Los Angeles, Calif., Jan 30, 2019 / 05:01 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the aim of human living and all of history, Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville said Monday in an address about St. Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation of scripture.
“Thomas is a theological witness to a truth of Catholic Faith, namely that after the full revelation of Christ’s historical appearance, the Church has access to the aim of history. Hence, all the faithful now have the capacity by spiritual instinct and knowledge of the Gospel to see themselves figured in Christ,” Flores said Jan. 28 during his lecture for St. Thomas Day at Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, Calif.
“This, together with the gift of the Spirit guiding our reception of the history of Christ, is what is new about the New Testament revelation. And this is why the Fathers of the Church, following Saint Paul, call the definitive revelation in Christ an ‘unveiling’. What is unveiled? The aim of human living and all of history.”
The college celebrates the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas with Mass, a lecture, and leisure. In addition to his lecture, Flores also delivered a homily on charity.
Flores has been Bishop of Brownsville since 2009. He earned a doctorate in theology from the Angelicum in 2000, studying Thomas’ theology.
The bishop’s lecture addressed some aspects of Thomas’ commentaries on scripture, noting that “lecturing on Scripture texts was Thomas’ main occupation,” and intending to encourage the reading of these commentaries so as better to understand the saint’s “profoundly Christological” vision.
Thomas commented on the Gospels of Matthew and John; all of the Pauline epistles, including that to the Hebrews; and the Psalms, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Isaiah, and Job.
Flores highlighted “Thomas’ intense interest in the literal sense of the Scriptures,” which he said was related to the mendicant movements of his age and their interest “in the literal following of Christ.”
He began by reflecting on the “literalness” of Christ, saying that in the Incarnation “God expressed Himself literally; Jesus is the historically literal expression of the divine wisdom. Thus, it is essential to Catholic Christology to profess that the Second Person of the Trinity literally acts and expresses himself through his sanctified humanity … He translated Himself to us, in a language we could understand. That literal language is the humanity of Christ.”
The bishop then turned to Thomas’ writing on a controversy over the literal sense of scripture, saying the saint’s interest was “directly related to protecting the literalness of Christ’s teaching and example, and to accounting for the Old Testament as primarily prophetic and intentionally preparatory in nature.”
Following the Second Council of Constantinople, Thomas was opposed to the fifth century bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, who denied that the Old Testament prophets ever intended to say anything literally about Christ, but rather that they wrote about other things, and their words were subsequently adapted to Christ.
Theodore’s belief “undermines any understanding of the Old Testament as words from the Word, preparing for the Word’s expressed manifestation,” Flores noted.
In Theodore’s understanding, New Testament authors appropriate the words of Old Testament authors “at will”, without regard to the original authors’ intention. Thomas saw that this view “implicates [the Apostles and Evangelists] in a falsification of textual integrity.”
Thomas in fact saw that Theodore’s belief was “a Christological error,” Flores said.
“The Lord Jesus knows what the intentions of the Old Testament authors are, and it is his knowledge, confided to the authors of the New Testament, that sustains the propriety of New Testament citation of the Old. It is the literal historicity of the WORD made flesh (expresse manifestavit se), the One who spoke through the prophets prior to his Incarnation, that gives the Apostles (and the Church) access to Old Testament intentions.”
After discussing Thomas’ treatment of Theodore’s error, Flores turned to Thomas’ “Rule of Saint Jerome” on how some Old Testament words and deeds “have both an Old Testament historical referent and a literal sense extending to Christ.”
In cases where the words regarding an Old Testament event “exceed the condition of the histories, then the exceeded description itself extends to a literal application to later realities.” This principle both respects the immediate historical context of the Old Testament narrative, and allow the words to refer also to Christ.
For Thomas, the Christian can read the Old Testament as referring to both its immediate historical intentionality and literally to Christ because God can “accommodate history to signify his intentions. Related figurative senses are present in the thing described.”
