Many people keep on asking why are there so many kinds of Bible, isn’t the Bible only one? What’s the difference after all. Before we fall into a long conversation on Biblical Scholarship, the simple answer is: Translation. Translating a work to another language is not an easy task especially if the language is as old as Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew (the Bible’s original languages). Translators often follow two ways in their work:
Below is the listing of Bibles available at ST PAULS Libreria and their characteristics:
Why need an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat? An Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat means that a book or publication is free of any doctrinal errors. Thus this means that it does not contain heresies such as Jesus is married to Magdalene etc. (these are apocryphal Gospels/Books). Although it does not mean that those who gave the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat necessarily agree with the contents. In the Philippines these has come to signify that a Bible is a Catholic Version. It does not necessarily need a printed signature. Signatures does not give your Bible more prominence and does not guarantee eternal life automatically. What matters is that it is still the same Word of the same God no matter what version you’re holding right now. Some of us might have preferences regarding translations/versions but what’s important is that we have to acknowledge that the Word of God became flesh and was named Jesus (God saves). (This is my reflection for this Sunday's Gospel, Mt. 5:38-48, given at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, Cagayan de Oro City, 6pm)
“An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth” Tayo pong mga Pilipino ay labis ang paniniwala sa kasabihang ito. Adik na adik po tayo sa katarungan – sa hustisya. Sa telenovela na lang po: sino ho ba dito ang excited ng mahuli ni Cardo si Joaquin? Ito pong “eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth” sa Latin po ang tawag dito ay “lex talionis” o “law of equivalence” – kung anong ginawa mo sakin, gagawin ko rin sayo. Ito rin po yung pangalan ng fraternity ng pangulo at ng justice secretary. Tayo po kasi ay naniniwala na ang Diyos ay kakampi ng mabuti at kalaban ng masama. At the end dapat mamatay yung masamang tao. Pero ngayong Sunday pong ito kakaiba ata ang sinasabi ng Panginoon. “Love your enemies”. Minsan po eh ako’y nagbibigay ng recollection sa mga high school students, tinanong ko po sila: “Anong tingin mo sa kaaway mo?” Walang nagtataas ng kamay. Maya-maya eh mayroong isang babae tumayo at ang sabi, “Brother para po sa akin siya po ay isang kayamanan.” Natuwa naman po ako kasi kakaiba yung sagot niya eh: ibig sabihin naunawaan niya talaga ang Gospel so tinanong ko siya, “Bakit naman?” Ngumiti siya sabay tingin doon sa babae sa may kabilang row at ang sabi eh, “Ang sarap niya po kasing ibaon sa lupa!” “Love your enemeies!” Ito po marahil ang isa sa pinaka unpopular sa mga sinabi ni Kuya Jes. Imaginin niyo na lang po: ninakawan kayo, pinagsamantalahan, binugbog... at the end sasabihin sayo ni Kuya Jes, “love your enemies”. Marahil po magpapalit kaagad tayo ng religion pag ganun ang nangyari. Pero ito po mismo ang sinasabi niya sa atin ngayon, “Love your enemies!” Eh teka, Lord, ang hirap naman niyan di ba pwedeng “kill your enemies” na lang? O kaya “sue your enemies”? Mahalaga pong makita natin na itong “Love your enemies” na Gospel natin ngayon (Mt. 5: 38-48) ay nagtatapos sa verse 48: “So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Ibig pa lang sabihin eh the road to perfection is precisely by loving your enemies. Si Kuya Jes po mismo ang pinakamagandang example. Syempre po walang makakalimot siguro dito sa atin sa isa sa pinakanakakabad trip na character sa bibliya: si Hudas