"Unam Sanctam." The Church of Peter in London

L'Espresso ^ | 9/17/2010 | Sandro Magister

[markomalley]

ROME, September 17, 2010 – Benedict XVI spent the second day of his trip to the United Kingdom in London. With six appointments. And as many speeches:

– to three hundred men and women religious educators, at St. Mary's University in Twickenham, also attended by British education minister Nick Gibb;

– to four thousand students on the athletic field of the same college, linked via internet with all of the Catholic schools of England, Scotland, and Wales;

– to Jewish leaders and leaders of the religions most present in the United Kingdom - Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism - in the Walgrave Drawing Room of Twickenham;

– to Anglican archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, at Lambeth Palace;

– to politicians, diplomats, businessmen, men of culture, and religious leaders, at Westminster Hall, also attended by the speakers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons;

– to representatives of the Christian confessions, gathered for an ecumenical celebration at Westminster Abbey.

Two of the six speeches stand out. The one to the students in Twickenham, and the one to the representatives of civil and political society at Westminster Hall.

The first of these also stands apart from the rest stylistically. The pope speaks to the students without formality. He asks them, candidly, to become saints. And he compares the journey of sanctity to a man and woman falling in love.

The second speech reprises the classic features of Joseph Ratzinger's vision of the reciprocal "purification" between reason and faith, and of the public dialogue between them that is necessary "for the good of our civilization."

The following is an anthology of the salient passages from the six papal speeches on September 17.

[kosta50]

Correction, it is aorist passive imperative

So, what? The meaning is the same. Take it up with publishers who disagree with you. And the KJV version is based on the corrupt Textus Receptus, which doesn't agree with any of the older reliable versions, namely: ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος εἰμι, a simple future: you will be holy because I am holy!

By the fact that it is quoted by St. Peter in his instruction shows that it is indeed still meaningful.

Hardly, given that Christians are not under the Law, so quoting Leviticus as something binding is pointless—unless he was addressing Jewish Christians (since they observed the Torah). Either way it is a miss.

The Septuagint version of Leviticus 19:2 reads like the reliable NT versions, namely ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, a simple future "you will be[come]..." and not the way KJV fraud reads.

And while Jews are obligated to follow specific mitzvot to be acceptable (righteous) in God's eyes, the Christians are not give any specific tasks to follow (as points towards holiness), so quoting Leviticus to the Christians does not make it meaningful, again, unless the apostle to the Jews was addressing the Torah-observant Christians in Israel.

The future tense indicates any time after the present. Given that this comes after a series of instructions on how to treat one's enemies, it is clear that our Lord is saying that we should strive for perfection now.

But the inability to reach perfection in specific tasks is precisely why Paul argued that the Law cannot save us and that Christians are not saved by the Law but by Grace, totally undeserving.

Unfortunately, Christianity is an amalgam of approaches that seem to oscillate between grace and works-based perfection, reflecting the two rival schools (Petrine and Pauline) that were eventually awkwardly and artificially reconciled but not without gaps.

Seeking to become a saint, i.e. striving for holiness, has nothing to do with one's station in the Church. One, by the grace of God, can become a saint in the anonymity of one's own family, a holiness unknown to anyone but God. It is a product of humility, not pride.

Seeking holiness is vanity, period. You don't strive for holiness but to serve God; let God decide who becomes holy and who doesn't—you know, "Thy will be done...and not mine," conforming oneself to Christ.

One, by the grace of God, can become a saint in the anonymity of one's own family, a holiness unknown to anyone but God. It is a product of humility, not pride.

There you go again...holiness is a "product of humility." Holiness is not a "product." But as long as we look at it that way, nothing short of pride will define it.

[kosta50]

I hope you listened to Dvina That would be Divna (the name means Delightful)

[kosta50]

We are all called the be saints. We should all desire and aspire to be saints

What is a saint? At what level of "perfection" does one become a saint? It is a deceiving and vain title for any Christian to assume for himself, first because no one is perfect and, two, because they hypocritically profess that they are saved by God's mercy and not because they deserve it.

You can't have it both ways.

[kosta50]

I do dearly desire to be a saint

Let me help you with this: becoming a saint is election, not a wish. A Christian can wish only to serve God, as God sees fit, and expect nothing in return because a Christian deserves nothing in return.

[Kolokotronis]

“That would be Divna (the name means Delightful)”

Ah! I thought it was odd that she would be named after a Russian river!

[kosta50]

Ah! I thought it was odd that she would be named after a Russian river!

Yes, that would be odd. :)

[Kolokotronis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR3Y5hDncn4&feature=related

I think maybe the Seraphim and Cherubim sound like this!

[kosta50]

I think maybe the Seraphim and Cherubim sound like this!

