Thank you for introducting us to Jean Madiran. His unapologetic defense of traditional worship has aged very well over the last four decades. He is very correct that we did not have just a new Mass inflicted upon us, but innumerable new Masses - as plentiful as protestant sects I might add. Long live the eldest daughter of the Church!
I can't let what your colleague Mr. DiPippo said pass without comment and I am annoyed to see you backtracking here.
First of all when modern biblical 'scholarship' (and I use that word advisedly) tells you something is 'universally acknowledged' you had better watch out. It is usually a way of covering up the complete lack of evidence for some claim they are making that totally contradicts all of the actual evidence we have from the ancient world. Example: It is 'universally acknowledged' that Mark's Gospel was the first one written even though ALL of the actual evidence we have from the second century onward declares UNANIMOUSLY that Matthew wrote first.
And how exactly does he know that Psalm 113 as handed down to us in the Septuagint is 'incorrect'? Was he there in Alexandria? Does he have a copy of the original Hebrew manuscript? If so I'd like to see it.
I'm not "backtracking," simply offering Gregory's counterpoints for consideration. In any case, my main argument, about sticking with the "received" numbering from the LXX/Vulgate, remains water-tight, and DiPippo does not disagree with it.
But everything you repeated that this man said casts doubt on the accuracy of the Septuagint and this is an old trick. The Septuagint has been under attack since the second century. I don't know if it is a letter for letter perfect translation of the original text but I do know that a whole lot of very good people, saints and doctors, from the very earliest centuries thought very highly of it and it is really annoying when Catholics try to impress the world by running it down.
I don't think GDP is casting aspersions on the LXX. He's just very insistent on pointing out there are weaknesses to every human resource. And that's legitimate as far as it goes. This is why we need multiple editions of Scripture, especially for the more difficult passages. St. Augustine said this too.
You're correct. We don't have the original text of any Book of Scripture and especially when it comes to the Old Testament the oldest manuscripts we possess might have been penned more than a thousand years after their original composition. So there are multiple textual traditions and studying how to weave them together is serious science. But these days there is so much herd following in the study of these Books that no real science or original research gets done anymore. So much of it is just professional academics repeating what everybody else is saying or has been saying for the last hundred years without really examining the evidence for any of these claims. The so called documentary hypothesis and the supposed 'Q' which are nothing more than Darwinian evolution imposed on Biblical scholarship are excellent examples of this.
Eric, I see your comments on Dr. K's Substack again and again. Why do you let things bother you so much? In hippie lingo, you seem really uptight, man.
Because the revelation of God in the Catholic Church is the only thing in the world that actually matters. And the so called 'traditionalist' movement is the only functioning vehicle that exists at the present moment to restore it to its proper place. So when I see 'trads' doing stupid things I tell them, man.
When I see Catholics who call themselves 'traditional' saying and things that undermine the very source of the traditions they claim to love i.e. the Septuagint which is the source of both the Latin Psalter and many of the liturgical texts of the Mass that have been prayed in the West since the Roman Empire I think that can be objectively called stupid, yes.
I don't have any particular knowledge or expertise in this area, but I agree with your warning about "modern biblical scholarship." Whenever I hear the phrase, I expect what follows to be false.
I even wonder about today's biblical scholars who are trying to be orthodox but don't seem ever to mention traditional interpretations of passages in Scripture; at the very least, they're reinventing the wheel.
Your last point is so very correct. It is very bizarre to watch Catholics who seem to be orthodox and anti modernist on every other issue fall into this weird modernist daze when it comes to Scripture. All of the sudden people who were perfectly orthodox a moment before start spouting nonsense saying things like the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is not part of John's original Gospel or some other such idiocy.
Thank you for introducting us to Jean Madiran. His unapologetic defense of traditional worship has aged very well over the last four decades. He is very correct that we did not have just a new Mass inflicted upon us, but innumerable new Masses - as plentiful as protestant sects I might add. Long live the eldest daughter of the Church!
I can't let what your colleague Mr. DiPippo said pass without comment and I am annoyed to see you backtracking here.
First of all when modern biblical 'scholarship' (and I use that word advisedly) tells you something is 'universally acknowledged' you had better watch out. It is usually a way of covering up the complete lack of evidence for some claim they are making that totally contradicts all of the actual evidence we have from the ancient world. Example: It is 'universally acknowledged' that Mark's Gospel was the first one written even though ALL of the actual evidence we have from the second century onward declares UNANIMOUSLY that Matthew wrote first.
And how exactly does he know that Psalm 113 as handed down to us in the Septuagint is 'incorrect'? Was he there in Alexandria? Does he have a copy of the original Hebrew manuscript? If so I'd like to see it.
I'm not "backtracking," simply offering Gregory's counterpoints for consideration. In any case, my main argument, about sticking with the "received" numbering from the LXX/Vulgate, remains water-tight, and DiPippo does not disagree with it.
But everything you repeated that this man said casts doubt on the accuracy of the Septuagint and this is an old trick. The Septuagint has been under attack since the second century. I don't know if it is a letter for letter perfect translation of the original text but I do know that a whole lot of very good people, saints and doctors, from the very earliest centuries thought very highly of it and it is really annoying when Catholics try to impress the world by running it down.
I don't think GDP is casting aspersions on the LXX. He's just very insistent on pointing out there are weaknesses to every human resource. And that's legitimate as far as it goes. This is why we need multiple editions of Scripture, especially for the more difficult passages. St. Augustine said this too.
You're correct. We don't have the original text of any Book of Scripture and especially when it comes to the Old Testament the oldest manuscripts we possess might have been penned more than a thousand years after their original composition. So there are multiple textual traditions and studying how to weave them together is serious science. But these days there is so much herd following in the study of these Books that no real science or original research gets done anymore. So much of it is just professional academics repeating what everybody else is saying or has been saying for the last hundred years without really examining the evidence for any of these claims. The so called documentary hypothesis and the supposed 'Q' which are nothing more than Darwinian evolution imposed on Biblical scholarship are excellent examples of this.
Eric, I see your comments on Dr. K's Substack again and again. Why do you let things bother you so much? In hippie lingo, you seem really uptight, man.
Because the revelation of God in the Catholic Church is the only thing in the world that actually matters. And the so called 'traditionalist' movement is the only functioning vehicle that exists at the present moment to restore it to its proper place. So when I see 'trads' doing stupid things I tell them, man.
"Doing stupid things" in your opinion, which is not infallible (or is it?)
When I see Catholics who call themselves 'traditional' saying and things that undermine the very source of the traditions they claim to love i.e. the Septuagint which is the source of both the Latin Psalter and many of the liturgical texts of the Mass that have been prayed in the West since the Roman Empire I think that can be objectively called stupid, yes.
I don't have any particular knowledge or expertise in this area, but I agree with your warning about "modern biblical scholarship." Whenever I hear the phrase, I expect what follows to be false.
I even wonder about today's biblical scholars who are trying to be orthodox but don't seem ever to mention traditional interpretations of passages in Scripture; at the very least, they're reinventing the wheel.
Your last point is so very correct. It is very bizarre to watch Catholics who seem to be orthodox and anti modernist on every other issue fall into this weird modernist daze when it comes to Scripture. All of the sudden people who were perfectly orthodox a moment before start spouting nonsense saying things like the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is not part of John's original Gospel or some other such idiocy.