Iscariote. Actually sa atin nga pong mga Pilipino ang pangalang “Hudas” ay katumbas na po nang “ahas”. Ano po bang ibig sabihin ng “ahas”? Diba sa mga lovers dito pagsinabing “ahas” ay mang-aagaw at sa mga theologians naman ay “demonyo” (cf. Genesis). Sobrang galit na galit po tayo kay Hudas dahil all of us even once in our lives has experienced to be betrayed o to betray. Kaya nga po dati sa Pampanga pag Easter Sunday after ng Salubong ay may extra pa silang rite, ang tawag po nila ay “Ang kamatayan ni Hudas”: nilalagyan nila ng maraming firecrackers yung effigy ni Hudas tapos po papaputukin at susunugin. Pero naisip niyo po ba: magkakaroon kaya ng kaligtasan kung hindi trinaydor ni Hudas ang Panginoon? Naalala po ba natin na sa huli ay nagsisi siya nang sobra at gusto niya sanang ibalik yung ibinayad sa kanya ng mga Saserdote kapalit ni Kuya Jes? Sa sobrang pagsisi niya po kaya siya nabuang at nagpakamatay: he fell into despair. Kung mapapansin po natin ang pinaka unang Missa – ang Last Supper – ay para po kay Hudas. Inoffer po ito ni Kuya Jes para sa kanya. “And on the night he was betrayed he took the bread... and in the same manner the chalice... saying... ‘Take this all of you and eat/drink from it... which will be poured out for you and for many. FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS” (cf. Words of Consecration, Roman Missal) In fact si Hudas nga po ang unang nakapagcommunion – siya ang unang binigyan ng katawan at dugo ni Kristo. We now see the face of God – indeed, the Face of God is mercy. Ibig sabihin po ba nito ay dapat maging passive na lang tayo? Hayaan na lang na saktan nila tayo – tayo na lagi ang api? Wag na maghanap pa ng hustisya? Hindi po. What Jesus is saying to us today is actually that justice must always be sought for not for the sake of justice or revenge but for the sake of mercy! Alam po natin ang kasabihan: hate the sin save the sinner. Jesus is challenging us today to demand justice di dahil sa “mali ka... masama ka... dapat mamatay ka na” kundi dahil sa “nagkamali ka... sinaktan mo ko... itatama kita... tutulungan kita”. Justice must always be “for-the-Other”. Para mapunta sya sa mabuti – para mapunta sya sa side ng kabutihan. Do you think killing the criminal, the unjust, the drug addict, the adulterous will make him or her a good person? No! Paano pa siya magiging mabuti kung pinatay mo na? At the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus already know na trinaydor na siya ni Hudas yet he still embraced him and let him give what we call now as the “Judas’ Kiss”. Not because sa ganoong paraan ay mafufulfil ang paschal mystery o ang death and resurrection but because Jesus meant that – he is as if saying to Judas, “I know nagkamali ka, alam ko na alam mo na mali yung ginawa mo but remember: I am with you always. There is still room for repentance. Come back to me!” Brothers and Sisters: at this moment we are at the shoes of Judas, in front of Christ asking us to come back. If we will not, then despair will eat us and we will remain Judas whose only option is suicide. But if we will then we’ll no longer be Judases but we will be Jesus himself always ready to embrace the Judases of our lives, thus transforming lex talionis into lex caritate: the law of love! Mga kapatid, the first reading actually captures the challenge of the Gospel: “Be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am Holy” (Lev 19: 2). Amen. God bless! I once read in a book that there has been an accident where the agnostic Bertrand Russell, while walking and smoking in the Trinity Lane of Cambridge, suddenly shouted, “It is valid! It is sound!” He is pertaining here on the Ontological Argument of Saint Anselm.* And indeed Anselm’s Greatest Conceivable Being inducted countless believers and faced a legion of Fools, to use Anselm’s language game.
So it follows that how could we call it “greatest” if in fact it does not exist in reality. If that is so then there will be something greater, but what is greater than the greatest? The “greaterest”? Thus, Saint Anselm believe that the atheist is a fool in stating God is not for he knows in his mind that God is. The very fact that the idea of God is in my mind means that there must be a God in the here and now of reality for the otherwise will contradict God’s very nature of being the Greatest Conceivable Being. As for me, I think his thesis stands erect because of the validity of his assumptions. Yet other thinkers such as Gaunilon will raise their eyebrows. How can the good old monk argue that what is in the mind must automatically be in reality? Gaunilon utilized Anselm’s argument by stating the “Greatest Conceivable Island” arguing that even though I have in my mind the “GCI” still an island in reality can still be better than what is in my mind. Here Gaunilon is deserving of the title of being the Fool. Yes he believes in God but he misses the point. Anselm’s argument lies on the assumption that God is the beyond, the meta-physical and so any other comparison to physical objects using the same method falls short of the strength the argument has. In a sense, Anselm’s Reductio ad Absurdum in favor of the GCB only applies with God. Another case is the master thinker Immanuel Kant. Kant reacted that Anselm’s argument falls short of proving what God is, Anselm merely stated that God is. And indeed he did. Anselm’s argument for the GCB gave the final blow in providing the rational basis of God’s existence. Just like Descartes’ Infinite, the GCB cannot not exist in reality for the very fact that it is already in the mind. Let me first digress and talk about Descartes. He says that the idea of the Infinite, that is, God, cannot be conceived by us, finite beings, therefore the Infinite itself is the one who put it there. But back to reality, Kant’s voice still rings like a voice in the wilderness. But what is God? What are the adjectives for Him? We can say, Almir is good looking, Rico is kind hearted, and the like but what should we say of God? Kant hit the stone here. Indeed, Anselm’s argument only proves that God exists, he does not provide the predicate in the sentence. And I believe it is rightly so for it is the original intention of the good old monk’s heart. Kant here deserves to be called wise not the Fool as other scholars would say. Kant did not deny God’s existence as Anselm proved it but he still seeks the predicates. Some theorists would suggest that this means that Kant denies God’s perfection and the like. But what are those but products of our limited language? Indeed, Kant’s rant gives us the light that God is but not just what we think Him to be. God eludes our categorization, our Totalization, as Emmanuel Levinas beautifully calls it. Kant’s argument does not deny all the good qualities we attribute to God, it only makes us see that there is more to it. But like Anselm, Kant merely stopped by questioning. I think the story will be complete when the Wise stops and accept that his language falls short and it is only God who can define Himself. And this, in turn, will truly prove God’s glory (although that still falls short). Would the Fool accept this? I believe so but only if he has an open mind to see Anselm’s point as Russell did. Would I be the Wise by accepting Anselm’s arguments? Non sequitur. It does not follow. Merely accepting is still “merely”, that is, it has a lesser degree than proving it yourself. Thus the true Wise is the one who has an open mind and a curious heart that without prejudice, always in the state of epoche of the Phenomenologists, seeks the Divine. Am I then the Wise or the Fool? I think I am the “or”, I’m there right at the middle. * This passage appeared in his autobiography. However, Russell later contradicted himself when he said that Anselm's Ontological argument is not plausible. Thanks to Prof. Ben Carlo Atim for pointing this out to me when this article first appeared. This is originally a paper passed as an assignment to Philo of Religion Class under Mr Rodolfo V. Bagay Jr at Saint Paul Seminary (2015)
Photo credits to aboutcagayandeoro.com Yes, I am a hypocrite and I thank you for saying so. But one reminder my dear Lord of the Iglesia ni Digong, my Church is not. Dear Mr. President-elect:
Good day and may the God of the hypocrites continue to bless your ever shining righteousness! I am a hypocrite. I confess to be so. I attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass without even understanding a word from it. Indeed, I could have understood Latin more. Whenever I got out of the old-bricked parish, I still see the world as I do before I enter the “House of God”: I still consider beggars and the poor as people to pity but not to help. I profess the value of chastity yet I still indulge in fleshly allurement. I follow the Way while my actions draw people to another ways. I want the Truth but I lie in order to survive. Indeed, I also believe in the “survival of the fittest”. I want to gain eternal Life but not yet as I do love my present life of flesh and bones. Yes, I am a hypocrite and I thank you for saying so. But one reminder my dear Lord of the Iglesia ni Digong, my Church is not. Allow me to explain this: By “Church” we mean the Iglesia, Simbahan, Ecclesia from the Greek “ekklesia” which means the community of believers. We do not mean the Gothic or modern abstract structure. Rather, the Church is a conglomeration of individual hearts that have the same pulse – that great credo to the eternally invisible, known yet unknown, the Ultimate Absurdity, the coincidentia oppositorum. One thing most people think is that the Church is the bishops, the priests, deacons, seminarians, nuns and