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.”
“We do, as Paul commanded, “stand fast, and hold the traditions” -—capital-T “Traditions” -—which we have received from Apostolic teachings. E.g., the Nicene Creed, a capital-T Tradition which summarizes, interprets and applies the teachings we have from the Apostles.”
As has been shown in previous posts, quoting Augustine, Theodoret, and even a “Pope” of the Catholic Church (and I can bring to bare many others), it doesn’t appear that there is a 2,000 year long history of Roman tradition, capitalized or not. What we do have, however, is the unchanging scripture, and lots of people with very different opinions from the Romanists of today, even on the primacy of Rome from a Bishop of Rome!
Thus, the entire argument that follows from you is simply irrelevant. Its foundation does not exist. The Roman church is not the successor of anyone but their own innovations, which are everyday still innovating new things.
I’ll stick with scripture. It is, after all, useful for reproof, doctrine so that the man of God may be perfect. Your contradictory (T)raditions are not mentioned.
“Acts: 1:15-26 — tradition of Peter as the leader and the tradition of apostolic succession”
Acts 15 — tradition of James presiding over church-wide councils, hearing the discussion of the Apostles (including Peter, who gave an opinion contrary to what was accepted), and making the final decision which the church accepts.
“You seemed to put yourself on an even keel with Pope Francis with the words, “No sale, Francis.””
All Christians are actually on a superior level than Pope Francis. He’s still stuck on preaching a Gospel wherein man is told about what he must do for God, and where man venerates dead saints and Mary for their salvation instead of to God who gives the Holy Spirit freely to all those who ask; it is nothing more than idolatry and dead tradition . The real Gospel is about what God has done for us, by whose grace and works we produce fruit for His Holy purpose.
All Christians are Kings and Priests in the sight of God, who can march boldly into the Holy of Holies and petition God face to face. Not because we are holy, but because we have the imputed righteousness of the perfect Christ.
It's fascinating watching those who claim that their pocket version of Christianity (varying as the days wax and wane) is superior to those to whom Christ entrusted His Church. The Church was begun by Christ. Where was your church begun? After a long and significant look in the mirror?
If you would, examine the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed. If you get brave, examine the Athenasian Creed, which is the most definitive of all Christian creeds. Note the term 'communion of saints' and then think on your statement. Also think on your statement regarding the Gospel.
They include traditions which were made into doctrines, as were those which the Lord rebuked by Scripture, and which all must be subject to, as it is abundantly evidence to be the standard for obedience and testing/establishing truth claims.
And what you cannot prove was that the traditions referred to by Paul had not been written elsewhere or were not subsequently written as Scripture, but were strictly oral.
St. John the Evangelist says if it all were written down
The Word of God does include more than what is written, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but the problem is we can only know if something is the word of God by subjecting it to the only class of revelation that is the assured word of God, the Scriptures, as they alone are affirmed to be wholly inspired. And you will hard pressed to find many texts which refer to the word of God/the Lord that was not written, or would be.
Scripture calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth..."
The church of the living, not institutionalized. God that is, and despite RC attempts, the text does not state anything more than that the church supports the truth, not that a church based in Rome is the supreme authority above Scripture.
Jesus' warnings about pride did not mean that nobody should wear a robe...Scripture itself shows people bowing down to, even prostrating before...
But consistent with the "but I say unto you" teaching of the Lord, He warns against ostentatious religious clothing (which cardinals and popes exhibit), and an exalted-class attitude among brethren which prostrating obeisance shows, (Mt. 23:5-12) and accordingly the Holy Spirit explicitly reveals Peter as disallowing even a lost Gentile from bowing down to him. (Acts 10:25-26) And which you nowhere see btwn NT believers, while the language of Gal. 2., where it would be fitting, hardly supports the Roman adulation of its popes. If Peter refused such so much more lesser "popes."
Nor will you find even one example out of the multitudinous prayers in the Scriptures of any believer ever praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord (only pagans did so), or any insufficiency in Christ that warrants doing do. (Heb. 4:15-16; 10:19)
the Church is the people of God. That's what Catholics are taught.
That is misleading, as it teaches that "Church" refers to Catholicism, with Rome being the one true church to whom all must submit, and that evangelicals are not worthy to be properly called churches.
