One other source, also from a Jewish scholar, who affirms what I have said – that it was indeed aural confession! Chapter 5: “I entreat, O Jehovah: I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled, I have committed (naming the sin, trespass, or in case of a burnt-offering, the breach of positive or negative command); but I return in repentance, and let this be for my atonement.”
Sirach2:
So now I have provided three sources that all say the same thing.
Actually, this is an interesting claim. I would say that you aren’t providing
multiple sources, but rather, multiple people who are using
the same source. Both this quote and the quote from
The Miracle of the Scarlet Thread use language that is identical, verbatim, with the quote you originally provided (Otho’s
Lexicon rabbinico-philologicum); his assertion of the text of the prayer, in Latin, is what these other sources are (seemingly) copying. The only difference, of course, is that where Otho reads “& hoc & illud”, these authors
interpret him to mean “I have committed (naming the sin)” (Booker) or “I have committed (naming the sin, trespass or… breach of positive or negative command)” (Edersheim). Therefore, it would seem that you haven’t provided
multiple sources so much as you’ve provide authors who are relying on a single source (viz., Otho).
Let me be perfectly clear: when we see, on the internet, hundreds of outlets parroting the same assertion, we don’t claim that we have hundreds of sources. Rather, we recognize that many writers are simply repeating what they heard and which can be attributed to a single source. So, yes, you’ve found many who repeat Otho, and who interpret him (perhaps, even, you’ve found that Booker references Edersheim, who himself references Otho!).
This is a reputable source that is referenced even here at CAF
in the Library. It shows an attitude of superiority to dismiss this source
Oh, no, please don’t get me wrong! The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia
is a valuable source! It’s valuable to get a perspective on what was being taught at the turn of the last century; it’s also valuable in order to see how the faith was presented at that point in time. Of course, it’s important to understand what it is
not: it is not an exposition of the way the faith is presented by the Church today. It is no longer what it intended to be at the time of its publication (“the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject”). No, if
that’s what you want, then you need to go to the
current version – the
New Catholic Encyclopedia (from 1983, I believe).
Why does Catholic Answers (as well as New Advent and Google Books) have the 1907 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia online? For one simple reason: the current Catholic Encyclopedia is under copyright, but the 1907 version is in the public domain. It’s not here because it’s still the “latest and most accurate information”; it’s here because they can legally place it here. That’s good, and it’s a valuable resource; but, we can’t presume that, since it’s here, it’s the final word on all things Catholic. In the past 100 years, scholarship hasn’t been in stasis.
So, does the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia represent an infallible guide to contemporary scholarship? Certainly, not. One easy place to see this is in its treatment of ‘Limbo’, in which it states, among other things, that “it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness” and “(unbaptized infants) are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned”. Is that the current teaching of the Church, however? Certainly not. In its 2007 document
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, the ITC states, “This theory [of limbo], elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.” While noting that it is a “possible theological hypothesis,” it states that “the Catechism teaches that [for] infants who die without baptism, [there is] hope that there is a path to salvation.” Clearly, there’s a difference in the teaching here. Which do we go with, then? What the Catechism teaches us, or what the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia tells us? You can have your “reputable source;” I’ll stick to the current teaching of the Church and to current scholarship, thank you very much…
in favor of your book, which you elevate to a be-all, end-all dogmatism
Certainly not. However, since my sources represent current scholarship, I’d assert that they be given preference over older sources.
Oh, wait – I have provided my -]sources/-] source
Oh, I see what you did there! That’s cute! Yet, it’s inaccurate: I pointed out not only Dallen’s assertions, but also, the assertions that are found in the footnotes of the NAB. Source
s, plural, thank you – unlike your sources, which clearly appear to be simple re-statements from the same, single, medieval-era source.
I did offer contradiction and opposition, but you chose to spin it with subterfuge
Right: what you argue is “contradiction” and “opposition”, but what I argue is merely “subterfuge”. Ad hominem much?
Blessings,
G.