the pope. This is both right and wrong. Yes they are the Church leaders but they are not THE Church. The Church according to Saint Paul (I forgot where; and this is another hypocrisy I have), the Church is the “Body while Christ is her head”. What does this instigator/persecutor-turned-believer mean by this? St. Paul tells us that the Church is not only its leaders, rather it is the entire “family of God here on earth,” the entire people of goodwill along with Christ as their head. But since you said that the ancient scrolls no longer matter then let us not use it as reference (I myself do not like to be a bible scholar). By definition the Church is not only its leaders but also everyone who professes the same creed, the same yes to the Absurd. The Church is composed of every single I who believes. Thus like me there are more hypocritical I’s who go to Quiapo every Friday and afterwards fornicate with another illegally, buy pampalaglag, lie, steal public funds, go to the nearest fortune-teller and the lists go on and on. But the Church is not hypocritical. What about the rare breed of us, Mr. President? The rare breed we call the holy ones? Remember the Church is not only the living on this earth. Ecclesiology would tell us that the Church is composed of the militant (we, present on this earth), the suffering (i.e. in purgatory but sure of heaven) and the glorious ones (the Saints and the saints). Where then is the merit of a Mother Teresa who cared for the sick? Of a Don Bosco who cared for the youth? Where then is the merit of our beloved dead whose memory is still in our hearts (note: in our hearts not just minds because we remember how they fared well and cared for us and loved us). Where then is the merit of your own parents? But of course you might say you do not believe in ecclesiology’s business so allow me to cite others examples that are “flesh and bones”. I would just like to ask you Mr. President-elect, where are you when the priests defended the rights of the black slaves in America? Have you read of the real reason why the Church became so powerful in Europe? After the Fall of Rome and facing different attacks from the Vandals, the Visigoths, and other like, the temporal responsibility of protecting the people fall to their supposed to be spiritual guardian. Have you heard how the French Revolution committed genocide of a French Town just because the people there are still loyal to the Catholic Church. Yes, women and infants included. Or else let us go to recent history. Do you know Bishop Romero of El Salvador? Who died because he defended the rights of the people against the dictatorship? Have you read how many priests were hung inside their parishes, nuns raped and killed in their convents during the glorious “Religious freedom” in Mexico (watch: For Greater Glory) and the Revolucion Española just because they wear their habits? Do you know that Pope Pius XII allowed the printing of fake baptismal certificates to Jews during the Second World War? Do you know Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe who offered himself to be killed in Hitler’s gas chambers in place of a father? Let’s go closer to home. When the Spanish authorities were abusing the natives did not the Synod of Manila condemned it? Who were the original founders of schools and towns? Ever wonder why most of our localities were named after saints? Where are our great politicos when your great Hero to be interred in the Heroes’ Cemetery declared Martial Law and rampant human rights violations were committed? All of them flee abroad. Even the Yellow martyr did. Who was left here? A Sin and his brother priests (and they are all sinners; another hypocrisy of ours). And after the Dictator’s fall, who pleaded the nation to have mercy and compassion to the fallen criminal and his gang… er, family? And the hypocrisy can still go further… Another thing your faithful ones would counter (even if it does not prove the point) is that the Church is “Yellow”. Bishop Soc is “Liberal”. Father so and so is “Aquino”. And the litany of Ad Hominems continue! I wonder how could that be sir since I myself did not vote for their appointed heir. Did the Nation forgot that the current oligarch in the palace when welcoming the man-in-white criticized the bishops for criticizing him? Did the Nation already forgotten the bitter war of words over the controversial RH Law the Second Aquino Administration so profoundly wants to be passed? Most importantly, who is there to defend the rights of farmers (especially of the Hacienda Luisita) against wealthy hacienderos (e.g. Cojuangcos, Aranetas, and the like… most of them Liberals)? No the Church is not yellow. Gold we might be since it is a liturgical colour in place of white. But yellow we are not. Yes, Mr. President-elect, most of us are hypocrites who do not have the right to kiss the sandals of your feet. Your community of believers are far superior to us in matters of righteousness. What with a Panelo who said that the Mamasapano Massacre (I prefer it be called the Ampatuan death eating) is a hoax. Surely we are of no worthiness to stand before your ever glorious righteousness. But Mr. President-elect, we might be hypocrites but the Church is not. If so, then she could just have broken her ethical and moral stands in order to gain your eyes of mercy turned toward us. Lastly I invite you, there is still one more seat here. As the song says, “All are welcome!” One more hypocrite is welcome. Love, The Hypocrite |
anonymous lenzJust a traveling someone in this reality we have fallen in love with... this we call our world... "What is essential is invisible to the eyes..." Tags
All
"The absolutely other is the Other" Archives
September 2018
"There is only one corner in the universe that you can be certain of improving and that's your own Self" |