Posted on 05/14/2010 11:03:45 AM PDT by NYer
Holy Scripture, despite all appearances, will not always be easy to interpret. We can be lulled into thinking our “common sense” and “by the letter” interpretation of a text is what God intends us to get out of it. However, if this is the case, there would be little to no debates about its meaning; there would be little confusion as to its purpose and how it applies to us today. St. Peter would not have needed to tell us that no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted privately, because all interpretations of Scripture would end up the same. We need to understand and heed the warning of St. Mark the Ascetic: “Do not let your heart become conceited about your interpretations of Scripture, lest your intellect fall afoul for the spirit of blasphemy.” [1] Why would he be warning us of this? Because Scripture, in its most external, simplistic level, could easily lead people to a perverted understanding of God and the Christian faith.
For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct), it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church. If God is love, this must be manifest from one’s understanding of Scripture. If one’s interpretation of a text would lead to God doing or commanding something which runs against the law of love, the law by which God himself acts, then one has indeed committed blasphemy. If one really believes God commands some intrinsic evil, such as genocide, one has abandoned the God who is love, and has at least committed unintentional blasphemy by something evil about him. One cannot get out of this by saying, “whatever God wills, is now good,” or that “the very nature of right and wrong has changed through time,” because both would contradict not only the fundamental character of love, but also the fact God has provided us a positive means by which we can understand something of him via analogy; we know what love is, we know what the good is, and therefore we know something about God when we see he is love or that he is good. While we must understand our concepts are limited in relation to God, it is not because God is less than our concepts, but more and their foundation. Thus, Pope Benedict wisely says:
In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[2]
Christianity affirms both the transcendence and immanence of God. The second allows us to say something positive and true about God, while the first reminds us that positive assertions are limited, that they are at best analogous pointers to something beyond the statements themselves. Our teachings truly say something about God. They must be used as the guideline by which we read Scripture. Moreover, as the Church makes abundantly clear, Scripture is itself an ecclesial document, to be interpreted in and by the Church. It must be interpreted in such a way that dogmatic teachings about God (such as his unchanging goodness) are in accord with our understanding of Scriptural text. If reason suggests a disconnect between an interpretation and dogma, we must follow dogma and dismiss the interpretation. Richard Gaillardetz explains this well:
The apostolic witness would be preserved both in the canonical Scriptures and in the ongoing paradosis or handing on of the apostolic faith in the Christian community. The unity of Scripture and tradition is grounded then in the one word whose presence in human history comes to its unsurpassable actualization in Jesus Christ. Scripture and tradition must be viewed as interrelated witnesses to that word. Furthermore, neither Scripture nor tradition can be separated from the Church. The unity of Scripture, tradition and the living communion of the Church itself is fundamental.[3]
Revelation, therefore, is centered upon Jesus Christ – and through Christ, the whole of the Holy Trinity:
The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy.[4]
If the vision of God that one gets out of Scripture is not one which reveals his justice and mercy, the reader of the text has missed something about the text itself. Perhaps the mistake lies in their interpretive scheme, where they assume the text follows the contours of modern historical writings. This is not the case; indeed Christians since the beginning of Church history have understood a very different scheme for the Biblical text: one which presents a kind of history but uses that history to present a deeper, more fundamental understanding of the world. Texts which are seen as impossible, if interpreted as history, nonetheless must be accepted, not because they are historical, but because they reveal something theological. St. Neilos the Ascetic, for example, takes 2 Samuel 4:5-8[5] as being historically absurd. This, he thinks, should be obvious. But if this is the case, does it make the text meaningless? By no means:
It is clear that this story in Scripture should not be taken literally. For how could a king have a woman as door-keeper, when he ought properly to be guarded by a troop of soldiers, and to have round him a large body of attendants? Or how could he be so poor as to use her to winnow the wheat? But improbable details are often included in a story because of the deeper truths they signify. Thus the intellect in each of us resides within like a king, while the reason acts as door-keeper of the senses. When the reason occupies itself with bodily things – and to winnow wheat is something bodily – he enemy without difficulty slips past unnoticed and slays the intellect.[6]
This scheme was in accord with what Origen taught. Indeed, he believed that the writers were inspired to put in statements which were absurd so as to remind us not to take the text so simply, but to look for the deeper, spiritual nourishment we can get from them, even for those texts which also have a real historical basis:
But since, if the usefulness of the legislation, and the sequence and beauty of the history, were universally evident of itself, we should not believe that any other thing could be understood in the Scriptures save what was obvious, the word of God has arranged that certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offenses, and impossibilities, should be introduced into the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not, through being drawn away in all directions by the merely attractive nature of the language, either altogether fall away from the (true) doctrines, as learning nothing worthy of God, or, by not departing from the letter, come to the knowledge of nothing more divine. And this also we must know, that the principal aim being to announce the spiritual connection in those things that are done, and that ought to be done, where the Word found that things done according to the history could be adapted to these mystical senses, He made use of them, concealing from the multitude the deeper meaning; but where, in the narrative of the development of super-sensual things, there did not follow the performance of those certain events, which was already indicated by the mystical meaning, the Scripture interwove in the history (the account of) some event that did not take place, sometimes what could not have happened; sometimes what could, but did not. And sometimes a few words are interpolated which are not true in their literal acceptation, and sometimes a larger number.[7]
Scripture, of course, was written by various people. While they were inspired by God to write what they wrote, and God inspired the Church to collect the texts it did, in the form it did, we must also understand that the people behind the texts are not mere puppets being forced by God to write as they did. Thus, when patristic authors, or the Church, asserts God as the author of the text, we must not take this as fundamentalists do, but rather recognize that God works with authors based upon their ability and through their cooperation with his intended purposes: “The fathers look upon the Bible above all as the Book of God, the single work of a single author. This does not mean, however, that they reduce the human authors to nothing more than passive instruments; they are quite capable, also, of according to a particular book its own specific purpose.”[8] Indeed, God can inspires people to reveal something about him without their knowing of it, or knowing the meaning behind their words, as St Edith Stein masterfully explains:
Must the inspired person who is the instrument of a divine revelation be aware of the fact? Must he know that he has been illuminated, must he himself have received a revelation? We may well imagine cases where none of this is true. It is not impossible that someone utter a revelation without realizing it, without having received a revelation from God, without even being aware that he is speaking in God’s name or feeling supported by God’s Spirit in what he says and how he says it. He may think he is only voicing his own insight and in the words of his choosing.
Thus Caiphas says in the Sanhedrin : ‘You know nothing and do not consider that it is better for you that one man die for the people and not the whole people parish.’ And John adds: ‘but his he said not of himself but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the people…’ Hence Caiphas spoke in God’s name and followed divine instructions without either knowing it or wishing to do so. John, however, knows that Caiphas was speaking God’s word and perhaps that he was himself enlightened by God as he wrote this. Does John know the prophetic meaning of Caiphas’ words through a revelation accorded him? Quite possibly. But it may also be that the fulfillment of those words in the death of Jesus and John’s view of the overall work of salvation made him realize their prophetic nature.[9]
Now this is not to say it is the norm, nor common, but, as we see, a person inspired by God does not have to understand the meaning of their words, nor that they are actually saying something that will be collected together as being inspired by God. The intention of God as the inspired author of Scripture does not have to be one with the intended meaning of the human author, and indeed, could be one which runs contrary to what such a human might have thought (as, for example, we find in the case of Jonah).
Thus, it is important to discuss inspiration, but as the Pontifical Biblical Commission warns us, we must not follow the simplistic interpretation found within fundamentalism:
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.[10]
And, it is especially when people take the Bible as history where this becomes the problem. “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.”[11] It creates a false, blasphemous view of God through its simplistic understanding of the text, and demand adherence to that simplistic view, with the explanation that if one denies this scheme, one must reject Scripture itself. There is no basis by which one can understand the deeper, spiritual value of revelation. And it is for this reason it ends up creating an evil-looking God, and promotes the acceptance of intrinsic evils such as racism or genocide as being good if and when God commanded them. “Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.”[12] While simple, it is this simplicity which leads to a letter that kills, because it requires a denial of reason when engaging the faith, and leading to “intellectual suicide”:
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.[13]
No wonder St Mark the Ascetic warned us to be careful when we interpreted Scripture. He understood how people would confuse the human side of Scripture with its divine meaning, and how that would end up creating a false, humanly constructed, image of God. A God presented in the image of fallen humanity can only be a monster, the monster which we see proclaimed by fundamentalists the world over.
Footnotes
[1] Mark the Monk, “On the Spiritual Law” in Counsels on the Spiritual Life. Trans. Tim Vivian and Augustine Casiday (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 93.
[2] Pope Benedict, Regensburg Lecture, Sept 12, 2006.
[3] Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium of the Church (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 84.
[4] Dei Verbum 15 (Vatican Translation).
[5]“ Now the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, set out, and about the heat of the day they came to the house of Ishbosheth, as he was taking his noonday rest. And behold, the doorkeeper of the house had been cleaning wheat, but she grew drowsy and slept; so Rechab and Baanah his brother slipped in. When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, ‘Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring’” (2 Sam 4:5-8 RSV).
[6] St Neilos the Ascetic, “Ascetic Discourse” in The Philokalia. Volume I. Trans. And ed. By G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1983), 210.
