Posted on 04/12/2013 5:10:48 PM PDT by markomalley
In his speech to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Pope Francis said “the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church”
The speech given by Francis to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission this morning followed faithfully in the footsteps of his predecessor Benedict XVI teaching. Members of the Commission – scholars and theologians from all over the world gathered under the leadership of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mgr. Gerhard Müller - concluded a period of reflection on the theme: the inspiration and truth of the Bible. Benedict XVI had drawn attention to this during the 2008 Synod on Sacred Scripture.
The bottom line question revolves around the role of modern disciplines and scientific techniques – textual analysis, palaeographical analysis of texts, archaeological and historical discoveries, philological work on sources and so on – in the Church's interpretation of the Bible. The path outlined by Ratzinger, whilst not underestimating the value of scientific findings, reaffirmed the fact that one cannot truly “understand” the Bible and its texts unless it is through the eyes of faith, in the light of the Church's thousand-year-old history, whilst always taking into account the organic relationship between each of the Bible's books and the Bible as a whole and the message Christians find in it.
Francis clearly echoes this line of thought: “The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church,” Francis said during today's audience.
Francis believes the Second Vatican Council reiterated with “great clarity” that there is an unbreakable unity between Scripture and Tradition, as both come from the same source... and are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”
This is why, according to the Pope, every subjective interpretation is insufficient “as simply limited to an analysis incapable of embracing the global meaning that has constituted the Tradition of the entire People of God.” “The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church,” Francis added.
At the same time, the Pope guarded against a literal reading of the sacred text, recalling that the Bible “the testimony in written form of God's Word” whereas the “Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible.” Hence the Christian faith has at its centre not just a book “but a history of salvation and especially a Person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.”
“What does the Bible tell you about water baptism?”
It tells me it has no connection with salvation, but is symbolic of the spiritual reality of the baptism and infilling of the Holy Spirit, called the greater of the two by John the Baptist. It is an act of obedience after conversion (not done on infants), showing one’s outward conviction to serve God. As an example o this, here is Cornelius and his entire family being baptized by the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism:
Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
For the record, my professor was a convert to Catholicism who was brought to the Church through an intense study of Scripture. He, like I, also has Jesus.
I know of no Catholic who is or should be ashamed of the Catechism, but I know of a lot of non-Catholics who are afraid of the truth it contains.
Please be aware that when you besmirch "catholics" you are making a personal insult against many, many people who likely love God probably with greater earnestness than you do. I am hard pressed to see how the love of God who is the embodiment of love is judged by a human to be ill placed and unworthy. I am a Catholic who loves God and believes that Jesus is the Christ, yet you claim to know what is in my mind and my heart and deny that without having ever met me.
"Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:1-3
"Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." - Romans 14:10
I invite you to join me in the light of His love. Peace.
That it was required as the first rite to be performed when a priest was inducted into his office. Exodus 29:4. Under the Old Covenant God made with Israel. They were to be a NATION OF PRIESTS, and an HOLY NATION. "And ye shall be unto Me a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, and an HOLY NATION. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (Ex. 19:5,6)l. Until the whole nation of Israel obeyed God's voice, only certain people in Israel were set apart as priests, but in connection with the coming of Messiah and the conversion of ALL ISRAEL, God later promised that they ALL would become a WHOLE NATION OF PRIESTS, through whom the Gentiles would approach God: "But YE shall be named the PRIESTS OF THE LORD: men shall call you THE MINISTERS OF OUR GOD" (Isa. 61:6).
So, water baptism was performed under the Mosaic law whereby the priests and those ceremonially "unclean" were both washed, or baptized. Therefore, under the kingdom program, the Jews and the "unclean" Gentiles alike HAD to be baptized. (Matt. 28:19).
Which brings us forward to John the Baptist and the "Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND". First, John's baptism was associated with the manifestation of Christ. "And I knew him not: But that He should be MADE MANIFEST TO ISRAEL, THEREFORE am I come BAPTIZING WITH WATER" (John 1:31). John baptized the people "for the remission of sins". That is plainly stated. This was NOT changed after the resurrection of Christ, for at Pentecost Peter offered Christ's return and the times of refreshing TO ISRAEL, calling upon them to "repent and be baptized...FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" (Acts 2:38). This was done in strict obedience to the commission given to Peter by the risen Lord, in which He expressly stated that "He that believeth and IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED" (Mark 16:16).
