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.”
I believe that the link is to a semi-Bullingerite source. It does reject some of it, but does accept the rejection of water baptism.
Did I say that right?
Semi-Bullinger is not Bullinger. Ultradispensationalism is not Bullinger, but Bullinger is ultradispensationalist. To indict all of ultradispensationalism with Bullinger is misinformed.
For instance, my own view is right along Pentecostal lines... That the baptism by water is not the efficacious mechanism, but rather, the baptism by fire is:
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
If one has received the Spirit, then the deed is done. That does not mean that I deny the water baptism per se... Nor do the Pentecostals. This is no doubt considered to be an ultradispensational view, but it is not Bullinger, and the water baptism is not discounted.
I will note, however, that I think that the baptism practiced today is not what was done then, and I think the sense of the Hebrew Mikvah is more appropriate (my own view, not the Pentecostals).
Neither am I, since you took the time to insult me instead of addressing what I said. Saves me time.
I took your postings in the spirit which I believed that they were offered.
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.
Nope, they depend upon the words of Christ, the rest of Scripture, the Church, and all the wishes and actions of antiCatholics.
So, which Pope are you in communion with? The one in Rome, Antioch, or Alexandria?
That would be telling.
It is FINISHED and HE IS RISEN - and Rome/RCC still has HIM on the cross. It's because HE'S Risen that evil/Rome cannot stand. It is because HE DID RISE from the dead that we have salvation. And once He rose, evil had no more dominion over us. So evil worked through 'the religious' and teaches their subjects they have to work for it, so, once, again, evil is trying to have dominion back what Adam/Eve gave him after Jesus reclaimed it for us. So now we are 'free in Christ' while catholics, mormons, muslims are in 'bondage to man'.
Catholics believe that we get the same bodies as we have now
They believe it because they were taught it. They are gullible and too lazy to search for Truth.
Correction! The Spirit of God lives within me, so where ever I am - HE is there, also.
God's Word is THE FINAL AUTHORITY!
My brothers and sisters are 'in Christ' they are those who are born again and believe God's Word is The Final Authority.
The evidence of that is in the Fruit of the Holy Spirit.
"Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." - 1 John 4:8
Peace be with you
ACTS! That's when 'the power' comes!
Those who reject Truth/God’s Word do not want love - for God is love and HIS Word is the Final Authority.
So burn up your man made teachings/catechism. You can’t serve two masters.
“I took your postings in the spirit which I believed that they were offered.”
You offered me spam and insults, without addressing the challenges made against you. And now you still bug me, when you have nothing to show for it. Where are all the answers to the questions and challenges I made?
Still waiting on your explanation of “Pope” Gregory the First, which I’ve asked you about more than just a few times now, and just WHEN the Holy Roman Church finally got around to establishing the allegedly always-existent tradition of the Primacy of Rome.
But you are mine.
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child." - 1 John 5:1
"For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters," - Hebrews 2:11
Peace and blessings
The Lord gave us a Paraclete to be with us forever. It shows us the Truth within the Revealed Word.(John 14:16)
Pax et Bonem
You are going to have to interpret for me. If you are referring to the Sacred Scripture you will not get an argument from me, however you will not get me to agree that the Sacred Scripture represents 100% of the Revealed Truth or the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
However, if you are implying the WORD is the Logos, as used by St. John in the first verse of his Gospel, you are not going to get anywhere.
Dominus Vobiscum.
I do not believe it is possible to insult you.
And now you still bug me, when you have nothing to show for it. Where are all the answers to the questions and challenges I made?
I have answered them - as anyone who knows the Bible would appreciate.
Still waiting on your explanation of “Pope” Gregory the First, which I’ve asked you about more than just a few times now
Negative. I asked you which Pope Gregory you referred to and you did not answer. I offered some possible scenarios and you still did not answer. Where did you learn your debating techniques? Princeton?
which I’ve asked you about more than just a few times now, and just WHEN the Holy Roman Church finally got around to establishing the allegedly always-existent tradition of the Primacy of Rome.
You haven't asked about the development of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Answer: it developed by Nicea. Look it up.
What is truth?
Christ is truth.
“Negative. I asked you which Pope Gregory you referred to and you did not answer.”
Yes I did. I identified him as Pope Gregory the First to you directly, TWICE. I’ve identified him multiple times, dealing with multiple people in this thread. There’s even a citation of where it’s from, so you could have searched it yourself. I even told you to look at the quote(s) I posted in this thread, where I identify him directly. I quoted it again at Narses. I quoted it again at Mrs.Don-o. I quoted it right at the start of this thread.
Is it me, or are you marvelous at wasting people’s time?
“I offered some possible scenarios and you still did not answer.”
Possible scenarios? Let’s look:
“And to which Gregory (Gregorius) are you referring? There were 16. If you are referring to Gregory the Great, are you alluding to the creation of the Pre Tridentine Mass? If so, does that mean that with my fondness of the Tridentine Mass, you would claim that I don’t hold the same beliefs as him?”
First of all, this is one scenario, and its not even a scenario. It’s basically a scenario wherein you utterly ignore what I wrote. The simple answer is: No. It has nothing to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. If you read the quote, you would not have said it had anything to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. The quote I provided you says nothing about the Pre-Tridentine mass.
So here it is, again, in all its glory. Let’s see what the next waste of time you throw at me will be:
“Pope” Gregory placing the throne of Peter under three Bishops:
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
Yes I did. I identified him as Pope Gregory the First to you directly, TWICE.
Interesting. What posting mnmbers were they?
Is it me, or are you marvelous at wasting people’s time?
AntiCatholics are normally good at wasting people's time.
“Pope” Gregory placing the throne of Peter under three Bishops:
I shall not violate the rules of the Forum by calling you an idiot. Read it again.
First of all, this is one scenario, and its not even a scenario. It’s basically a scenario wherein you utterly ignore what I wrote. The simple answer is: No. It has nothing to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. If you read the quote, you would not have said it had anything to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. The quote I provided you says nothing about the Pre-Tridentine mass.
I shall not once again call you an idiot. I asked you if what you were referring to was the Tridentine Mass.
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
So to you any invidual who is connected with the Catholic Church who produces any script, is to be taken a face value? Do you have no clue as to what the Magisterium is?
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.