Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Prayerful reading of Scripture, and the consequent reform of life, is the secret to the constant renewal of the Church, Benedict XVI says.

The Pope affirmed that today when speaking of Origen of Alexandria at the general audience in St. Peter's Square. He continued with his series of catechesis on early Church Fathers.

Origen, "true teacher … brilliant theologian … exemplary witness of the doctrine he taught … the most prolific author of the first three Christian centuries," brought about an "irreversible turn in Christian thought," the Holy Father said.

"He grounded theology in the explanations of the Scriptures; or we could also say that his theology is the perfect symbiosis between theology and exegesis," the Pontiff explained.

He added: "The characterizing mark of Origen's doctrine seems to reside in his incessant invitation to pass from the letter to the spirit of the Scriptures, to progress in the knowledge of God.

"We can say, therefore, that the central nucleus of Origen's immense literary works consists in his 'three-pronged reading' of the Bible."

Three prongs

Benedict XVI explained Origen's methodology in studying sacred Scripture.

"To know what is actually written and to know what this text wanted to say intentionally and initially," was Origen's first step, the Pope said.

He explained how Origen used a system of columns to evaluate all the possible meanings of the original biblical language. For example, in the first column, he would put the Hebrew original. And in five parallel columns, Origen would do a transliteration and four different translations into Greek. He thus tried "to know exactly what is written," the Holy Father explained.

The second prong was reading Scripture along with its most famous commentaries. "He proceeds almost verse by verse, probing amply and deeply, with philological and doctrinal notes," the Pope added.

Finally, Benedict XVI continued: "Origen dedicated himself a great deal to the preaching of the Bible, adapting himself to varied audiences. In any case, as we see in his Homilies, the teacher, dedicated to systematic interpretation of verses, breaks them down into smaller verses.

"Origen takes every opportunity to mention the various senses of sacred Scripture that help or express a way of growth in faith: There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading; the second dimension is the 'moral' sense: what we must do as we live the Word; and in the end we have the 'spiritual' sense, the unity of Scripture in its diversity."

Multidimensional

Benedict XVI said that he followed a similar process in his recently released book.

"I tried somewhat, in my book 'Jesus of Nazareth,' to show the multiple dimensions of the Word in today's world, of sacred Scripture, that must first of all be respected in the historical sense," he said. "But this sense brings us toward Christ, in the light of the Holy Spirit, and shows us the way, how to live."

The Pope invited the faithful to follow Origen's example: "I invite you to welcome the teachings of this great teacher of the faith into your hearts.

"He reminds us that in the prayerful reading of Scripture and in a coherent way of life, the Church is renewed and rejuvenated."

The article quotes Benedict as having said "the central nucleus of Origen's immense literary works consists in his 'three-pronged reading' of the Bible." He further states that "the second prong was reading Scripture along with its most famous commentaries". Let's think about this for a second. Let's even lay aside the obvious question, "How does Benedict know how Origen went about his studies?"

Origen lived from about 155 A.D. to about 254 A.D. How many commentaries could possibly have existed? Certainly there were a few who put to paper their ideas (Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement, etc.), but were these really commentaries? Commentaries of what? Scripture?

According to the article, Benedict "explained Origen's methodology in studying sacred Scripture". The RCC claims that the New Testament was not cannonized until its council of Trent in 1545 A.D. Prior to that, we are to believe that all of Christendom was in a daze of confusion as to which writings were authentic and authoritative. If this is the case, what Scripture could Origen possibly have had around 200 A.D.? At best he'd have had a collection of letters and writings from a variety of sources, but without the guidance of the RCC, how would he have known which were inspired and which were fraud?

It seems that Benedict's own words drive nails in the coffin of oft debunked RCC positions. For starters, the RCC did not exist at the time of Origen. Yes, there was a church at Rome, but it had not yet morphed into what would become the RCC. Christians, at the time of Origen, were under persecution. Constantine hadn't yet "embraced" Christianity, and the church at Rome had not yet become vogue with the Roman elite. Hence it had not yet gained political influence, and its paganization had not yet begun.