It doesn't mean they HAD TO have a wife. Paul himself repeatedly recommended remaining unmarried That is misleading, as he plainly did not teach pastors (which are never distinctively titled "priests") were to be celibate (save for convert priests). It is this negative you must prove, which is contrary to what Scripture teaches: ."blameless, the husband of one wife..For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1Tim. 3:2,5)
Paul likely was married, being a Pharisee, and a pastor could be celibate, and which sacrificial life has its virtues and advantages, but Scripturally (which Rome is not really subject to) you simply cannot require clerical celibacy (even if it is "only" church law), and which wrongly presumes all have that gift.
Wonderful text, which solitary example (unlike Acts 12:1,2) is used to support Rome’s Perpetuated Petrine papacy, but can you provide even one papal election which followed this (OT) means of election, that of casting lots, and which would help prevent the great secrecy and political maneuvering and intrigue thru which so many popes were elected, with up to 3 years absence and “unbroken succession” and confusion over who was pope.
Num 26:55 Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit.
Jarchi says, the names of the twelve tribes were written on twelve scrolls of parchment, and twelve borders or limits of land on twelve others, and they were mixed together in an urn, and the prince put his hand into it and took two scrolls; a scroll came up with the name of a tribe, and a scroll with a border or limit expressed on it; and the lot, he says, was by the Holy Ghost, for Eleazar, at the same time, was clothed with Urim and Thummim (s); so that the people were certain that the disposition and division of the land was of God;
(s) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Biccurim, c. 1. sect. 5. - Dr. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“It’s fascinating watching those who claim that their pocket version of Christianity (varying as the days wax and wane) is superior to those to whom Christ entrusted His Church.”
If you mean my Bible, it is too big for my pocket. But, I’ll glorify God, who chose me while I was yet a sinner:
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
1Pe 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (10) Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Rev 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
“Where was your church begun?”
On a hill where Christ and two thieves were crucified.
“If you would, examine the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed. If you get brave, examine the Athenasian Creed,”
After a long hard look in the mirror, you should examine the scripture as we are commanded.
Comic book? I gave you a resource, and you dismissed it. And your insults and suggestion of hate in my language is a typical democrat tactic, when you have nothing to stand on when history and facts argues against you. If you can't describe Catholic hermaneutics, and the differences when compared to that which I describe, you bring nothing but noise.
Torch of the Testimony, by J. Kennedy. That is our understanding of Christian history and hermaneutics combined. If you can't have an academic discussion, then perhaps it best not to say anything.
St Paul only had hope; who are you to have such certainty?
Where was your church begun?”
On a hill where Christ and two thieves were crucified.
Negative. It does not resemble the Church that Christ Created. The Catholic Church began there, true.
If you would, examine the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed. If you get brave, examine the Athenasian Creed,”
After a long hard look in the mirror, you should examine the scripture as we are commanded.
The purpose of the Creeds to ensure that individuals did not create their own version of Christianity. I see that their effect is only worthy on the true believers.
All practices in the Book of Acts, God inspired to be recorded in His Holy Word. Of course, I would disagree with the interpretation of the subtitles that are not inspired.
Well stated.
“For instance, just because the words “Incarnation” and “Trinity” don’t appear until a couple of centuries later, doesn’t mean that nobody believed in the Incarnation or the Trinity until, say, 325 AD.”
Both can be learned exactly as is from the Holy Scriptures today. The particular circumstances of heresy opposing the Church from within led to the issue being spelled out in 325ad.
“St Paul only had hope; who are you to have such certainty?”
Saint Paul had assurance; who are you to go against the word of God?
Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Rom 8:28-31 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
I’ll rest easy, knowing that my faith is counted for righteousness; that faith itself is the gift of God, revealed by His Spirit according to His grace and purpose determined before the foundation of the world.
“The Catholic Church began there, true.”
Indeed, too bad the Roman church isn’t the Catholic church. It just has Romanists in it, who don’t even hold the same beliefs as “Popes” like Gregory, or Bishops like Augustine, and many others, whom they claim as forebears.
