Catholic Scripture interpretation does not stop at one level, the literal sense, but also notes a spiritual sense to many verses, some having multiple meanings and senses. Thus, we agree that Scriptures do not ONLY speaking to the clergy, and Jesus is not ONLY speaking to the Apostles in Mat 28:20. The literal sense is "they are indeed speaking about themselves" (clergy/Apostles). It is through them that God intended His message to be given throughout the world. God did not deliver revelation to all men, but to a small group of men. However, WE TOO share in the priesthood of Christ as part of our Baptismal promises and obligations. WE TOO are to spread the Gospel by our witness. WE TOO offer our own sacrifices in union with Christ when we participate in the Mass, the representation of Christ's Paschal Mystery. WE TOO offer forgiveness of wrongs done to us - foreshadowing God's own forgiveness to others. OF COURSE we are to do all of these things. But this does not overthrow the initial literal sense of the Scripture - that the Apostles and their successors are primarily tasked by God to be His most visible works in the world today - and through them, the Truth can be known by men.
Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.
We, all Christians, share in the priesthood of Christ. Thus, we can also become righteous and so forth. But Christ still established a new ministrial priesthood. Such a "system" existed in the OT as well. The Jews were a priestly people, as Moses said - yet there still were ministerial priests who were men's official guides, men who offered sacrifice and were responsible for teaching the people. Today, priests continue this role, participating in Christ's priesthood by visibly teaching and preaching, offering God's healing, and visibly representing Christ's offering of Himself to the Father and to the community.
Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.
"Co-anything" doesn't mean that this person was NECESSARY for anything. We go back to the cookie analogy again. Was the daughter necessary? The mother choose to include the daughter in her work, not because the daughter was needed, because the mother loves the daughter and wants to share her work with the child. God does the same thing with all of us. Your wife is a co-creator, you are a co-redeemer when you bring others to Christ, and Mary is a co-mediatrix of grace - all because God loves us to participate in the divine nature (says Peter)
does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?
Why are you messin' with my favorite Psalm? ;)
Again, you are trying to place God on a linear time scale. The Scripture is often written from the point of view of man, which APPEARS that God has lined up everything in advance. Day 1, this will happen. Day 2, that will happen. However, for GOD, there is no "in advance"! All is NOW. God doesn't "elect" us without seeing already our response to His love. This is because it all occurs simultaneously.
Co-redemptive? I just can't accept this. God might use me as I would use a hammer to pound a nail. Since God loves me, He lets me experience being a very "happy hammer" if He saves someone after I have spoken to Him. But, I did not swing myself, and the nail (IN THIS EXAMPLE! :) did not get driven because of me.
Think of yourself as the trusty sidekick going along for the ride. God is gracing you by sharing His life with us. He doesn't need us. You are confusing "necessity" with "sharing".
(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)
You got it. Thus, there are very poor Catholics who think that abortion is OK, despite the constant teaching to the contrary...
are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?
Not by the Apostles, but by the Church that followed. We don't have the transcripts of what the Apostles orally taught. We have to go to the writings of men who followed them, the Church Fathers. To Liturgical and Sacramental celebrations. To the prayers of the Church. When we see the "sense of the faithful" leaning in a particular way on a subject, one that seems to have existed for a long time throughout the Church ("always, in every place, by all men" St Lerins), a consensus within the Church, we believe that the Spirit is speaking through the entire Church on a particular belief. The Church identifies this belief among the faithful, one that existed "back to the apostles" and defines something, putting this belief into words and definitions for the faithful (the Church had LONG before believed that Mary assumed into heaven - their was a Church celebration of it in the liturgy back to the 400's at least - but it wasn't officially defined until 1950. The Spirit had already instilled within the Church's Holy Tradition the belief).
My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan
The bible doesn't seem to mention any sort of enmity between the two after the Garden event. Eve is never mentioned personally again in this regards. God appears to be talking about a particular person who will spring from Eve - the Church recognizes this as Mary in 150 AD in writings of St. Justin the Martyr, St. Irenaeus in 180 AD, and Tertullian in 200 AD.
Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she?
If only refering to Eve, why didn't God include Adam, since it was HIS sin that separated mankind from God??? Why would God refer to EVE, but not ADAM? The Jews and the Catholic Church see it refering to someone else.
In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.
Sorry, that is the NIV, not the Greek version. The NIV is notorious for such "paraphrases".
In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought
Brother, ALL prophesy works that way! Let's look at one we agree on. Isaiah 7:14. Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence? One for the immediate hearer and one for the future that points to the Messiah's and His mother? Prophesy is hidden with the literal sense or historical sense of the Scripture.
Regards
"Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence?"
Hey, I think I already said that! :-)
The passage in Genesis is certainly an example of that -- God is simultaneously speaking of both Eve and of the Theotokos in the one verse.
I was doing some reading about the book of Revelation, which the Orthodox Church treats in a way that is unique within its treatment of Scripture. The Wikpedia article had a short passage about the Eastern Orthodox view of that book that nicely encapsulated it and Orthodox readings of prophecies in general, pointing out that it didn't fit into any of the traditional interpretations that were mentioned earlier in the piece:
"Eastern Orthodoxy has an interpretation that does not fit well into any of the above classifications. It treats the text as simultaneously describing contemporaneous events and as prophecy of events to come, for which the contemporaneous events were a form of foreshadow."
"Co-anything" doesn't mean that this person was NECESSARY for anything. We go back to the cookie analogy again. Was the daughter necessary?
No, the daughter wasn't necessary, but this seems a unique way to use "Co-". I've always thought that in normal usage, that "Co-" did imply something necessary. Coeducational would not be so without both males and females. Co-pilots are necessary or else the airline would not pay for them. Co-authors share credit for a reason. Presumably Co-founders of a company all contributed to its creation. Where else does "Co-" mean something unnecessary?
Your wife is a co-creator, you are a co-redeemer when you bring others to Christ, and Mary is a co-mediatrix of grace - all because God loves us to participate in the divine nature (says Peter)
But haven't you argued that my wife was necessary to actually have the baby? That one appears to fit in with my other examples, although I do not happen to believe that either my wife or me were co-creators at all with the birth of our children. I believe that God is the exclusive creator, as I interpret from your favorite Psalm (139). :)
[You later say on "co-redemptive":] Think of yourself as the trusty sidekick going along for the ride. God is gracing you by sharing His life with us. He doesn't need us. You are confusing "necessity" with "sharing".
I sure do think of myself as going along for the ride, and I am so thankful to God for inviting me. But I am only an observer, I do nothing of myself, God is the only redeemer. What power or authority have I to co-redeem?
But let me throw it back to you. Are you saying then, that Mary is just going along for the ride? Is Mary totally unnecessary and just like the cookie daughter? Is God just blessing Mary by letting her participate as co-mediatrix, even though she really doesn't add anything of real value? The set-up is for Mary's benefit, just as it was for the cookie daughter?
However, for GOD, there is no "in advance"! All is NOW. God doesn't "elect" us without seeing already our response to His love. This is because it all occurs simultaneously.
How can you use "seeing already" with "simultaneously"? Does God pick the elect because they picked Him first, or do the elect pick God because He chose them first? To say that both happen simultaneously either implies a phenomenal stoke of luck, or I don't understand at all what that means. "Simultaneously" is a time-related word!
Clearly you would agree that there was a physical time when God existed and man did not, right? I think we can use real time for this. After all, for purposes of human understanding, don't you rely on "time" just as much as I do? You say that God exists in all time, and I am fine with that. What I'm asking is: What is the dependent variable? Who makes the first move? To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know.
FK: "(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)"
You got it. Thus, there are very poor Catholics who think that abortion is OK, despite the constant teaching to the contrary...
Then how do you have any confidence that the Bible is infallible? How do you know that none of the writers ever strayed even once from the guidance they received? Do you know because the Church tells you so? Did the writers of the Bible have free will, and just chose to act perfectly?
(the Church had LONG before believed that Mary assumed into heaven - their was a Church celebration of it in the liturgy back to the 400's at least - but it wasn't officially defined until 1950. The Spirit had already instilled within the Church's Holy Tradition the belief).
Is that now an infallible teaching? If so, then if I had said in 1949 that "Catholics believe that Mary was assumed", I would be on solid ground, even though it was not, in 1949, an infallible teaching?
[On Gen. 3:15 and whether "the woman" refers to Eve or Mary] FK: "Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she?"
If only referring to Eve, why didn't God include Adam, since it was HIS sin that separated mankind from God??? Why would God refer to EVE, but not ADAM?
I think it may have been because God also refers to her progeny. IOW, the rest of mankind for all time. To use my favorite word, it is easier to think of Eve as having "begotten" the rest of the human race. :) Besides, Adam was still standing in line and certainly did get his, when it was his turn. :)
The Jews and the Catholic Church see it referring to someone else.
The Jews of then or now? Why would the Jews care about Mary?
FK: "In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought."
Brother, ALL prophesy works that way! Let's look at one we agree on. Isaiah 7:14. Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence? One for the immediate hearer and one for the future that points to the Messiah's and His mother?
Want to hear something hilarious? The footnote in my Bible actually disagrees with you and says that the virgin referred to in 14 is actually another woman whom Isaiah would later take as his second wife! However, the Spirit does speak to me and leads me to agree with your interpretation that the virgin is actually Mary. :)
Double however, this does not get you off the hook. :) In your Isaiah example, the only change is in AUDIENCE. The audience may switch from present believers to future believers and then back again. I'm sure lots of prophecy does this. But, that is a world of difference from what your position is in Gen. 3. There, you are saying the SUBJECT magically changes in mid-thought.
At first, "the woman" meant Eve. Then God starts speaking to satan, and mentions "the woman" again. He is always speaking to satan here, but you make a switch with the SUBJECT of conversation. Now "woman" switches to Mary. Then, God begins speaking to "the woman" and it is back to Eve again. I think that's very different. And, Agrarian, I do remember your argument that 15 refers to both Eve and Mary. At least that's a little better. :)