“Thus, Theodore … lacks an understanding of the unified intentionality governing the whole of the Old Testament aimed toward Christ,” the bishop stated. “Doubtless, Thomas saw Theodore’s reading of Scripture as ultimately rooted in a Christological error. Theodore has no room for a real relation between the facta of the Old Testament and the facta of the New; he has no room for the intentional governance of history by the WORD.”
Finally, Flores turned to figuration, whereby Old Testament realities are figures of realities in the New Covenant, or even later on in Israel’s history. This principle “is on full display” at the Easter Vigil, he noted.
In his commentary on the Psalms, Thomas looks for figuration, a practice “rooted in a pre-critical theological conviction that Israel’s history was governed by a special providence, a grace that orders its signification in a way that is anticipatory of the final revelation of God’s historical intent in Christ. This serves as the basis for a Christian reading of the psalms that respects the history of the psalmists. Figuration, in this tradition, (and here I must insist Thomas is very much in the spirit of the Fathers) is rooted in history, not in words; in events understood a certain way, not in poetic allusions.”
For example, in Psalm 21, “The history narrated in the Psalm is not about David, it is about Christ. This is its literal sense,” Flores said, summarizing Thomas’ commentary.
“On this reading, David (the psalmist) has a vision of the Passion, and wrote of it. The psalmist’s own sufferings are secondarily referenced in the psalm, but only to the extent they are figured within Christ’s sufferings. David saw himself in Christ; he did not see Christ in himself.”
This underlies spiritual progress: that “it is more perfect to see oneself figured in Christ than it is to see Christ figured in oneself. This is because Christ is the supreme locus of intelligibility, and I understand myself better if I see myself figured in him.”
“This is the distinction Thomas wishes to preserve: Israel’s history pre-figures New Testament events, yet the prophets had moments of imaginative vision with understanding that saw from afar the Christian history: they read the contemporary events they lived figured within the history of Christ: Prophets and Kings longed to see what you see, but did not see it.”
Thomas’ explanation of Psalm 21 “as literally about Christ and figuratively about David (effectively reversing the ordinary way of explicating figuration)” grants David “a perspective of vision that is equivalent to ours,” Flores commented.
“We know the history of Christ as literal history, and can see ourselves in it … The eternally generated WORD in the flesh literally and historically expresses what every human life and what all history is really about.”
Flores concluded, reflecting on the structure of the Mass: “the sacramental re-presentation of the historical founding Word-event of the Passion, death and Resurrection of Christ comes after the reading of the Scriptures.”
“The Paschal Sacrifice is thus positioned to unveil the fundamental ratio through which the Scriptures just read are rightly understood. The literal body of Christ appears after the worded Scriptural explications, just as the Incarnation follows and clarifies the prior Scriptural pedagogy. And yet the Scriptures read prior to the Eucharistic Sacrifice guide our understanding of what is to be enacted, just as the Scriptural record prepared the way for faith in the Incarnation. It is a reciprocal pedagogy of grace.”
For Bishop Flores, figuration is essential to liturgy and theology.
“The Christological truth revealed in Scripture and enacted – made plain and made present – in the Eucharistic intervention is the basis for understanding rightly all subsequent figurative readings, be they moral, ecclesial, or eschatological. And the aim is that we see our lives figured within Christ thus plainly manifested. Of the Eucharist as of the Incarnation itself, we can truly say: Se nobis expresse manifestavit.”
[…]
From the “father” who wants women priests, communion for all, lgbtmnop+… Who knew that he’d go to the fringes to push traditional Catholics aside…
This is NO surprise. Cupich has proven through his actions and inactions that He is The power that runs the archdiocese and will do everything he can to eliminate traditional Catholocism in favor of “whatever you want” catholicism.
Thank God the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not subject to approval by priest and elder! Else where would the world-church be??
Meiron,
Actually, the Jewish leadership of Jesus’s day condemned him and did not give their approval of his ministry. God, of course, merely bypassed them.
Does Cupich actually think that he can outfox God?
Steve,
It seems your genius may have actually understood an incoherent post! I attempted irony and failed. Maybe I can explain.