So far, we KNOW, according to God's Word, that the message of John, our Lord (Matt.4:17), His twelve apostles (Matt:10:5-7) was REPENT and BE BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And it was proclaimed by John, Christ, and the 12 to ISRAEL. Because the "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WAS AT HAND (Matt. 3:2), and ISRAEL WAS TO BECOME A NATION OF PRIESTS to the whole world, thus the necessity to be baptized, washed, cleansed. The proclamation of this message and its results are what the "Four Gospels" record. It had been predicted, expected and was now proclaimed "at hand". The provision for ISRAEL to become this NATION OF PRIESTS had been made in Exodus, as I've already shown you.
So now, we are up to Pentecost. Still dealing with Israel, still waiting for them to repent, be baptized, turn to God, whereby Christ would return and set up His Messianic Kingdom, with Israel as His priests to the Gentiles.
So far, are you with me?
It’s not Christ’s dying that saves us but His death because the wages of sin is DEATH, not dying.
Leaving Jesus on the cross means that He has not finished the work of redemption that HE said was finished.
If any church thinks that the blood is His real blood, that blood cannot save because it isn’t shed. You are right. Jesus blood, which He needed for this earthly body, is not necessary for His resurrected body because it’s a new body, not His old one. Catholics believe that we get the same bodies as we have now and Scripture teaches against that.
It’s not Christ’s dying that saves us but His death because the wages of sin is DEATH, not dying.
Leaving Jesus on the cross means that He has not finished the work of redemption that HE said was finished.
If any church thinks that the blood is His real blood, that blood cannot save because it isn’t shed. You are right. Jesus blood, which He needed for this earthly body, is not necessary for His resurrected body because it’s a new body, not His old one. Catholics believe that we get the same bodies as we have now and Scripture teaches against that.
No, br'er, he was not. Please read on.
If you have been placed by God into the Body of Christ at salvation, your sins were forgiven, past, present and future - including the worst of the worst.
"We must be careful not to confuse the fear of disqualification with the fear of damnation. Paul had no fear that he would lose his salvation (Rom. 8:29–39). In the context what he could lose was a reward.How ironic and pathetic it would be for Paul to forfeit a crown through his own lack of self-discipline or by breaking the Judge’s rules since He had instructed others concerning how to win one."
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (1 Co 9:27)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was [a]raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of [b]Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written,
“For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
MarkBsnr,
Even though I haven’t seen you in a while and always enjoy a beer and great conversation with you, I’m going to withdraw from this discussion. You have your hands full with other conversations here that are oppositional.
I will catch up with you again, no doubt.
blessings.
Even though I haven’t seen you in a while and always enjoy a beer and great conversation with you, I’m going to withdraw from this discussion. You have your hands full with other conversations here that are oppositional.
I will catch up with you again, no doubt.
blessings.
A thousand blessings upon you and yours. Many thanks for the kind exchange and as for the opposition - there is none so blind as those who will not see.
That is a very primitive understanding of Catholic theology. We do not "leave" Jesus on the Cross, but make present in the one Sacrifice.
The cross is a contradiction in every way, like most divine mysteries. It is the vertical symbol of life contradicted by the horizontal symbol of death. It is the Roman symbol of state terror and oppression contradicted by the Christian symbol of victory over death. Those contradictions make sense ONLY when Jesus is superimposed upon them.
The Crucifix, with the Corpus present, is in recognition that it is only through Jesus' suffering and death for our sins that we have our Salvation. It is a reminder that the Mass is not some symbolic recreation of the Last Supper or a farewell meal, it is the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, a sacrifice of expiation.
Before you dismiss symbols and symbolism as purely Catholic superstitions have you not claimed that the Eucharist itself is symbolic?
Peace be with you
These “requirements,” of course, in you view, aren’t REALLY the following:
Joh 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Mar 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (31) And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Gal_5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Because the actual charge is, “you do not do what is required... which is being in the Roman Catholic Church and obeying it.” If you were truly a great moralizer, calling people to the requirements of religion, there would be no conlict here with he Romans being so outraged. You would instead ask us to have faith in God, and “love your neighbour as yourself,” for in these things one fulfills the royal law, according to Christ and all of the Apostles. No mention here of bowing and scraping for the scraps offered by the Roman pontiff. And, certainly not any indication that one’s imperfections or perfections have in any effect on salvation.
I am not outraged. I am amused at yet another would-be Martin Luther inventing yet again another religion of the one in the mirror. You may wish to read up on the mathematical operand "and". It is of great significance here.
Do this in remembrance of me, not “resacrifice me and eat this bread so that you may be saved.” In fact, do you have any evidence that the Lord’s supper, from the scipture, isn’t always an actual supper of believers? Such is the way I’ve practiced it.