[7] Origen, “On First Principles” in ANF(4), 364.
[8] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (March 18, 1994), III-B.2
[9] St Edith Stein, “Ways to know God” in Knowledge and Faith. Trans. Walter Redmond (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 103.
[10] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, I-F.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
Oh that it were wisdom.
“The Popes fuller quote was...”
An old naval tactic: when outgunned, make smoke. I cited that part of the Pope’s quote relevant to this discussion. What you’ve appended in no manner alters or mitigates my point.
“Well science is rather indisposed towards answering any philosophical question”
No kidding? This is what any number of us (me being the least of these) have repeatedly been telling you for several years. But your remarkable confession simply amounts to your last redoubt when cornered.
“Thus we see that while science produces real results and real value; creationism produces nothing of any real value.”
A marked illustration of this last being that it was the mid Sixties before Science finally was forced to admit that the Holy Bible was correct in positing a beginning. Your quote last given directly contradicts your quote immediately prior that “science is rather indisposed towards answering any philosophical question” unless you wish to propose that philosophical questions produce nothing of any real value (philosophical questions, for instance, such as “all men are created equal”).
“It (Creationism) is intellectual suicide”.
I’ve noted (as have others) that if intellectual suicide exists in Western Civilization it is to be found in its scorn for, and denial of, the Judeo-Christian tradition (and that includes Creationism). You’ve seemed unable to find an adequate response for this simple point.
Thanks betty, for all the “grist for the mill” you’ve provided ( ^: }.
And, metmom, for your support.
I’m hearing a sounding gong and tinkling cymbel just fine.
Especially when you type.
The distinction is this: Your "position" makes my head spin because I find it nonsensical. I find the Pope's "position," on the other hand, eminently reasonable and sensible.
You wrote: "The Pope accepts the theory as it is, as the best physical explanation for the diversity of life and the descent of man." [boldface added]
This comes as news to me. Give me a direct cite please?
Not to quibble.. The statement that started this whole thread for me was someone stating that only ‘the Church’ was equipped and authorized to ‘interpret’ the Scriptures for all of us. So, that is not some ‘spiritual entity’, rather a particular organization he identified as ‘the’ church. He obviously meant the Roman church, not the product of the Spirit that “exists everywhere... “ So, you miss my point entirely, or do you simply avoid it... If some ‘organization’ of men is going to claim to be the ‘official, authorized, and original church’. Which is it? Byzantine, Jerusalem, or Western Empire (Rome). By the way I rather agree with your personal position, except I can guarantee you the Church does not exist in purgatory. There is no such place since Jesus took away all of our sins without need of penance or purgatory. (Late inventions of the Roman church to raise money) BTW have you received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit like Mary did in the Second Chapter of Acts?
Cornered? I have long maintained that science is not equipped to answer philosophical questions. Once again you seem to confuse the argument you want to oppose with the argument I am actually making.
Any time I bring up the utility of the scientific method I hear from creationists that somehow I think science is the end all be all that answers everything. Ludicrous.
The beginning of the universe via the Big Bang was not accepted or rejected by scientists because it either conflicted with or agreed with Scripture. It was accepted by scientists when the DATA for it became overwhelming.
That data was produced by scientists doing science, and creating value. It was not produced by creationists, who do not do science, and produce nothing of any value.
Do you think that the Pope, by accepting evolution as a “truth that enriches our understanding of life and being as such” is contributing to the intellectual suicide of Western Civilization?
Some of his postings and my retort allude (generally) to the complaints Luther had and their result, the Reformation. At the Diet Luther could not in good conscience recant and the church refused to address the many issues Luther had raised.
For that very reason the use of Luther's writings was a very odd rhetorical building block for an argument.
My conclusion was reasonable, not personal. I would also contend that it was less sarcastic than post 727, particularly after my post 721.
FatherofFive, if you wish to post that you are ignorant of the church history I have breifly described I will post a public apology.
Mod, I am curious, btw, would concluding that one has no reasonable logical basis for a statement be a form of "reading another's mind"?
As I said in 721, I have work to do. Getting wrapped around thae axle here keeps me from it. It is also too easy for anyone's pride to take over and discussion to become confrontational. That bad transition can be particularly easy if any of the debators don't know or acknowledge that reality.
He said that evolution, it being a theory currently in use in biology (i.e. as it is) was a “truth that enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Do you have a citation for where he finds the theory incomplete and thus somehow rejects it? No. You do not.
Still nothing the Pope has said about evolution that I would disagree with.
So where is the supposed difference between the Popes position and my own?
It should be easy to outline the difference if you find the Popes acceptance of the theory of evolution as “truth” to be “eminently reasonable and sensible” but my own acceptance of the theory of evolution as ‘head spinning’.
