Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
La Stampa ^ | April 12, 2013 | Alessandro Speciale

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.”


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: bible; denominations; denominationslist; papacy; popefrancis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-247 last
To: MarkBsnr

“I shall not violate the rules of the Forum by calling you an idiot. Read it again.”


So that’s your big refutation to a quote by Pope Gregory the First? Well, uh, you really got me on this one.

“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?”


The magisterium back then believed that the See of Peter was divided between the Bishop of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Thus, that is why “Pope” Gregory, whom you say is the Universal Pastor (though he himself rejected the notion of the Universal Bishop, calling it the spirit of anti-Christ) and Theodoret, a Bishop, expressed that.

If even a “Pope” and a valuable Bishop can’t be believed when he denies the Primacy of Rome, I’m not sure who we CAN believe in the Roman Catholic church.

Well, I guess they weren’t actually Roman Catholics, at least as we understand them today.


241 posted on 04/16/2013 8:27:22 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

When posting something in another language, be sure to provide the English translation of it unless it is commonly known, such as “aloha.”


242 posted on 04/16/2013 8:38:12 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
You have repeatedly claimed that you have made points or arguments that you actually never made. The posting trail is clear, by the way. This forum does not allow selective editing or deletion of posts.

The magisterium back then believed that the See of Peter was divided between the Bishop of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Thus, that is why “Pope” Gregory, whom you say is the Universal Pastor (though he himself rejected the notion of the Universal Bishop, calling it the spirit of anti-Christ) and Theodoret, a Bishop, expressed that.

I never said any such thing. And you must realize that Theodoret died a century before Gregory the Great was born. Theodoret was a bishop of Syria, not a part of the Latin branch. Where do you people learn to understand history? Where do you get your history from, anyway? Wikipedia? Little coloured booklets tucked under windshield wipers whilst attending Mass?

You keep saying that I insult you and will not answer your points. You keep claiming that you make these points and don't actually make them. If you wish to engage in serious dialogue, then please do so. Until then, I regard your posts as merely frivolous and extremely antiCatholic, as well as antiChristian and completely opposed to history as we know it.

243 posted on 04/17/2013 3:31:10 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“You have repeatedly claimed that you have made points or arguments that you actually never made.”


You’re projecting your own bad habits on me. Sorry, but I have the actual “trail” of posts to know I’ve challenged you on this issue plenty of times and have defined it fully, identifying who and what is involved.

Do you notice how you are spending more time debating the debate or debating my character and actions than answering my very simple challenges?

“I never said any such thing. And you must realize that Theodoret died a century before Gregory the Great was born.”


So the Magisterium did not change on that point for over a century.

“Theodoret was a bishop of Syria, not a part of the Latin branch.”


So, were the Syrians and the “Popes” of Rome split at that time? Was “Pope” Gregory the First a rebel Pope who fell into the bad Syrian faction a cenury later and started mouthing their talking points?

“Where do you people learn to understand history?”


Where do you people learn your deductive reasoning?

“You keep saying that I insult you and will not answer your points. You keep claiming that you make these points and don’t actually make them.”


God help me, he farted in my general direction and is back to the insults again!

“as well as antiChristian and completely opposed to history as we know it.”


I regard yours as non-existent, having no basis in history, since Roman Papal views on the primacy of Rome were an innovation, and not a consistent part of Church tradition.

But as for me, I’ll lean on the promises of Christ, which vindicate me just as much as the Thief on the cross. Oh, my God, thou has had mercy on me, a sinner!


244 posted on 04/17/2013 6:49:19 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“You have repeatedly claimed that you have made points or arguments that you actually never made.”

You’re projecting your own bad habits on me. Sorry, but I have the actual “trail” of posts to know I’ve challenged you on this issue plenty of times and have defined it fully, identifying who and what is involved.

Your claims are as unrelated to reality as is your claim to Christianity.

But as for me, I’ll lean on the promises of Christ, which vindicate me just as much as the Thief on the cross. Oh, my God, thou has had mercy on me, a sinner!

Now I see that you claim that God is answerable to you or else that you have assumed Gnosticism.

But as for me, I'll practice the Faith that has been handed down from the Apostles in an unbroken line that goes all the way back to Christ.

245 posted on 04/17/2013 9:11:34 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“Now I see that you claim that God is answerable to you or else that you have assumed Gnosticism.

But as for me, I’ll practice the Faith that has been handed down from the Apostles in an unbroken line that goes all the way back to Christ.”


Looks like this is the end of the line for you. I’ve already seen you say both of these things earlier, so if you’re back on them again it means you’re databank is already empty on new phrases. When your programmer comes to take a look at your progress, I hope he reads this message and takes a note or two from ChomskyBot. That thing has literally trillions of combinations of seemingly understandable word combinations, and yet MarkBsnr barely got through a few dozen posts before hitting the point where he has to repeat material. It’s time for a MarkBsnr 2.0, if you ask me.

I’ll conclude with this:

Having met the Romanist on the field, he could not address the evidence that demonstrates development of Papal theology in ancient history, and not a continuous tradition as alleged by his church. He has not demonstrated why we should believe him when he says that we are not Christians.

And so, as for me, I shall rest on the Gospel promise, and pay the Romans, who neither pass into heaven nor permit anyone else to enter, absolutely no mind.

Eph 1:3-14 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (7) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (8) Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; (9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. (13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (14) Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Amen!


246 posted on 04/17/2013 6:17:11 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Very good. I see that you are claiming your own salvation. You further claim Papal variation. You claim various sources as being binding on Catholic theology.

You apparently have no clue as to the meaning of 'earnest of inheritance'. It is binding on the giver, but not on the recipient. I am not sure if you are Calvinist or a variant on the OSAS crowd.

I've been over and over with various antiCatholics about the history of the Church and its beliefs and doctrines.

247 posted on 04/17/2013 6:33:25 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-247 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson