Is the Catholic church today the same church that codified the Bible in 400ad?

[MariaG]

This discussion started on another thread. I thought it deserves it own thread. Here is the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1160 and the statement that sparked my interest. As the post, I feel would derail the historical nature sought in the previous thread, I thought a new thread could investigate this area. Original topic:

posted by Little MaryWould anyone like to comment on the historical fact that the Bible is a Catholic document compiled by Catholics for Catholics?

posted by p90
It is an assertion that assumes that the Catholic Church of today is the same church that complied the Scriptures. Many Protestants, including myself, reject this assertion.

posted by La Chiara
Just because you think otherwise, doesn’t make it any less true (except for you). The Catholic Church is indeed the same church that compiled the Scriptures

oh. Can you start another thread with this? Or get Little Mary’s permission to run with this statement on this thread? This is a topic all by itself! So much Scripture can be explored in that statement!!!

Your Catholic sister in Christ,
Maria

So I decided to start the thread so not to detract from Little Mary’s thread. I must go but will be back with Scripture on this topic. Anyone else?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mercygate]

Yes. Do you know of anyone else out there who claims to be? (not counting the Trail of Blood people!)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, of course.
We are all still members of Christ’s Body.
We all still believe the same creed.
We read the same Bible (well, my Douay-Rheims is the English translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, but St. Jerome would recognize it in the Latin!)
We have the same goals, to know, love, and serve God in this world and the next. To preach the “Good News” to all. To baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To follow the teachings of Christ as set down in Scripture and Tradition.

Yep, same Catholic Church all right.

 

[Ghosty]

Let’s not forget the very basic fact of Apostalic Succession, that we can trace the pedigrees of Bishops going back to that time.

 

[Catholicforlife]

When you look at St Justin Martyrs explanation of the mass, it is the same thing we do today. I believe he wrote it in the late 100’s but can’t recall. Amazing how after 1900 years, we still worship essentially the same with little variation. It is one of the many things I love about Catholicism. Same Catholic church, you bet.
D

 

[MariaG]

posted by mercygate

Yes. Do you know of anyone else out there who claims to be?

The claim is not so much that they are that church, but that the Catholic church has strayed from the true teachings of Christ.

But that brings up interesting Scripture. How can the Catholic Church not be true to Christ’s teachings? Here’s are a Scripture verse I would like to start the discussion with.

Scripture tells us:

1 Tim 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,** which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.**

and of course,

Mt 28:20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."Amen.

So when did the promise that Christ would be with us always, and the church is the pillar and ground of the truth stop applying to the Cathollic Church?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[SavedByHim]

i’m going to go out on a limb and say that the “church” is still the same, though we as “people of the church” have changed.

did the first catholics have to battle same-sex marriages?
did they have to comment on embryonic stem cell research? or in-vitro fertilization?

like i said, our beliefs are still the same and we follow the same teachings of the church, (at least in my admittedly limited knowledge) so i believe the church is the same…

…but it’s the sin of man that has changed.

 

[MariaG]

Obviously no one yet on this thread disagrees that the Catholic church today is the same church of 2000 years ago.
For those of you who have yet to speak and disagree, when did the promise that Christ would be with us always, and the church is the pillar and ground of the truth stop applying to the Cathollic Church?

Here is some more Scripture:

Mt 16:18 …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

**Col 1:18 **And He is the head of the body, the church…

So when did Christ switch bodies? Historically, there was only one Church a Christian belonged to. When did Christ abandon the Catholic Church? Please be specific in your charges.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[asquared]

again I appeal to my non-Catholic brethren to enlighten my ignorance. I thought that only a few sects such as Church of God, Campbellites, Disciples of Christ, hold that the original Church founded by Christ and the apostles became so greatly corrupted that the Church targeted for reform beginning in the 16th century by the first Protestants, was not, in truth, the same body. I see in a related thread that there are some Baptist denominations that make a similar case. Since I, like many Catholics, am uninformed on the doctrines of various denominations with similar names, can someone tell us which groups do deny that the institution which today identifies itself as the Catholic Church headed by the Roman pontiff is in fact descended through apostolic succession from the Church Christ founded?

 

[brianberean]

Questions that might help clarify:

Did the church of 400AD officially teach and require its members to believe in:

Purgatory?
Indulgences?
Papal infallibility?
Universal authority of the bishop of Rome?
Mandatory confession to a priest (w/ exceptions)?
Immaculate Conception?
Assumption of Mary?
The current accepted Catholic OT canon?
Transubstantiation?
7 sacraments?

Looking for “official” evidence here…

Brian

 

[jimmy]

brianberean:

Questions that might help clarify:

Did the church of 400AD officially teach and require its members to believe in:

Purgatory?

It wasn’t something that people had to believe but they certainly did believe in Purgatory. The trinity wasn’t a doctrine that anyone had to believe until the fifth century. Here is a quote from Gregory of Nyssa, an Eastern Father.

Therefore soul is not born after body. So body and soul are born together.
As to the number of souls, Humanity itself is a thought of God not yet completed, as these continual additions prove. When it is completed, this “progress of Humanity” will cease, by there being no more births: and no births, no deaths.
Before answering objections to the Scriptural doctrine of the Resurrection, the passages that contain it are mentioned: especially Psalm cxviii. 27 (LXX.).
The various objections to it, to the Purgatory

to follow, and to the Judgment, are then stated; especially that:
A man is not the same being (physically) two days together. Which phase of him, then, is to rise again, be tortured (if need be), and judged? Gregory of Nyssa, On the soul and the Ressurection.

Here is a another from Gregory of Nyssa

“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (*Sermon on the Dead *[A.D. 382]).

Here is John Chrysostom

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (*Homilies on First Corinthians *41:5 [A.D. 392]).

“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf” (*Homilies on Philippians *3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).

 

[jimmy]

Here is Augustine.

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (*Sermons *159:1 [A.D. 411]).

“But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (ibid., 172:2).

Here is Clement of Alexandria

Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more–not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504

I could keep going on the issue, but the point is that the Church fathers did believe in Purgatory, even if they did not call it Purgatory. Just because everyone did not have to believe it does not mean anything. The trinity was not part of doctrine till the council of Nicaea. Doctrine can evolve.

 

[jimmy]

Indulgences?

The church has always believed that living your faith will help you get into Heaven. In fact they have taught that if you do not live your faith you can not expect to go to Heaven.

Papal infallibility?
Universal authority of the bishop of Rome?

These are both the same thing so I included them together.

Here are the church fathers on the issue of the Pope.

Ignatious

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Irenaous

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[jimmy]

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). …** On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra**], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord.* If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”*** (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (*Letters *48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote …** that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic** Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

**“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” **(ibid., 59:14).

I could give you alot of quotes from the church fathers on this isue. Clearly here, the catholic church is where the bishop of Rome is.

 

[jimmy]

Mandatory confession to a priest (w/ exceptions)?

Of course it has been taught since the fourth century. Heres your proof.

Origen

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . **does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” **(Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).

“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us" (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).

Basil the Great

“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).

 

[jimmy]

John Chrysostom

]"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’

Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven" (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
I think you get the poit on the issue of Confession to a priest. The church fathers were pretty much unanimous on the issue of confession to a priest. The East believed it, the west believed it, it was universal. Just because it may not be mentioned in a council - it may be, I have not looked - does not mean it is any less important. Like I said earlier doctrine can evolve and just because it was not put in the councils early on does not mean it can not be put in later.

Immaculate Conception?

It has always been taught that Mary was free from sin.

St. Augustine

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."

St. Ambrose of Milan

"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain."

Likewise, the Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (d. 379) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) call Mary “Panagia” (“All-Holy One”) and “Panagiota” (“All-Sinless One”).

St. Ephraem the Syrian

“Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain,** nor any spot in Thy Mother.” **(Poem to Christ)

"My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate." (Ibid)

 

[jimmy]

St. John Damascene

speaks of Mary, saying:** “The serpent never entered that Paradise.**”

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of St. John the Apostle himself – the caretaker of Mary, according to John 19:26-27).

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book III c. 180 AD)

 

[jimmy]

Assumption of Mary?

The Assumption is called the Dormition of Mary in the East. This Holy Day has been recognized since atleast the four hundreds. There are records that go back to atleast the second century of the assumption.

The Pseudo-Augustine (c. 500):

“This venerable day has dawned, the day that surpasses all the festivals of the saints, this most exalted and solemn day on which the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. On this day the queenly Virgin was exalted to the very throne of God the Father, and elevated to such a height that the angelic spirits are in admiration.”

St. Gregory, Bishop of Tours in France (594 AD)

“The Lord . . . commanded the body of Mary be taken in a cloud into paradise; where now, rejoined to the soul, Mary dwells with the chosen ones.”**/**QUOTE]

St. Germaine I, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 732 AD speaking of Mary)

“Thou art . . . the dwelling place of God . . . exempt from all dissolution into dust.”

St. John Damascene [of Damascus] (c. 700)

"He who had been pleased to become Incarnate (of) her . . . was pleased . . .** to honor her immaculate and undefiled body with incorruption . . . prior to the common and universal resurrection.**

"
This is the teaching of the church fathers and it is another one that you can prove by looking at what the East believes.

 

[jimmy]

brianberean:

The current accepted Catholic OT canon?

Here are the Councils on this issue.

**Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom

, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, **Wisdom

, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon

, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
The five books of Solomon included wisdom. Baruch was part of Jeremiah.

---

 

[jimmy]

These ones here are church fathers who quoted the deutero-canonicals.

The Letter of Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

**Irenaeus **

“Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]” (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

“Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]” (ibid., 5:35:1: Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).