One thing I’ve been working on over the past two years is writing introductions to every book of the Bible for eCatholicHub.net. After lots of sweat, reading, note-taking, writing, editing and after ecclesiastical approval: here they are. Read them, let me know what you think. My hope is that these introductions will help people get quickly into reading the Bible with a basic understanding. They are purposefully short. I attempt to give the reader a handhold for basic points in every book, so that reading the Bible is not a (primarily) confusing experience. I wrote the introductions from a Catholic perspective mainly for other Catholics. But I think lots of different kinds of people will find them useful. So take a look my introductions to every book of the Bible. Oh yeah, that includes the deutero-canonical books.
Now that the saint database has launched, I’ve encountered people interested in finding what saints are patrons of what things. This led me to start searching on the internet and I found that patrons are not always official. In fact, patronage is almost always determined by what canonists like to call “popular acclamation.” That is, people in the Church say something enough that it becomes accepted as correct, even though the Church has made no official statement about it.
So from what I can tell there are three types of patrons:
1.) Unofficial patrons of occupations, activities and illnesses
2.) Official patrons of churches and other official organizations
3.) Official patrons proclaimed by the Pope
Lists of Patron Saints
Here’s some lists of Patron Saints from Wikipedia:
Patron Saints of Occupations and Activities
Patron Saints of Illnesses and Dangers
Patron Saints of Places
Patronages of Blessed Virgin Mary
And the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Patron Saints” in Catholic Encyclopedia
So that led me to ask, “Who made Wikipedia the arbiter of truth in Patron Saints?” The answer: nobody. Since patronage is usually done by popular acclamation instead of by the official organs of the magisterium it’s anybody’s guess. Does Wikipedia get a vote in the whole popular acclamation thing? I don’t think so.
Well, are there any official patrons? Yes. For example, every Catholic place (church, monastery, college, etc.) named after a saint automatically gets the saint as an official patron. A few saints are officially proclaimed patrons of particular countries or other entities by the Pope himself. The Catholic Encyclopedia chronicles a few:
- St. Joseph was declared patron of the universal Church by Pius X on 8 December, 1870. Leo XIII during the course of his pontificate announced the following patrons: St. Thomas Aquinas, patron of all universities, colleges, and schools (4 August, 1880); St. Vincent, patron of all charitable societies (1 May, 1885); St. Camillus of Lellis, patron of the sick and of those who attend on them (22 June, 1886); the patronal feast of Our Lady of the Congo to be the Assumption (21 July, 1891); St. Bridget, patroness of Sweden (1 October, 1861); the Holy Family, the model and help of all Christian families (14 June, 1892); St. Peter Claver, special patron of missions to the negroes (1896); St. Paschal Baylon, patron of Eucharistic congresses and all Eucharistic societies (28 November, 1897). On 25 May, 1899, he dedicated the world to the Sacred Heart, as Prince and Lord of all, Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians. Lourdes was dedicated to our Lady of the Rosary (8 September, 1901). Pius X declared St. Francis Xavier patron of the Propagation of the Faith (25 March, 1904).
But you’re probably thinking, like I am, ok so where’s the real list. I mean, are all patrons of various diseases and occupations just unofficial? Well, let’s parse the above list carefully:
Pope-Proclaimed Patron Saints
- St Joseph
- St. Thomas Aquinas
- St. Vincent (de Paul?)
- St. Camillus of Lellis
- St. Bridget of Sweden
- St. Peter Claver
- St. Paschal Baylon
- St. Francis Xavier
Other Pope-Proclaimed Patronages
- Sacred Heart, as Prince and Lord of all, Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians
- the patronal feast of Our Lady of the Congo to be the Assumption
- Lourdes was dedicated to our Lady of the Rosary
I’ve been scouring Canon Law and the internet for more information that will hone in on our question, but haven’t found much. Let me know if you can find an official list of patron saints. While all the unofficial patronage things are great fun, I want to begin with the official list and then move out in a wider circle, noting the origin (and authority) of each patronage. My gut feeling is that the vast majority of patronages are unofficial and even arbitrary. Let me know what you think.