I used to think that, Kolo mou. It would be nice if they did. But, I guess we'll just have to wait and then, maybe, we will know—in due time.

[Kolokotronis]

“It would be nice if they did. But, I guess we’ll just have to wait and then, maybe, we will know—in due time.”

Maybe I am just one of the “old men dreaming dreams”, but it pleases me to think these things. Life is hard enough without going the extra length to stop dreaming the dreams which connect me to my ancestors, my brother.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

And on a lighter note:

The only intelligent UK protest sign I have seen

CATEGORY: Lighter fare — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 7:15 am

Some protesters with their signs have been flashed across the world by the conflict driven mainstream media.

My friend Greg Burke of FoxNews (Rome correspondent) sent me a shot of the only intelligent protest sign I have seen so far.

This fellow, a young man named Toby Guise, is advocating his position by means of a pizza box and black sharpie:



Greg Burke promised a story, and delivered.   CLICK.

Religion

Greg Burke

0

comments

One Protester The Pope Would Have Liked

September 19, 2010 - 7:58 AM | by: Greg Burke

It’s not every day you see Latin on a placard protesting the Pope. When the anti-papal crowd of several thousand atheists, radical feminists and gay activists gathered in London this weekend, most of the banners were pretty  simple: stuff like “Nope to the Pope” and “Papa Don’t Preach.”

But later in the afternoon, on the edges of the papal motorcade, and amidst a number of cheering fans of Benedict, there was a poster raised demanding, “DROP THE FILIOQUE.”

What? You have to know a little bit of Latin, and a lot of theology and history to get that one.

It wasn’t really a poster; it more like Magic Marker theology on a pizza box. And a young man named Toby Guise was happy to explain where, in his opinion, the Catholic Church had gone wrong.

“Filioque” means “And the Son,” and refers to a centuries-old debate between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the Orthodox believe, or from the Father and the Son, which is the Catholic teaching.

That’s tough stuff, material for smart folks debating in a graduate school seminar. Perhaps it’s too bad the Pope didn’t see the pizza box; he would have been amused.

And in his former career as a professor and not a pontiff, he probably would have liked to talk to the young man holding it up.

[Kolokotronis]

“That’s tough stuff, material for smart folks debating in a graduate school seminar. “

As I noted on another thread, like all of us here on the FR Religion forum! :)

[Petrosius]

Petrosius: Correction, it is aorist passive imperative

kosta50: So, what? The meaning is the same. Take it up with publishers who disagree with you. And the KJV version is based on the corrupt Textus Receptus, which doesn't agree with any of the older reliable versions, namely: ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος εἰμι, a simple future: you will be holy because I am holy!

Since you had mentioned the second aorist I had assumed you were talking about vs. 15:

ἁλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅτιοι ὲν πὰσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε
but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct

Nor does the aorist and aorist imperative have the same meaning. Despite being called "aorist imperative", the designation aorist does not refer to the past tense but rather the indeterminate completion of the action. From two Greek grammars:

   1864. Imperative. —The imperative always implies future time. The tenses do not refer to differences of time, and denote only the stage of the action.
   a.  Present (continuance): τοὺς γονεῖς τίμα honour thy parents I.1.16, πάντα τά ληθῆ λέγε tell (go on and tell in detail) the whole truth L.1.18, τοὺς ἵππους ἐκείνοις δίδοτε offer the horses to them X.C.4.5.47.
   b.  Aorist (simple occurrence) : βλέψον πρὸς τὰ ὅρη look (cast a glance) toward the mountains X.A.4.1.20, εἰπέ state (in a word) P.A.24 d, ἡμῖν τοὺς ἵππους δότε give the horses to us X.C.4.5.47.
(Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar for Colleges, New York: American Book Company, 1920, p. 416)

   851. In the subjunctive, optative, imperative, and infinitive, the tenses do not of themselves designate time
  The present in these modes denotes an action simply as continued : thus ποιεῖν to be doing (at any time).
   The aorist denotes an action simply as brought to pass : ποιῆσαι to do (at any time).
(James Hadley, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges, New York: American Book Company, 1912, p. 270.)

The Septuagint version of Leviticus 19:2 reads like the reliable NT versions, namely ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, a simple future "you will be[come]..." and not the way KJV fraud reads.

However, in Greek the future tense can be used to express command. Again from the two Greek grammars:

   1917. Jussive Future. — The future may express a command, like the imperative; and, in the second person, may denote concession or permission. The negative is οὐ. The tone of the jussive future (which is post-Homeric) is generally familiar.
  ὠς οὖν ποιήσετε you will do thus P.Pr. 338a, ἀναγνώσεται τὸν νόμον — ἀναγίγνωσκε the clerk will read the law — read D.24.39, σπουδὴ ἔσται τῆς ὀδοῦ you will have to hurry on the march T.7.77, ὑμεῖς οὖν, ἐὰν σωφρονῆτε, οὐ τούτου ἀλλ᾽ὑμῶν φείσεσθε now, if you are wise, you will spare, not him, but yourselves X.H.2.3.34.
(Smyth, p. 428)

   844. The second person of the future is used as a softened form of command : πάντωσ δὲ τοῦτο δράσεις but this you shall do be all means (ArNub.1352).
(Handley, p. 268.)