Irenaeus speaks at length about it; we have other writings from the second and third centuries. I don't really care how you practice it - I only care how Christians are supposed to practice it.
You say I only bring snippets out of context, but never so much as provide any data that actually shows why those quotes, and lots of them, are false. Thou Pharisee, are you not just too lazy to explain what those scriptures mean and how you reconcile them with you Romanist views, because the fact of the matter is you are more concerned with what is handed down to you from Rome than what is handed us by the Apostles?
Are you calling me names? Are you reading my mind? No, I assumed (silly me) that you would know Scripture well enough to understand my posts and the passages to which I have alluded. Very well, in the spirit of the unlettered and the grasping at straws, I will post chapter and verse. I had hoped that whoever you are, you were more familiar with Scripture. I am disappointed.
They are the scripture. Not once have you addressed any of the words of Paul or Jesus, which I have provided. Do you really seriously think that by saying something like “Look at the feg tree! I’m CATHLUCK, tarefore, it disproofs u!@#$” is an argument? How about you show us how the fig tree isn’t a metaphore for Israel, how the gentiles are not grafted in, and how people aren’t really saved by grace through faith, or how any of the scriptures I have provided don’t mean what they directly say, based on the context you affirm clearly disproves it?
I referred to Jesus and Paul and you claimed that I did not post from Scripture. Interesting. If Jesus and Paul are not considered Scripture in your world, then what is?
“I am not outraged.”
Neither am I, since you took the time to insult me instead of addressing what I said. Saves me time.
“I referred to Jesus and Paul and you claimed that I did not post from Scripture. Interesting. If Jesus and Paul are not considered Scripture in your world, then what is?”
Your arguments at this point are depending on strawmen, insults, accusations, diversions, outright ignoring statements and documentation, and unproved assertions. Looks like you’re ready to throw in the towel soon.
So, which Pope are you in communion with? The one in Rome, Antioch, or Alexandria?
You have heard of the Real Presence, haven’t you. The REAL Body and Blood received at Communion in the Catholic Church? Why do you try to spin my words elsewhere?
FYI, the Catholic Church is all about Jesus — The Liturgy of the Word in the Mass and the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the second half of the Mass.
Can’t get more about Jesus Christ than that.
Blessings to you; I will pray for you.
"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a PATTERN TO THEM WHICH SHOULD HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM TO LIFE EVERLASTING." 1 Tim. 1:16.
Evidently, you CAN get "more Jesus Christ than that".
So that would be.......the Baptists? Or.....
It was more along the lines of the faithful not being intimidated into surrendering to the "modernist" analytical who bring to the table their own suppositions based more on their own prejudices, than some actual finding, discovery, or inherent superiority of methodolgy which they employ.
We've seen discussion on these pages concerning even a few inside the RCC who lean towards seeing Christ as figurative/mythological. Interestingly enough, some of the worst offenders along those lines, are Jesuits, which brotherhood the new pope is part of.
I'm not suggesting for one instant that Francis is one of those sort of Jesuits, but it's likely he knows of them, and has seen a few up close.
Some modern scholars don't hesitate to scoff at each account of miracles, and the like, putting them fully into the catogory of mythology, for example...reducing scripture to morality tale, legend, and religio-cultural artifact.
I do think it was more those types of folks he had in mind, while putting forth tradition of the church, against the "science" skeptics.
There is much more overlap concerning the approach towards what we know as scripture, between this new pope (and the last one) and Baptists in general (one would hope) than between many of the modern NT "scholars" and their methodologies.
Mark D. Roberts, himself a NT scholar, trained at Harvard, spoke of that sort of thing in a book of his titled Can We Trust the Gospels:Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
I'd give you a copy, but gave the one I had away (since it was such a good read).
While you are alive — perfect mercy.
At the moment of your death — perfect justice.
Such is Jesus Christ.
I think all of us believe that.
If you think that is being all about Jesus, the RCC is successful in it's deception on it's subjects. And I don't need an 'fyi' on the counterfeit church - I left it because I was able to see the deception in it by the grace of God and through HIS WORD.
Those who remain 'in it' refuse to see what is over the top obvious, so the CC brain washing has made their subjects rebuke TRUTH and accept 'man's' truth which is a LIE. Like their leader/papa/man says 'I'm all yours, Mary'. Rome/RCC's man made training is to make their subjects 'all about man' and that is what the CC is - a secular/worldly organization - all about man and not about Jesus. Either one is 'all of HIS' or 'none of HIS' - and the CC papa/pope/leader is 'none of HIS' - "I'm all yours, Mary'.
No one can serve two masters! So take that as a warning - one cannot have 'some' of God/Supernatural and 'some' of man/natural. There are only two choices Life or Death, blessings or curses. "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose LIFE, so that you and your children may live". And ONLY JESUS is LIFE - eternal LIFE is JESUS, not man. 'I am The Way, The Truth, the LIFE'.
The focus of the RCC is ALL about man. Satan wants the focus OFF of JESUS. So the RCC has their 'man made teachings' as their final authority and not God and His teachings. JESUS is "The Word of God". So you thinking the CC it's 'all about Jesus' is null and void and it's not rocket science for one to see that. Catholics are taught to pray to the dead, and the RCC designed a 'saint' for whatever ails a catholic' - the CC is all about man; yet, man is nothing without JESUS. Since the CC honors man and their man made teachings is their final authority - they are nothing but death and have no eternal life.
Can’t get more about Jesus Christ than that.
No. That is all you want. And that's all the counterfeit church allows. So you can't have a clue when I say 'it is ALL about Jesus'.
Blessings to you;
Rome/RCC has chosen curses, they have no blessings coming out of it and they secure it with their man made teachings and with their deception/evil they entice the weak/easily deceived into it and to stay in it.
I will pray for you.
WHO and what are you going to pray for me - when I said I'm 'in Christ' and securely in the Hand of God. It can only be to pray me away from HIM. It can't be done. Catholicism is futile in all it does - it only benefits satan/evil.
**Those who remain ‘in it’ refuse to see what is over the top obvious, so the CC brain washing has made their subjects rebuke TRUTH and accept ‘man’s’ truth which is a LIE.**
This is not true. I don’t know where you get your information, but the Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer.
Are you listening to someone who hates the Catholic Church?
Reading pamplets?
Reading comic books?
It is difficult to carry on a conversation/discussion with you when you try to tell Catholics what they believe.
Could you cease that?
I will pray for you — In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit........................
What part of me spending 2/3 my life 'in it' that you either can't grasp or NEED to ignore? So save your 'it's not true'.
but the Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer.
Tells us what they 'say' about co-redeemer Mary - but don't bother, I heard all their lies and their focus on man.
So Rome/RCC can "say' what they believe and that's where deception enters - because you believe what they 'say'. One knows them know them by what they DO - not say! Their man made teachings is their final authority - and that alone should be a clue to even the most deceived! ANYONE whose intent is to serve JESUS would NEVER have 'their/man own set of teachings'. So the intent of the Rome/RCC is not to serve JESUS but man and we see it all played out in what they DO.
Either it is THE WORD OF GOD or satan's words. You choose! Rome/The RCC chose 'another', as did the Mormon church, as did the Muslims. All with their 'own words/bible'!
Are you listening to someone who hates the Catholic Church?
I LISTEN TO GOD ALONE and through HIS WORD ALONE. Catholics are the ones listening to 'someone' else, as do the Mormons and Muslims. And use the word 'hate' when TRUTH is spoken. Hate is from satan and to use it as you did with the catholic church is fitting!
Reading comic books?
That's from man - so not surprised a catholic would say that.
It is difficult to carry on a conversation/discussion with you when you try to tell Catholics what they believe. Could you cease that?
It's you that needs to cease. When it is already established I KNOW what they believe as having been 'in the deception church'. So it's more like you don't want to hear Rome/RCC is deceiving their flock and chose to BELIEVE what 'man says' and not what GOD SAYS. There are only two choices. There is NO 'a little of this and a little of that'. Catholics chose man/the catechism - I chose GOD'S Word ALONE and that's where your difficulty comes from.
And you are looking for a conversation? Repent from believing what 'man says' and then have your conservation with GOD through HIS Holy Spirit inspired WORD.
No need for anymore back and forth as you were given The Holy Spirit inspired Word of God and you made the choice to receive and defend what is from 'man', the catechism. No sweat off of my brow as this was meant as a warning to the deceived and to rebuke the lies they were taught by evil and NOT meant for a conversation because the only words that count have already been written in HIS Word which is The Final Authority and each man will be judged by God's Word on that final day.
"The one who rejects ME and does not receive MY Words has a Judge; The Word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." John 12:48
Take note: God speaks through HIS WORD so we hear Him and obey Him by what He says in HIS WORD.
"Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:47
Should not those who hold to that belief own up to it?
Sure - but by the same token, ultradispensationalism does not necessarily equal Bullingerism. Bullingerism is extremely uncommon... Just sayin.
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.