In reflecting on the election and on all the financial turmoil plus Washington involvement and all the doomsday language flying around Capitol Hill, I called to mind a simple verse from the King James Bible:
Put not your trust in princes,
nor in the son of man
in whom there is no help.
Edit 6/25/2013: Updated info at this post.
A new project is afoot in the world of Catholic biblical scholarship. It is a new Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. The editors are Peter Williamson, Mary Healy and Kevin Perotta. They’ve put together a great team of writers including themselves and Edward (Ted) Sri, Curtis Mitch, Tim Gray, Fr. George Montague, Fr. Francis Martin, Bill Wright, Fr. Bill Kurz, Scott Hahn, Fr. Thomas Stegman, Fr. Ronald Witherup, Fr. Dennis Hamm and Dan Keating. Williamson, Healy and Keating are professors at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. Perotta is a Catholic writer who has authored and edited many books including a recent series of Bible studies from Loyala University Press. The editorial board includes Scott Hahn, Daniel Harrington, Frank Matera, Bill Kurz, Francis Martin, George Montague and A.Bp. Terrence Pendergast.
The editors lay out their principles for the commentary as follows:
- Written in an engaging style that can be read for personal study and spiritual nourishment as well as referenced for exegetical information
- Distinguished by a theological and pastoral hermeneutic rather than a focus on technical questions that legitimately interest scholars but have less relevance for Christian life
- Interprets the canonical form of the text in light of the whole of Scripture and the Church’s faith
- Aims to serve readers across a spectrum of Catholic opinion while remaining faithful to Church teaching
- Employs ordinary modern English that does not require “translation” for preaching and catechesis
- Packed with features useful to preachers and teachers of the word, lay and ordained, and other Catholics interested in deepening their faith
- Fills a gap between substantial scholarly resources and brief popular commentaries
If the commentary fulfills all these goals, it will be well worth reading. I hope that they put out the volumes as fast as is reasonably possible. The first ones will be available in November 2008: Mary Healy’s commentary on Mark and Fr. George Montague’s work on 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus.
This commentary is a different animal in the world of commentaries. It reminds me a lot of the Interpretation series, which was a Protestant commentary designed for pastors and lay persons with a high level of biblical knowledge, but little familiarity with the biblical languages and the technical stuff Bible scholars get into. So, hopefully, this new commentary will provide many American Catholic priests with great homily material that is sound in terms of scholarship and yet relevant and applicable for people of faith.
Oh yeah, and they’ve cleaned up extremely positive endorsements from the likes of Cardinal Schonborn, Cardinal Vanhoye, Archbishop Chaput, Gary Anderson, Romanus Cessario, Aidan Nichols, Robert Louis Wilken, Benedict Groeschel, Ralph Martin (who can be found in my sidebar), and a host of other people.
Right now, the project is New Testament only, but if it is a success I wouldn’t be surprised to see an OT commentary too. And with little competition out there, it may happen. If you pick up a copy and read it, let me know what you think.
EDIT 6/25/2013: Updated info at this post.
On October 1, the database of Catholic saints and blesseds which I have been constructing will be launched into cyberspace by ecatholichub.net. I invite you to take a look at it and let me know what you think once it gets up on the web. The database is based on the data in the 2004 Roman Martyrology which I explained in a previous post. What makes it unique and special as far as online saint databases go, is its comprehensive scope. It doesn’t leave out saints or add people who are not recognized by the Catholic Church. There are a few other saint databases online and each one has its merits and problems. But I think this new one at ecatholichub.net will really take the cake. It’s more of a reference tool, I suppose, but it provides data that no one else is providing. In that sense, I think it will be very useful for finding saints that are less well known. Right now, we’ve got 6,882 entries. Now there are still a handfull of double entries that I haven’t deleted yet. And there are some entries which include martyr groups or several people for whatever reason. This can result in double entry (when each member of the group is also listed separately) or it can result in masking the total number (for example, if there are 100 martyrs in a group, but we only have the names of three of them).