Given that St. Peter is quoting Leviticus as his justification for his own command to be holy, this jussive future must be accepted. If you disagree with this interpretation, take it up with St. Peter.

[kosta50]

Since you had mentioned the second aorist I had assumed you were talking about vs. 15

I don't know why you would assume that given that 1 Pet 1:15 is in aorist, passive, imperative (γενήθητε), and 1 Pet 1:16 (in Textus Receptus) is in second aorist, middle (active), imperative (γένεσθε).

The difference between these two (in Textus Receptus only) is that 15 is in the passive voice, whereas 16 is in middle or active voice. In plain English it means that in 15 you are to (passively) receive holiness, while in 16 you are to (actively) achieve it!

However in older reliable versions of the Greek NT 1 Pet 1:16 is in future, no voice, indicative—something that will occur as a matter of fact. It is most definitely not a commandment (imperative) but logically follows verse 15.

Obviously Textus Receptus leads to a serious misunderstanding—and error. In the older, reliable, Greek texts, verses 15-16 speak of passive holiness that will be received by those who are God's people.

The corrupt Textus Receptus first states they will receive holiness passively, then it commands them to receive it actively!

Given that St. Peter is quoting Leviticus as his justification for his own command to be holy, this jussive future must be accepted.

The author of 1 Peter is issuing no such imperative! He is merely stating that God's people will (future, indicative) become holy through Him. :)

It's commendable but not enough to know Greek; it's equally important to have a reliable version of it. Otherwise you might see "jussive future" where there isn't one, and the whole message will lead into heresy.

[kosta50]

However in older reliable versions of the Greek NT 1 Pet 1:16 is in future, no voice, indicative—something, more specifically ἔσεσθε.

[Petrosius]

I don't know why you would assume that given that 1 Pet 1:15 is in aorist, passive, imperative (γενήθητε), and 1 Pet 1:16 (in Textus Receptus) is in second aorist, middle (active), imperative (γένεσθε).

I am not using the Textus Receptus but rather the 1968 edition of United Bible Societies version which indeed has the future ῞Αγιοι ἔσεσθε in vs. 16. When you mentioned the second aorist the closed construction that I could find was the aorist imperative γενήθητε in vs. 15 which I thought you had misconstrued as a second aorist.

The difference between these two (in Textus Receptus only) is that 15 is in the passive voice, whereas 16 is in middle or active voice. In plain English it means that in 15 you are to (passively) receive holiness, while in 16 you are to (actively) achieve it!

γίνομαι is a deponent verb. Thus while it has a passive form it has an active meaning. According to the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, when followed by a predicate its meaning is: come into certain state, become. Thus St. Peter is giving a command to do something.

However in older reliable versions of the Greek NT 1 Pet 1:16 is in future, no voice, indicative—something that will occur as a matter of fact. It is most definitely not a commandment (imperative) but logically follows verse 15.

St. Peter gives the quote from Leviticus in verse 16 as the authority for his command in verse 15, i.e. ἅγιοι … γένεσθε in verse 15 = ῞Αγιοι ἔσεσθε in verse 16. This is therefore a jussive future, a command (be holy), and not just a simple future as you would have it.

[Petrosius]

That should have read:

When you mentioned the second aorist the closest construction …

[Petrosius]

I really have to learn to proofread. I meant to write:

St. Peter gives the quote from Leviticus in verse 16 as the authority for his command in verse 15, i.e. ἅγιοι … γενήθητε in verse 15 = ῞Αγιοι ἔσεσθε in verse 16.

[kosta50]

Here is the link to my source. Click on 5704 next to esesthe and it reads the following:

Word Tense
	Future The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event which has not yet occurred.

Word Voice
	No Tense or Voice Stated In a number of places certain verbs are cited in Perschbacher's "The New Analytical Greek Lexicon" which do not have any tense or voice directly stated. In almost all of these cases, one can assume that the tense is Present and the voice is Active, especially when the sense is that of a command (Imperative).
Word Mood
	Indicative The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.

You can take it up with them, but there is no " jussive future" mentioned anywhere.  Also genesthe and esesthe are not equivalent as your equation sign seems to suggest. The former is aorist of  ginomai (to arise or to come into existence) and esesthe is future first person singular "to be" (eimí).

