmelite, by the grace of God I am now where I belong and Christ intended me to be: in the holy Catholic Church.
Thanks again for the complimentary subscription to This Rock.
James McKenzie
Atmore, Alabama
Inspired by Mother Dolores
This is belated, but I wanted to thank you for running the story in the October-November-December 2001 issue on Mother Dolores Hart (“From Hollywood to the Habit”). When I was a teenager I saw a photo and caption in our archdiocesan newspaper about her final profession. I believe it was in 1971. It was very inspiring, especially at that time when se many nuns, priests, and religious were abandoning their vocations and even the Church. I never forgot the picture: traditional Benedictine habit, that beautiful face, and the crown of flowers on her head.
Occasionally over the intervening years I’d wondered what happened to her. Thank you for featuring her on the radio show.
Marie Wolf
Prossner, Washington