The Father willed Jesus’s sacrifice. God’s will is not subject to approval. Yes, elders and priests played out the parts or roles the Father’s foreknowledge knew they would, and so yes, they did condemn Jesus.
Just so, Cupich’s words are meaningless. He may believe and pride himself on his leadership, but he is nothing more than a pawn to the principalities and powers who he has allowed to use him. The Sacrifice of Jesus and its re-presentation (at Mass) continues to effect, as does God’s will, whether Cupich knows or likes it or not.
God writes straight with crooked lines. And everybody plays a part on God’s chessboard, even those destined (having chosen themselves to be) losers.
NO! Absolutely Cupich cannot outfox God. But he is kept busy and occupied, helping to show to some of us, perhaps, what is clean and what is dirty in the house of the Lord.
Best wishes for a merry Christmas season.
The Austrian adage is that “everything has an end, except for sausage which has two.”
But with the Cupich clique we find there is no end to single-minded duplicity… While the Church in the United States is now committed to restoring “Eucharistic coherence,” the Chicago cardinal appeals to only a “Eucharistic revival”, as if the link between faith and morality is still off the table.
Austrian sausage is one thing, a hot dog is another.
One pope gives, another taketh away. Amazing that a church closing parishes due to diminishing attendance chooses to deliver a smackdown to some of its more faithful members. I guess no more amazing than forcing the faithful to use the NAB. Things continue apace. Continuity.
I guess diversity doesn’t include faithful Catholics who wish to worship God in the same form that has been used by the universal Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.
One can’t help suspecting that Cupich has traded his birthright for a mess of leftist political pottage.
Which is obviously the least savory, most disgusting kind.
Cupich, Roche. Who else?
Spare me.
Faithful Catholics have Christ whom we worship as God and Savior. Churchmen like Cupich come and go; Christ remains.
This is the essence of the ideology (I dare say it’s not theology) that permeates the Catholic Church leadership. Sure, there are a few voices that resist, with little effect, the modernist (liberal, progressive) strongholds. However, it is clear that under this Pope’s leadership, the voices that promote syncretism (“we’re all on our own paths to God regardless of the Gospel of Christ”) and humanism apart from complete surrender to the laws of God and the only King, Jesus (“let’s accept LGBTQx lifestyles, celebrate gay weddings, be led by the UN, bow to Pachamama, etc.) will be endorsed, while all dissent will be censored and silenced.
Jesus OUR LORD AND GOD = The Man-God, is for ever in all perfection = “Heaven will pass away, the earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away!” Mark 13:31. Jesus the Man-God was, is and forever will be the same in the universe! He is now here with us as He was in Person in our HISTORY! We grow up with the LATIN MASS! The change from LATIN TO the current has reduced the SERINITY OF OUR HOLY MASS! Change is not always for the Better! To return to LATIN MASS, we must, first, teach LATIN! The early CHURCH communicataed in Latin accross the globe ~ it was the unifing laungage within our Holy FAITh!
Well the (eminently predictable) lesson from mainstream Protestant denominations, and by the German Catholic church, as cited, is pretty clear – you remove standards, you remove tradition, and the people can’t find a single reason to remain in the pews, nor to believe you have anything useful to teach them. It is not “unifying,” it is not “Eucharistic revival.” It is: ita Missa est, in saecula saeculorum.
Great! This is truly the road to the long overdue complete implementation of the reform of the liturgy set by Vatican II (especially Sacrosanctum Concilium 21, among many others), that in having only one form of the Roman liturgy eventually the liturgy of Trent be gradually extinguished while correcting the great mistake of the theological gymnastics introduced by Benedict XVI in having two forms of the liturgy in Summorum Pontificum.
Where exactly did Vatican II mandate a single form of the Roman Liturgy? Don’t come here to lie. It did no such thing.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” Annibale Bugnini March 1965
In this article, the question is raised about whether what we call “traditional” is really traditional or only goes back to the 17th century: https://wherepeteris.com/walking-on-the-water-traditional-or-truly-traditional/
The liturgy of the “traditional Latin Mass” may go back to St. Damasus, who changed the liturgy from Greek to Latin for the western church, but apparently there are questions about the theology of what is known as the “traditional” Church.
