Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex; Gamecock; blue-duncan; Mad Dawg; Forest Keeper; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
Indeed, some sayings of Chirst are allegorical, while some are not. When in doubt which is which, ask the Catholic Church.

Why?

You are obviously well read and intelligent. I can see the value of discussion and fellowship when trying to understand Scripture, but why give your God given ability of discernment to someone else?

11,973 posted on 03/25/2007 9:31:52 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11779 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights; Gamecock; blue-duncan; Mad Dawg; Forest Keeper; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
why give your God given ability of discernment to someone else?

The general rul eis that it is the Catholic (also Orthodox) Church that teaches about Christ. For some parts of that teaching the Church gave us the scripture. for other parts the Church gave us bishops and doctors of the Church. It is all good to read the scripture, but if the reading leads one away form the Church, it is not the Church's faul and it is not the scripture's faul, -- somethign is wrong with the man doing the reading.

In 11766 I gave a detailed analysis why in the disputation on the Eucharist in John 6 the eating of bread and drinking of blood of Christ is not an allegory. I don't think anyone will disagree that "I am the gate" is allegorical. In both cases a clear reasoning from scripture alone is sufficient. When someone disagrees with the Catholic explanation of John 6, he does so not because John 6 does not say so, but because of some other considerations, -- for example, that allegorical imagery is used elsewhere, or because he doesn't think that sacraments can be salvific in general, or because cannibalism would not be acceptable to Jews, etc. In other words, he who sees the discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 allegorically does so not because of John 6 as text, but because of some interpretation he prefers over the literal reading.

Something similar happens with James 2: one disagrees with the role of good works in salvation despite the plain text of James 2:24 not because anything in that text, but because he has an interpretation that he prefers over the literal reading. He would typically expand what St. Paul says about circumcision or works of social reward into a generalized concept of "sola fide" and then minimize what St. James says about works. I read, he interprets.

The Catholic reading is the literal reading, both when we see an allegory and when we see plain commandment or plain doctrine.

It is possible that other cases exist where there is no single literal reading that prevails over some other. For example, much in Catholic mariology is not based on anything read literally in the scripture. It becomes very important then to simply do what the Church asks you to, as the Holy Spirit Who leads her will also lead you.

12,076 posted on 03/26/2007 3:58:49 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11973 | View Replies ]

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