The most challenging part of putting the database together was translating Latin proper nouns which describe diocesan sees over which a saint bishop ruled or locations where martyrs were put to death. I had piles of Latin dictionaries and word lists all over my desk and I was mining the depths of the resources at Catholic University’s library trying to find various words. I got the vast majority of difficult terms and proper nouns from Latin into English, but there are still a few I left untranslated because I couldn’t find them. Hopefully, this will not bar people from figuring out who these saints are or confusing them with one another.
One of the coolest features about the database is the ability to search with multiple criteria. You can use any combination of fields to search for saints by name, title, feast day, year of death, etc. I think this should be useful for finding all saints with the name “Odo” or all saints remembers on August 24th and such like.
I really struggled over whether to uniformly translate saint names into English or vary it up a little based on common usage. For example, St. Teresa of Avila is usually spelled “Teresa” in English, but St. Therese of Lisieux is another story. Both appear as “Teresa” in Latin. Then of course, there are different spellings of Anne, Ann, Anna, Hannah and then Mary, Maria, Marie, etc. It goes on. Some saints have a Latinized “-us” on the end like “Bernardus.” In most cases, I chopped off the “-us.” The reason this is such a struggle is that many people are named after saints and take great pride in the spelling of their names because names are such an important part of our identity and self-understanding. But I judged that in the interest of saint-searchers, uniformity was the best route. I listed many saints with alternative names in the Biography field, so if people are used to calling a saint by a certain spelling or title, it still can usually be found.
I’m hoping that the database will grow over time and new saints and blesseds will keep being added. If it goes in the right direction, we may be able to set it up to take user-generated content like pictures and biographical information. Like I said, I think it will be very useful to a lot of people and it really is a one-of-a-kind thing on the Internet. Once the link is up, I’ll provide it for you here and ya’ll can have a look for yourselves.
EDIT 6/25/2013: Updated info at this post.
I’ve been working on a saint database for ecatholichub.net, creating a saint database that promises to be the most comprehensive, complete and well-organized saint database on the internet.
To do this, I’ve been basing the database on the Roman Martyrology. The Roman Martyrology is the Church’s official list of saints. For each day, the Martyrology lists usually about ten to twenty saints with a little phrase about where they lived, who they were or where they were martyred. Not every saint in the martyrology is a martyr. But every saint that has been officially canonized or beatified is. The process for canonization was originally set up by Pope Alexander III in 1170. Since then the process has been modified a bit, but the pope maintains the right to name saints. Before 1170, local bishops would name saints based on their lives or popular devotion.
I’ll explain the Martyrology in a bit, but first you need to know a little about how people become saints. When a holy person dies or is killed for the sake of Christ, he or she might be named a saint by the pope. There is a 5-year waiting period after the person’s death before the process can begin. Sometimes this waiting period is lifted by the pope–as in the cases of Mother Teresa and John Paul II. If people are pushing for the person to be canonized and the Church elects to begin the process, the holy person is initially called “Venerable” or “The Servant of God.” The process cannot begin until the Church does a basic verification that the holy person in question lived a holy life and was a professing Christian.
Then there is a waiting period where people across the world pray to the holy person, asking his or her intercession for various things. This is not an act of worship, but it is a prayer. That is, Catholics don’t worship saints, but they do pray to them, asking them to pray for us. It’s like asking a friend to pray for you. Ok, so if a request is granted through the intercession of the saint–usually these are medical miracles–then the “Servant of God” can be beatified. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints (part of the Roman Curia) is responsible for reviewing cases and approving miracles. The Congregation verifies the occurrence of a miracle using evidence and witnesses. Once a miracle is approved by the Congregation and the Pope, then the person is beatified. A beatification is an event, so the person is not officially “Blessed” until after the beatification event. After the event, they carry the name “Blessed” or “Bl.” for short.
But you must be thinking, so what’s a “blessed”? Is that like a junior saint? Well, in fact, you’d be correct about that. The Church permits people to pray to Blesseds and ask their intercession. Their names are entered in the Roman Martyrology and their feast days actually get celebrated by their religious order or by their local Church. But their feast days are not celebrated in the Church universal.