I’m remembering why I avoid CrEvo threads.
For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct) it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church."For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct.)"
So why would it be acceptable? And to whom? To God? Surely not to God if it is not correct.
The rest of what I quoted from the article:
"...it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church."
It must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church?
Let me make a stab at something.
By the Church, you mean the Christian denomination commonly referred to as Catholic?
If that is the case, carry on and have a nice discussion about "basic dogmatic teachings" but don't expect simple Christians that depend on the One that was sent to teach us all things, the Holy Spirit of God, to rely on anything or anybody else to lead us into all wisdom and knowledge.
Praying for the Holy Spirit to interpretate the Holy Scriptures will continue to be the best way to understand them.
I just have a sneaky feeling, dear allmendream, that the Pope's understanding of the meaning of "truth," and your understanding of same, are not quite the same thing.
The reason my head spun at your remarks was the sheer illogic of your position. Which evidently you somehow equate with Darwin's theory, but which translates as "God create[ed] the natural world by purely natural means that had not yet been brought [into existence]"; i.e., the inception of the universe is a creation by natural means that do not exist at the point of the inception.
I just wonder: What do you think is going on in Genesis 1?
You're quoting the Pope, so you must have a cite. Please share it with your readers, including me?
I tripped over that too. I finally figured that it's like the imprimatur. It is possible to agree with established dogma but, in dealing with the array of possible ramifications, to go down a road which has not been SHOWN to be wrong but which will turn out to be wrong.
Catholic dogma doesn't claim to have exhausted all the possibilities of all its ramifications.
If I'm right, Aquinas's disagreement with the Immaculate Conception and his related thought that EARLY abortion is not murder were, at the time, "acceptable" because the principle of his disagreement was about when the "conceptus" becomes human. Later learning resolved some questions and he turned out to be wrong.
I hopethat's (a) right and (b) clear.
The Pope did however.
He said that evolution was truth.
Do you find his acceptance of evolution as “truth” to be sensible and reasonable or not?
Once again, I asked you for a direct quote from me that was contrary to the Popes position (not his word choice, as I would not say either “proof” or “truth” in regards to a scientific theory, but his meaning). I directly warned you against presenting your opinion and extrapolations about what you think I meant as your supposed evidence. But I guess that is all you have, your pitiful strawman contained in a made up statement that you wish to put in my mouth.
That level of “scholarship” may pass muster among creationists, but really. Do you have ANY direct quote from the Pope about evolution that you find my position contrary to, or ANY direct quote that I have said about evolution that would be contradicted by the Pope's position?
It would be easy if one position was reasonable and sensible and the other made your head spin.
Here is the Pope on the subject of evolution, other than the Pope stating it more FIRMLY, using the words “proof” and “truth”, I agree completely with the Popes position.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
“They (creation and evolution) are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”“Above all it (evolution) does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
However, if he puts words into the other Freepers mouth, it is "making it personal." For instance, "You know you have no logical basis for ..."
Ok...
Well, at least I was in good company.... :o)
“What are the referees pointing at when the ball goes thru the uprights? Hot babes in the stands?”
.
In Australia???
.
“I provided the fuller quote”
You provided obfuscation which you hoped would obscure the Pope’s point that Science does not answer the question, ‘Where does everything come from.’
“Any time I bring up the utility of the scientific method I hear from creationists that somehow I think science is the end all be all that answers everything.”
You claim that “science produces real results and real value.” You claim that Creationism “produces nothing of any real value.” Everything from Everything leaves Nothing. How are such claims to be understood? Yet when I contest your claims, you retreat to an air of wounded reasonableness. Don’t make a claim if you don’t intend to stand your ground.
Wall, nail, custard pie (and great billowing clouds of smoke).
You must think that describing the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation somehow explains away the previous scientific theory that the Universe was timeless and infinite, and Science’s belief that The Bible thereby erred in describing a beginning that never happened.
“That data (the cosmic microwave background radiation data) was produced by scientists doing science, and creating value. It was not produced by creationists, who do not do science, and produce nothing of any value.”
Of course. The Creationists always knew there was a beginning. The Scientists climbed the mountain and discovered the Creationists already at the top, waiting for them.
“Do you think that the Pope, by accepting evolution as a “truth that enriches our understanding of life and being as such” is contributing to the intellectual suicide of Western Civilization?”
More billowing clouds of smoke. Do you think that the Pope, by accepting evolution as a “truth that enriches our understanding of life and being as such” is denying the existence of God?
Stop putting words in my mouth. I don’t know where they’ve been.
LOL!
You and Packer.
mark bsnr: Really? Where can I find that claim? Can you direct me to a website?
From one such website among thousands...
...the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God's kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God...
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.