ICYMI – Succinct twitter analysis from Hans Fiene re “elderly ecclesiastical supervisors” . . .
A simple question: Has there ever been any formal condemnation issued by any ecclesial authority against the sort of clown Masses that Pope Francis participated in as both a priest and a prelate in his years in Argentina?
Another simple question: Has there ever been any formal condemnation issued by any ecclesial authority against the sort of Hindu pagan rituals that Cardinal Cupich has welcomed and incorporated into his Masses in Chicago?
For some context and insight about the Archbishop Arthur Roche, author of “the Vatican’s explanatory document” on Traditiones custodes, one can listen to the podcast of Damian Thompson of England, who begins by candidly stating that the Pontiff Francis’ attack against the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is a “Cromwellian campaign,” and describes the Moto Proprio Traditiones custodes, signed by the Pontiff Francis, as a document “badly drafted and venomous,” and “so dripping with malice” that most Bishops (unlike the sycophant Blaze Cupich) are intent on ignoring it. A link to Thompson’s podcast is here:
https://spectatorworld.com/radio/why-the-catholic-church-is-facing-chaos-this-christmas/
The Extraordinary Form of the Mass has been explicitly and increasingly permitted by the only three Pontiffs who participated in the Second Vatican Council (Paul VI, participating as the Pope, John Paul II participating as a Bishop, and Benedict XVI participating as a “peritus”).
Vatican II ran for 4 years in four autumn sessions, from October 1962 to December 1965. Pope Paul VI was 68 years old when V2 ended; then-Bishop Wojtyla (the future Pope JP2) was 45 years old when it ended; V2 “peritus” Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope B16) was 38 years of age when it ended. The man who wrote the newly issued “explanatory document” (which claims to assert the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, and its participants above), His Excellency Archbishop Arthur Roche, was 15.
CNA staff relay that the newly issued “explanatory document,” written by Roche, states that the intent of custodes “to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and in line with the tradition of the Church.”
His Excellency Roche’s statement is incoherent, since everyone knows that the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” does not offer “a single and identical prayer;” instead of a single prayer, it offers four different ones.
His Excellency Roche apparently isn’t sure what happened with the Ordinary Form. Perhaps he should catch up on what has been happening since 1965.
Every time I see a picture of Cardinal Cupich, he radiates “ I am a tough guy, I play hardball, so don’t even think of crossing me”. I am thankful that I do not live in the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Cardinal Cupich is my bishop. In my experience, Cupich is very approachable, warm, and friendly on an individual level. He seems to be well liked as an administrator by most priests and deacons because he communicates with them consistently and is responsive to their inquiries even if he doesn’t deliver solutions always to their liking. That said, conservative Catholics like me tend to feel seriously alienated by Cupich for reasons that are obvious. I offer these observations in a spirit of obedience and charity.
Hitter was also very approachable, warm, and friendly. In a spirit of obedience, charity, and truth, I offer this photos:
https://c.ndtvimg.com/2018-11/sd3kri08_adolf-hitler-jewish-girl-wp_625x300_15_November_18.jpg?im=Resize=(1230,900)
Philip;
Your 12/29 @9:25 – Thanks for that. I too am a conservative Catholic and I would feel, like you “seriously alienated”, if I lived there.
“Obedience and charity” – a combination that is indeed difficult, but not impossible.
Interesting. Back in 2015, when I reported on then-Bishop Cupich’s curious (and nearly disastrous) time in Spokane, WA, I talked to at least two dozen people who have known or worked with Cupich. The picture that emerged was consistent: he was rarely accessible, was usually distant, and was often difficult. But, perhaps Chicago suits him; after all, it’s fairly clear he never wanted to be in Spokane.
Father Paul Kalchik and Father Frank Phillips would likely disagree with your assessment of the diminutive Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago.
Dear Mr Seitz,
Thank you for offering a comment on your Bishop. Living in California, I have no idea how it is to be in Chicago. You provided a very helpful corrective to my untutored perception, colored by his draconian approach to the Latin Mass. No, I do not attend the pre-Vatican II liturgy, so that is not an axe I have to grind.
But apparently no problems with LBGTQ Masses.
Someone on Twitter posted a terrible example of one of the worst Masses I have ever seen in his diocese of Chicago. Is on YouTube
We don’t want our Bishops to act like clowns.
At seminary in the late 80s itcwas taught that V2 was superceded by the post-conciliar documents. It is important that those responsible for the post-conciliar documents be held accountable. A collective Protestantism was in put into place by Martini. Canonisations of Roncali and Martini without requisit miracles nor explanation for the public domain photos of Roncali in French luciferian Lodge nor the public domain scandal of the ginger actor friend of Martini – has been committed to further damage and destabilise the City in ruins.
I am a Priest of the Eastern Church, and I am not quite sure why Western Church faithful just ignore these renegade prelates who simply have gone against St Pius V’s Quo Primum, placing the Latin liturgy as that which is in perpetuity the rite of the Western Church, the Roman Catholic Church. I am not sure why these renegades (and I include Jorge Bergoglio in that group) are doing what they are doing. If their expectorations were just ignored (for surely they violate even Paul’s sciptural admonition”tenete traditiones”) their power would be lost. No one in the Eastern Church would tolerate an individual like Jorge Bergoglio. Now it emerges with ever greater clarity, I am hoping, why the East and West separatd in 1094, the actions of communion and reunification that Paul VI and JP II undertook and sanctioned. Again, I repeat, Pius V’s Quo Primum as an Apostolic Constitution cannot canonicaly be abrogated by any successor precisely because Pius issued it as an Apostotlic Constitution.
I reject all that you write here. First, of all, we are not a “Western Church”. We are the very Church established by our Lord having “Peter” in a special place. Our Lord even changed the Apostle’s name from Simon to Peter to emphasize the importance of his choice. Do you have Latin in your Churches? If you do not accept our Pope – whoever he may be – then do not get involved in our affairs with your bigoted view.
Regarding Pius V’s Quo Primum you have it wrong. Writing for EWTN, Jeffrey Mirus said: “liturgical directives are matters of policy that affect the Faith, but not matters of Faith themselves. There is no guarantee of infallibility for Church policy. This in no way implies that liturgical directives are “unimportant”. They just aren’t matters of faith in and of themselves; they can, in fact, be good, bad or indifferent.” https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-st-pius-v-and-quo-primum-did-the-pope-intend-to-bind-his-successors-from-changing-the-tridentine-mass-1132
Sadly I must disagree with you in toto. Paul VI and JP II formally in writing recognized the Eastern Church (you probaly did not know that). You have a leader, Jorge Bergoglio, who claims Christ did not say “the Lord’s prayer” as it should have been prayed. That simply boggles the mind. No wonder his Jesuit superior told JP II “do not make Bergoglio a Bishop.” Bergoglio has sua sponte closed down the Latin ritual of the holy Mass which a predecessor, St Pius V, said must hold in perpetuity. If this is what you want as a “vicar,” fine with me. Bergoglio’s recent accquesence to the Chines Communists is in stark contrast to how Russian Orthodoxy fought off Stain– and won. The Eastern Church has a glorious history, and nowhere near the scandals the Roman Church has had– and continues to have as I type this reply. You probably also do not know that some in the Eastern Church hold if JP II had lived only a few more years the Eastern and Western Churches would have re-entered the communion that was severed in 1094. It would have been a boon to the Latin Church as the Eastern Church, recognized by all, is far closer in its rituals of prayer and Eucharist to the days of the proto-communities than Rome is today. I recommend you take a look at the Eastern Church’s Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for verification. Let me add here also: as for the claim that Chirst made Peter head of his Church [You are Peter and upon this rock…”}, it is no secret that Christ did not speak Greek– nor did his Apostles. So taking the Greek word “petras,” that the West took to prove Peter was the rock has no basis in Scripture at all. I am sanguine, however, that you already knew this.