People continue praying to the Blessed person and if another miracle is granted, then their case or “cause” is resubmitted to the Congregation. If the miracle is approved, then the Blessed is then canonized a “Saint.” And yes, canonization is an event too, so the person isn’t officially a saint until after the event. Then they get the little “St.” in front of their name. Oh yeah, and canonizations are technically infallible pronouncements–they can’t be revoked.
So what’s the Roman Martyrology?
The Roman Martyrology is where the names of all these people go. It’s an official list. Each saint and blessed is assigned a day. Since there’s about 6,500 saints and blesseds, each day contains several saints, about 10-20 as I said above. The entries in the Martyrology are meant to be read liturgically, but few places actually practice that right now.
The current edition of the Martyrology was published in 2004. It is only in Latin for now. But since I know a little Latin, I’ve been working on translating the index and turning it into a saint database. It doesn’t have a whole ton of information about each person, but enough to organize it. I hope we get an official translation sometime soon.
Past editions of the Martyrology have often been incomplete or kind of haphazard. Fortunately, John Paul II got serious work going on a well-researched, comprehensive one and they did quite a job. The first edition came out in 2001, but it had a lot of errors and problems, so they reworked it and republished in 2004. There were previous editions in 1946 and 1962.
Now technically a “martyrology” is a list of martyrs, so a whole lot of martyrologies were floating around the early Church. Fortunately, Rome saw to it, that these lists were verified in codified, so we’re not all using different or inaccurate lists. Some of the lists are very ancient, for example, from inscriptions in the Roman catacombs.
Well, that’s the Martyrology. Oh, and if you want to buy a copy and have $150 to spare, look here at the Vatican Bookstore, yep, it’s the official one.
Who are the 33 doctors of the Church? Well, I was wondering too, so here they are:
1. St. Athanasius
2. St. Ephrem
3. St. Cyril of Jerusalem
4. St. Hilary of Poitiers
5. St. Gregory Nazianzen
6. St. Basil the Great
7. St. Ambrose
8. St. Jerome
9. St. John Chrysostom
10. St. Augustine
11. St. Cyril of Alexandria
12. St. Leo the Great
13. St. Peter Chrysologus
14. St. Gregory the Great
15. St. Isidore of Seville
16. St. Bede the Venerable
17. St. John Damascene
18. St. Peter Damian
19. St. Anselm
20. St. Bernard of Clairvaux
21. St. Anthony of Padua
22. St. Albert the Great
23. St. Bonaventure
24. St. Thomas Aquinas
25. St. Catherine of Siena
26. St. Teresa of Avila
27. St. Peter Canisius
28. St. Robert Bellarmine
29. St. John of the Cross
30. St. Lawrence of Brindisi
31. St. Francis de Sales
32. St. Alphonsus Ligouri
33. St. Therese of Lisieux
Global Climate Change is the new Apocalypse.
Health is the new salvation.
Doctors are the new healers.
Government is the new Savior.
News is the new Gospel.
Abortion is the new sacrament.
Professors are the new theologians.
Teachers are the new priests.
Activists are the new evangelists.
Chemical imbalances are the new demons.
Psychologists are the new exorcists.
All this progress is not really new at all, is it?
I have recently become very interested in a twisted problem that has polarized debate among Catholic exegetes for the past 100 years. It is the question of the authority or non-authority of the early responsa of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
The PBC was established by Pope Leo XIII in the document Vigilantiae studiique to undertake “the challenge of explaining and safeguarding” the Scriptures (sec. 3). It was made an official arm of the Magisterium with this statement, “Its work will have the happy result of providing the Apostolic See with the opportunity to declare what ought to be inviolably maintained by Catholics, what ought to be reserved for further research, and what ought to be left for the judgment of each individual.” (sec. 9)
Later, when the PBC’s authority was questioned, Pius X gave a formal pronouncement saying that “Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.”(Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae 18 November 1907 text here)
The PBC convened and proceeded to answer specific questions addressed to it. Some of the answers it gave directly contradicted the “scholarly consensus” of its day and ours. Here is a simplified summary of their decisions:
13 February 1905 – Implied quotations of non-scriptural sources in Scripture have the same authority unless the sacred writer does not approve them or make them his own.