...I’m getting the popcorn ready...This is promising to become THE Saturday night rumble. If you put up the “clapping audience” picture, I’m the one in the third row, center. I have my Bible ready, and the whole armour of God on. Now, let’s get ready to RUMBLE..:)
MarkBsnr,
Hey friend! Great to see you again. I miss not seeing your posts. Sometimes FR is a bigger place than we realize.
We do disagree at times, but I consider you a friend and a brother.
Here’s an example of one of those areas, where I think the position is not a good argument ...
“It’s fascinating watching those who claim that their pocket version of Christianity (varying as the days wax and wane) is superior to those to whom Christ entrusted His Church. The Church was begun by Christ. Where was your church begun? After a long and significant look in the mirror?”
God has no grandchildren. Only children. Every true believer is related directly to Him. Baptized by the Spirit into His Body, included as part of His Bride, included in the universal communion of the saints, immediately.
The believer who comes to Christ in a jungle or desert, who comes to entrust himself to Christ for salvation today, is part of His Church, though he is the first generation. Every true believer is the first generation. Where two or more are gathered for prayer and worship, His Body, His Bride, His Church is there. As such it ALL begins with HIM. It ALL ends with HIM. It’s ALL for His glory. EVERY church that is comprised of true believers was begins at the same time in history - directly attached to HIM.
Having said all that, it is great to see you :-)
Do enjoy that Michael Voris link I sent.
Now, some more of your particulars:
"I find “annulment for so many reasons after exchanging vows to be identical in practical terms to divorce/remarriage."
I see you don't have much experience with Marriage Tribunals. I go through it every year with each new batch our RCIA students (adult converts) who have got busted-up marriages in their pre-Catholic backgrounds, and have to get it all squared away before they can receive the Sacraments. It is HARD to go through with a Petition for Annulment. And it doesn't always work out. Often the Tribunal finds "for the Bond" --- meaning, they find that the first marriage WAS validly made, and therefore the civil divorce and the remarriage were NOT valid. And that is a painful situation: people are told they are objectively living in adultery, because their first marriage which they contracted before their conversion, really was a valid marriage.
A valid marriage vow is binding until the death of one of the spouses. 'Nuff said on that.
"Say what you will about what the Church believes, I don’t find it in the lives of the majority of the membership."
Here's a list of some of the stuff Paul found in the churches he planted: "discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder... they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain."
And on and on. Paul sure could rant on his churchpeople's shortcomings!
The point being: the Church always had problems, major problems, with people not holding onto and living the truth.
Yet we are called and empowered to do better, all of us. As just one example the Catechism says this about homosexuals:
#2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.That applies to any sin. Including yours and mine.
"Evangelicals that are true to His Word do not [accept the prevailing cultural rot on sex.]
Of course not, Neither do Catholics who are true to His word.
"Admittedly, you can probably find some members of every church that accept the cultural norms."
Exactly.
“Find me another Church with clear-cut doctrines against human embryo experimentation and manipulation; against alternative reproductive technologies; against euthanasia and the intentional programming of death.” "Sure. BUT, show me a membership that actually lives out that teaching."
Read the Lives of the Saints. Or come to my parish!!!
"Now, please realize I am not JUST saying this about the Roman Church. I would say the identical things about ANY Church, if they are true but you are asking specifically about the Roman Church."
< Yup.
OK, back to the raised beds! In with the onions! Peas be with you!
Then do you agree that these practices happened after the Resurrection and more after the Ascension and even more after the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles — all of which took place in the century of Christ?
Resurrection to Pentecost — 50 days — that’s hardly the year 300.
I don’t believe I quoted any subtitles. ??Why do you even mention it?
I too have (smaller these days) raised beds. It makes gardening so much easier. I haven’t begun working on them yet this Spring.
“A valid marriage vow is binding until the death of one of the spouses. “
Except God and Christ, said, except for illicit sex, which allows divorce. By the way, there are actually Christians who believe you get ONE marriage. Even death doesn’t set you free. You can never remarry.
I agree there will always be problems in churches (I was in the ministry), but the church as a whole should be growing as disciples, meaning adhering to the teaching and growing in grace. When it isn’t - in large numbers - I asked what value the teaching was having. None apparently, or little.
Happy gardening.
The Catholic Church began with Christ breathing on the Apostles and giving them the Holy Spirit and the ability to forgive sins. They were the first Bishops.......please read your Bible.
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.