Posted on 04/25/2007 7:52:42 PM PDT by ELS
Please let me know if you want to be on or off this list.
I may be incorrect, however wasn’t Origen branded a heretic and his books burned when found?
Let me say that the weekly ping is a highlight for me.
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!
Yes, the Pope is very inspiring. A great theologian and a great man. We’re very fortunate to have him at this time.
I’m very glad you benefit from his words in encouragement.
And what does this mean??? It means that Origen determined that a major portion of the bible couldn't be taken literally...His commentaries paved the way for the belief (unbelief) system of the Catholic church...And continues to this day...
Up until Origen, the believers believed what the bible said...And fortunately, many of the heretical believers continued to believe the scriptures...To this day...
I searched for the phrase you have quoted in the transcript of the Pope's address and it is nowhere to be found. Perhaps you should comment on the thread where the quote actually appears.
The RCC claims that the New Testament was not cannonized [sic] until its council of Trent
Bzzz! Thanks for playing. The Catholic Church canonized the New Testament much earlier than the Council of Trent. Given that your premise is wrong, your conclusions are completely irrelevant.
The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39. Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. ... Due to the fact that some of the recognized Books of the Holy Scripture were having their canonicity questioned by Protestants in the 16th century, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional canon (that is for Catholics the canon of the Council of Rome) of the Scripture as a dogma of the Catholic Church. - New Testament
the RCC did not exist at the time of Origen.
The Catholic Church has existed since Pentecost.
Pope Benedict XVI is a well respected Patristic scholar. What are your credentials? Your questioning of the Pope's motives indicates much more about you than about him.
Why are you assuming that it refers only to the NT? Paul spoke of scripture. Surely he did not mean the NT.
The Canon was determined in 409.
Yawn.
First, I assume you mean "unfortunately".
So you're saying the the Almighty, All Powerful, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator of All Things can't make sure that one set of letters contains the revelation He intends for His people?
Please!
There are many churches that would rather God's Word said something different than it does. It's man's responsibility to conform to God's will. We're not to form God according to ours.
Looks like he's belting out a song ... The hills are alive with the sound of music ....
In truth, 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.
And what does this mean??? It means that Origen determined that a major portion of the bible couldn't be taken literally
First of all, why are you asking a question if you are going to answer it yourself? Secondly, your "answer" is nonsense. Have you ever read St. Paul's letters, specifically, 2 Cor 3:6 "Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth."? As I read it, Benedict and Origen are not saying to ignore the letter of what is written, but rather to go deeper into what the Scripture truly means.
Catholics still believe what the Bible says, unlike many Protestants. For example, John 6:54-59
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
There is not one rule for reading the entire Bible. Some parts are parables, others are direct teachings and some are narrative. Some parts, like John 6, are to be taken literally, which Catholics (and Orthodox) do.
And fortunately, many of the heretical believers continued to believe the scriptures...To this day..
Let's make this more accurate: And unfortunately, many of the heretical believers continue to be heretics...To this day..
Ah! You read Fr. Z’s blog.
You put your left foot in.
You put your left foot out.
You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around.
That's what it's all about.
ROTLFMAO!
You really can be quite entertaining, you know that? First, you are a Johnny one-note, they always add a little light humor to Freepers. Second, you don’t know what the heck you are talking about, which makes you even more amusing.
It looks like Abbas is doing the dancing.
Don’t you realize that the superior spirit allows them to know what everything in the scripture means themselves, and if they disagree with someone, then obviously they are right and the other person has a false spirit. The primary fallacy of YOPIOS.
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.