23 June 1905 – The Biblical narrative is historically accurate.
27 June 1906 – Moses is the author of the Pentateuch.
29 May 1907 – The Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
30 June 1909 – First three chapters of Genesis are historical, not mythical narratives.
1 May 1910 – The authorship of the Psalms
19 June 1911 – Matthew’s Gospel came first and was written in Aramaic.
26 June 1912 – The authorship of Mark and Luke
26 June 1912 – The Two-Source Hypothesis is wrong
12 June 1913 – Luke wrote Acts
12 June 1913 – Paul wrote 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus
24 June 1914 – The book of Hebrews
18 June 1918 – The Second Coming
17 November 1921 – Textual variants not in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate are acceptable for publication.
1 July 1933 – Ps. 15 and Matt. 16:26
(Full text of the PBC decisions here.)
After the publication of the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu, the curia set out to publish the Enchiridion Biblicum, which was a 1954 handbook of official Church statements on the Bible. But at the time of its publication Catholic scholars were feeling constrained by the PBC’s early 20th century pronouncements. Two members of the PBC, the secretary Athanasius Miller, OSB and subsecretary Arduin Kleinhans, OFM published nearly identical articles in two different journals clarifying that the PBC’s statements were not binding on Catholic exegetes. Miller’s article was published in German and Kleinhans’ was in Latin. The citations for the articles are below. (I got much of this info from Bechard, Dean P. The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings. Collegeville, MN: Litugical Press, 2002, pp.318-329.) The clarification article was also published in the American journal, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
So the question is whether the semi-official clarification published in these journals truly repealed the statement of Pius X on Nov 18, 1907 which made the PBC decisions binding. Unfortunately this question has not been completely resolved. Catholic Bible scholars, effectively, do their work as if the responsa of the PBC are not longer binding on the faithful. But as is pointed out by Sean Kopcynski, the responsa have never been officially repealed or eliminated by an official statement or clarification. In the meantime, the PBC has lost its status as an official organ of the Magisterium and is now merely a consulting body (See Paul VI, Sedula cura, 27 June 1971).
Interestingly, the reality of the present-day irrelevance of the responsa is confirmed by some very important figures including Cardinal Ratzinger–now Pope Benedict XVI. Quoted Bechard’s book (p.328, footnote 38), Ratzinger regards some warnings of the Magisterium as statements which “their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification” including “the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time.” Ratzinger made these comments in L’Osservatore Romano 2 July 1990. Update 3/27/08: I got the text of Ratzinger’s comments from L’Osservatore Romano 2 July 1990, p.5. Here’s a fuller quotation from his explanation on The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, “The text also offers different forms of binding which arise from different levels of magisterial teaching. It states–perhaps for the first time with such clarity–that there are magisterial decisions that cannot be
intended to be (corrected 10/24/17 Thanks to reader Johannes!) the last word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the problem and are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition. Their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification. In this regard one can refer to the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time. As a warning cry against hasty and superficial adaptations they remain fully justified; a person of the stature of Johann Baptist Metz has said, for example, that the antimodernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in keeping her from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world. But the details of the determinations of their contents were later superceded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment.”