What you fail to comprehend is the fact that thee Jesuit superiors did not like the future Pope because he did not go along with some of the views including liberation theology. But, importantly, he was liked by the common people – jus as he is today.
I see that you cannot even get yourself to even call our Pope by his title. So, no wonder your views are just as skewed.
Nazareth, I believe, was just a
Pope Francis did not surrender to nthe Chinese. He signed a deal that was many years in the making, and involved three Popes. But what you seem ignorant of is that that deal was just one part of our great Pope’s strategy. Along with the deal, he asked the global Church to pray for our brothers and sisters in China, and then placed China under the protection of our Lady. One does not always have to fight or resist to win a battle.
Nazareth, I believe, Nazareth, was a short walk from Sepphoris – a town of Greek speaking people. So, he and Joseph, being tradespeople, would have done some business with these people and so would have known Greek. In any case, the people would have mingled. Anyway, I will go with what scripture tells me and not what your narrow, bigoted view suggwests.
Dear Rev. Chryostomos,
Reading beyond prior replies to you, one observes that the views of one protesting CWR poster do not represent the vast majority of others. Contentious, error-filled, prejudicial thoughts are not non-charitable and do dishonor to the name of ‘Christian.’ More postings at CWR represent less modernist, more thoughtful, decidedly non-pope-idolatrous Catholics of the Western Church.
Thank God the Liturgy of the Eastern Church shows reverence to the Lord; the NOM of the Western Church has much to learn by its example.
Best regards.
No doubt that there are some like you who will say stuff like that. There are less Pope-haters in the Catholic Church than those who accept the position and dignity of that position.
Thanks to Rev. Chrysostomos.
Good question. Why don’t we just ignore the lunacy coming from the Vatican? I don’t know enough (anything really) about the cause of the split between the East and West. Or about Pius V. More, please.
Perhaps the schism of the Eastern Church was God’s permissive plan to rescue His Church post-Politicoglio? It is noteworthy that the Eastern Church now possesses part of the relics of St Peter… Should St Peter’s succumb to “Twin Tower Ground Zero Syndrome”, the future is secured. For the widely silenced Archbishop Lenga, the realisation of the Fatima prophesy for Rome is within the next 2 years. Tourists wanting a final view of St Peter’s Basilica should get the hell out of there before October 13?
While you are dreaming, Mike, our Lord’s Church moves on – as it always has. There is no salvation outside this Church.
The present renewal is with the TLM. They are well-attended and display heart-felt communion. It is about holiness, not duty. CC might be a Kantian scholar.
Cupich follows his master like an obedient dog and he always will.
The Popes attacks on the Latin Mass are incomprehensible to any rational person.
In western society Christianity is in steep decline and the Latin Mass communities are one group that buck that trend. Are they perfect? No. But why go into bat against them so malevolently. As I say it’s incomprehensible.
Is the Pope a Pathological Narcissist? That is someone who is mentally ill and who is energised by the total destruction of small and vulnerable groups and individuals around him. Who know but the signs seem to be there.
So much of the commentary about his attacks on the Latin Mass skirt round the seemingly unanswerable question. Why on earth would the Pope of all people act in this way?
Is it that the answers to that question are too frightening for faithful Catholics to face?
The late Fr amorth stated that the pre conciliar sacramentals and rites liberated souls sooner and quicker because ecclesiastical Latin had more power behind. So why do these prelates hate it? Eastern Rite: your next!!!
Is that so? Wow! I was always believed that it was the powerful name of Jesus – in whatever language – that made the demons flee.
Cardinal Robert Sarah once stated that opposition and hostility to the Mass of Ages comes from the Evil One, who seeks our downfall. Considering the type of prelates who despise the TLM and seek to punish and restrict it, I would say his Eminence was spot on.