[Petrosius]

You can take it up with them, but there is no " jussive future" mentioned anywhere.

The jussive future is a question of syntax, not of form or inflection. I have already referenced two standard Greek grammars in post no. 52. Here I give two more:

    The Jussive Future. a. The Jussive Future is rare in Attic Greek, and, when it does occur, is regarded as a weak form of imperative. In the LXX, on the other hand, it is very common, and is employed in the most solemn language of legislation. From the nature of the case it is not used in the first person. It may be employed in command or in prohibition. As instances of the former we may take —

Lvt. 19¹⁸ ἀγαπήσεισ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. Cp. Ex. 34^18,20: iii K. 17¹¹. Lvt. 19¹⁹ τόν νόμον μου φυλάξεσθε. Cp. Lvt 11⁴⁴. Lvt. 19²² καὶ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς. Cp. Lvt. 19^20,21.

(Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare and St. George Stock, Selections from the Septuagint: according to the text of Swete. New York: Ginn & Co., 1905, p. 72.)

B. WAYS TO GIVE A COMMAND: all the Greek moods are employed …
2. INDICATIVE (the jussive future)

a. The OT Mosaic Law: Mt. 5:21; 19:18; Rom. 13:9 (but aorist subjuncitve at Mk. 10:19; Lk. 18:20; Jas. 2:10)
b. NT Commands: Mt. 5:48; 6:5; 20:26; 21:3,13; 27:4,24; Mk. 9:35; Lk. 1:31; Acts 18:15

(Calvin Theological Seminary, An Overview of Greek Grammar, p. 37.)

Now let us look at some translations:

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE: Be holy

AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION: Ye shall be holy

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD: You shall be holy

THE AMPLIFIED BIBLE: You shall be holy

GREEN'S LITERAL TRANSLATION: Be holy

CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE: Be holy

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION: Be holy

ENGLISH REVISED VERSION: Ye shall be holy

NEW LIVING TRANSLATION: You must be holy

NEW LIFE BIBILE: You must be holy

ENGLISH REVISED VERSION: Ye shall be holy

THE MESSAGE: you be holy

NEW KING JAMES VERSION: Be holy

REVISED STANDARD VERSION: You shall be holy

NEW REVISED STANDARD: You shall be holy

EASY-TO-READ VERSION: Be holy

PESHITTA-LAMSA TRANSLATION: Be you holy

UPDATE BIBLE VERSION: You shall be holy

THE EMPHASIZED BIBLE: Holy shall ye be

GOD'S WORD TRANSLATION: Be holy

WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE: You shall be holy

BIBLE IN BASIC ENGLISH: You are to be holy

WEBSTER'S BIBLE TRANSLATION: Be ye holy

YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION: Become ye holy

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD VERSION: You must be holy

WEYMOUTH'S NEW TESTAMENT: You are to be holy

It must be noted that the form "you shall be holy" used in many of the translations above is not the simple future. In the second person this would be "you will be holy." Thus not a single modern translation (all of these except for the NAB were taken from the studylight.org website that you directed me to.) renders the Greek with a simple future of "you will be holy." They all translate it as a command. Even if this were still in dispute, γενήθητε in verse 15 is in the imperative and is clearly a command to be holy. I would also like to point out that St. Paul, too, praises the desire to be holy:

An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit.

καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθέος μεριμνᾷ τὰ κυρίου, ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία [καὶ] τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ πνεύματι
(1 Cor. 7:34)

[kosta50]

I have pinged Kolo because he is a Greek speaker and is familiar with koine Greek. Kolo: how do you read the mood of 1 Peter 1:15-16. verses? As advisory (counseling) or as imperative (commanding)?

When Kolo is not around, and I am in in doubt, I consult the Slavonic Bible because I understand Slavonic and because the language was actually created on the basis of Greek for ease, word-for-word, and conceptual, grammatical and lexical accuracy of translation.

Thus, verse 1:15 reads "i (and) sami (yourselves) svyati (holy) vo (in) vsyem (all) zhityi (living) budite (be)" and verse 1:16 reads "svyati (holy) budite (be [you plural]), iako (as) svyat (holy) az (I) yesm (am)."

There is no question here that the "mood" of 1 Peter 1:15 and 16 is advisory in Slavonic, as if a father were advising his children: "be wise in all things, as I am wise." There is, of course, nothing imperative in it, a tinge maybe—all vector, no force.

As for the English translations, "shall" is imperative in legal usage but otherwise is no different from the non-imperative "will be." And the western, especially Calvinist phronema being legalistic, it is no wonder most translations read as commandments.

In my opinion, this is an inaccurate rendition of the mood with respect to the non-legalistic Hellenistic phronema of the early and Eastern Church, and is the major cause of the theological chasm between the East and West.

Thanks for your input.