There is at least one Catholic biblical scholar who did not accept the majority view about the clarification. That was J.E. Steinmueller in The Sword of the Spirit (Waco, TX: Stella Maris, 1977). Update 3/24/08: Here’s a quote from Steinmueller f
rom 1941 showing his position before the semi-official clarification, “On October 30, 1902, Pope Leo XIII instituted the Pontifical Biblical Commission to promote and direct biblical studies, and on November 18, 1907, Pope Pius X in his Motu Proprio determined the authority of its decisions. From these it follows: (1) that the Decrees are neither infallible nor irreformable; (2) that they are of the same authority as the other Sacred Congregations; (3) that external as well as internal consent is required; (4) that this assent need not be absolute and irreformable; (5) that the formal object of these Decrees is either security or non-security of any doctrine.” (Steinmueller, J.E., A Companion to Scripture Studies [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1941] p. 245) There is a lot of technical language in Steinmueller’s summary, but I think it’s clear enough. (end update) Update 4/14/08: I finally got my hands on Steinmueller’s comments about the semi-official clarification of 1955. I quote two sentences and their footnote in full from his book Sword of the Spirit, p.7. First the sentences, “The Church has made no definite and dogmatic pronouncements as the the authorship of any book of the Bible. The decrees of the first Biblical Commission, however, should be regarded as directive norms, and it would be temerarious to disregard them, even though research may be carried further.” Now the footnote:
“I was consultor of the first Pontifical Biblical Commission from 1947 (after the publication of Divino afflante Spiritu) to 1971; and I never heard any intimation that any decrees of the Commission were ever revoked. At most they were clarified (cf. Letter to Cardinal Suhard of Paris, 1948). Recently some Catholic scholars have asserted that the decrees were implicitly revoked by Divino afflante Spiritu (1943) and that this is confirmed by two articles written in 1955 by A. Miller and A. Kleinhans, who seem to restrict the scope of the decrees to matters of faith and morals (cf. Jerome Biblical Commentary, Vol. II, p. 629). The articles referred to were unauthorized and were condemned by the voting Cardinal members of the Commission. A. Miller and A. Kleinhans were to be brought before the Holy Office because of the articles, but were saved from this ordeal through the personal intervention of Cardinal Tisserant before the Holy Father. It was my friend, Father Miller, O.S.B., who told me the whole story before his return to Germany.
“Decisions of this Pontifical Biblical Commission were sent to the Holy Father, who ratified them or sent them back for further consideration. The official decisions were published only at his command.
“This first Pontifical Biblical Commission as an independent commission came to an end by the apostolic letter issued ‘Motu Proprio’ by Pope Paul VI, June 27, 1971. As a new body the Biblical Commission was to be a dependent subcommission under the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided over by its Cardinal Prefect. Its members are appointed by the Supreme Pontiff, on the proposal of the Cardinal president after consultation with the episcopal conferences.”
Phew! Ok, so that was a really long quote, but I think it’s good to get this stuff out there. The only question I still have about Steinmueller’s story is who “Father Miller, OSB” actually is. I suppose it could be the same as Athanasius Miller, OSB but I’m not sure. I also wonder if Miller, Kleinhans or even Tisserant have published memoirs or recollections about this event. It would be very interesting to find more in writing about this. It is also fascinating that Steinmueller recounts the cardinals on the PBC voting to condemn the articles which were ostensibly semi-official PBC documents. True, Steinmueller does not actually say the articles were condemned by a vote, but that they were “condemned by the voting cardinal members of the commission.” This whole story keeps getting more convoluted! (end update)
So it seems to me that while the issue has never been officially resolved, the reponsa have been effectively sidelined as no longer binding. It seems unfortunate to me that the situation has never been officially clarified and Pius X’s warnings of grave sin on the part of those who disagree with the PBC’s statements is still out there. But I suppose that the issue may be resolved at some point, but maybe not.
Text of Pontifical Biblical Commission Responsa from Catholic Apologetics International (unofficial translation)
Leo XIII. Vigilantiae studiique. 30 October 1902.
Pius X. Lamentabili Sane. 3 July 1907.
Pius X. Pascendi dominici gregis. 8 September 1907.
Pius X. Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae. 18 November 1907.
Pius XII. Divino afflante Spiritu. 30 September 1943.
Paul VI, Sedula cura, 27 June 1971.
Bechard, Dean P. The Scripture Documents. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. 24 May 1990.
Kleinhans, Arduin. “De nova Enchiridii Biblici editione.” Antonianem 30 (1955): 63-65.
Kopczynski, Sean. “Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.” Living Tradition 94(2001).
Miller, Athanasius. “Das neue biblische Handbuch.” Benediktinische Monatschrift 31 (1955): 49-50.
Miller, Athanasius. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18 (1956): 24-25.
Pontifical Biblical Commission Documents List from Vatican site.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. “Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes.” An address to the PBC. 10 May 2003.
Steinmueller, J.E. The Sword of the Spirit. Waco, TX: Stella Maris, 1977.