Next, the full set of letters that would become the New Testament were in circulation among and between the many congregations of Believers. The vast majority of such letters were generally accepted as inspired, authoritative, and known to be authentic. Early church "theologians", such as Origen, quoted liberally from the letters that would be included in the New Testament. In fact, the entirety of the New Testament could be assembled from the writings of these early authors. So the reality is that the books and epistles that would eventually be canonized as New Testament Scripture were understood to be such from the very earliest time. No "council" 14 centuries after the fact was necessary.

The idea that there could be many and various possible meanings and translations (see the "first prong") is ridiculous. While translations do vary, the differences are in nuance and word selection. Seldom is there a wide difference in meaning. Could it be that Benny wants to sow suspicion in the minds of his flock? Is his intent in sowing this suspicion to provide a "justified" escape from the many conflicts and contradictions between RCC doctrine and actual Scripture?

Why would Benedict want to promote the idea of reading Scripture alongside the "most famous commentaries" (second prong)? Should we substitute the word "catholic" for "famous"? Could it be that ol' Benedict wants to be sure that if his "faithful" actually do start reading the Bible, they have a catholic guidebook next to them to "clarify" the discrepancies?

What about the "third prong" that Benedict assigns to Origen? Frankly I found the statements made to be mostly gibberish. However, the key statement is, There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading. Allow me to translate this into plain English: "Listen to the RCC, and don't believe your lyin' eyes!" Basically, Benedict doesn't want his flock to take the Bible at its Word. The "deeper" meanings (read, contradictory) require more "insight" (read, purposeful misrepresentation).

I am very encouraged by this message from Benedict. It means that more and more catholics are reading the Bible. Let's pray that the Truth will set more and more free!

The RCC claims that the New Testament was not cannonized until its council of Trent in 1545 A.D.

Nope. The Church never claimed that.

Wrong again! Sounds like you've been reading too many of those tracts that make wild claims about the Church.

I am very encouraged by this message from Benedict. It means that more and more catholics are reading the Bible. Let's pray that the Truth will set more and more free!

Catholics have been reading the Bible for ages. You and your fellow travelers may read the Bible, but do you actually comprehend it? YOPIOS is not proper theology.

Nope. The Church never claimed that.

I stand corrected. The council at Trent reaffirmed of the the New Testament canon.

The Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Synod of Carthage in 397 A.D. were the first two "councils" where key elders of the many congregations agreed on the list of books to be included. However, the "bishop of Rome" (I can't remember if the arrogant title "pope" had been assumed yet), did not attend. However, a subsequent "pope" conveniently added his name to the attendance records of those meetings to make sure Rome was properly represented.

Wrong again! Sounds like you've been reading too many of those tracts that make wild claims about the Church.

I guess those false idols (er... statues of saints), the esteemed goddess (er... Mary), and the many assorted other items, practices, and superstitions were instituted by God.

You and your fellow travelers may read the Bible, but do you actually comprehend it?

God does not write in code. The Bible is plainly written for all men. There's no need to have a commentary alongside Scripture while reading it.

YOPIOS is not proper theology.

For those who don't know, YOPIOS = "Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture".

I am not aware that I have put forth any Scripture in this thread. Also, how would you define "proper theology"? Would that be the theology approved by the RCC? Isn't the Bible the ultimate theology? Doesn't your church claim that all its theology is based upon the Bible? If that is the case, then why not simply cut out the middle man and read the Bible yourself? Why do you need someone else to tell you what it means? Isn't that a bit risky, given the eternal implications of being wrong? Also, given the many weighty tomes containing RCC doctrine, wouldn't it be easier and simpler to just read the Bible?

For starters, the RCC did not exist at the time of Origen. Yes, there was a church at Rome, but it had not yet morphed into what would become the RCC. Christians, at the time of Origen, were under persecution. Constantine hadn't yet "embraced" Christianity, and the church at Rome had not yet become vogue with the Roman elite. Hence it had not yet gained political influence, and its paganization had not yet begun.

PJR, where are you getting your history of this era? It most certainly does not accord with what has come down to us from the sources of the time. For example, this passage from Irenaeus of Lyons' Against Heresies, which was written *during Origen's lifetime*:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Please explain this passage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.