Posted on 04/25/2007 4:41:04 PM PDT by NYer
Cites Example of Origen
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Prayerful reading of Scripture, and the consequent reform of life, is the secret to the constant renewal of the Church, Benedict XVI says.
The Pope affirmed that today when speaking of Origen of Alexandria at the general audience in St. Peter's Square. He continued with his series of catechesis on early Church Fathers.
Origen, "true teacher … brilliant theologian … exemplary witness of the doctrine he taught … the most prolific author of the first three Christian centuries," brought about an "irreversible turn in Christian thought," the Holy Father said.
"He grounded theology in the explanations of the Scriptures; or we could also say that his theology is the perfect symbiosis between theology and exegesis," the Pontiff explained.
He added: "The characterizing mark of Origen's doctrine seems to reside in his incessant invitation to pass from the letter to the spirit of the Scriptures, to progress in the knowledge of God.
"We can say, therefore, that the central nucleus of Origen's immense literary works consists in his 'three-pronged reading' of the Bible."
Three prongs
Benedict XVI explained Origen's methodology in studying sacred Scripture.
"To know what is actually written and to know what this text wanted to say intentionally and initially," was Origen's first step, the Pope said.
He explained how Origen used a system of columns to evaluate all the possible meanings of the original biblical language. For example, in the first column, he would put the Hebrew original. And in five parallel columns, Origen would do a transliteration and four different translations into Greek. He thus tried "to know exactly what is written," the Holy Father explained.
The second prong was reading Scripture along with its most famous commentaries. "He proceeds almost verse by verse, probing amply and deeply, with philological and doctrinal notes," the Pope added.
Finally, Benedict XVI continued: "Origen dedicated himself a great deal to the preaching of the Bible, adapting himself to varied audiences. In any case, as we see in his Homilies, the teacher, dedicated to systematic interpretation of verses, breaks them down into smaller verses.
"Origen takes every opportunity to mention the various senses of sacred Scripture that help or express a way of growth in faith: There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading; the second dimension is the 'moral' sense: what we must do as we live the Word; and in the end we have the 'spiritual' sense, the unity of Scripture in its diversity."
Multidimensional
Benedict XVI said that he followed a similar process in his recently released book.
"I tried somewhat, in my book 'Jesus of Nazareth,' to show the multiple dimensions of the Word in today's world, of sacred Scripture, that must first of all be respected in the historical sense," he said. "But this sense brings us toward Christ, in the light of the Holy Spirit, and shows us the way, how to live."
The Pope invited the faithful to follow Origen's example: "I invite you to welcome the teachings of this great teacher of the faith into your hearts.
"He reminds us that in the prayerful reading of Scripture and in a coherent way of life, the Church is renewed and rejuvenated."
You claim that the Bible is “written plainly for all men” and that there is no need for commentaries on it. If that is the case, why are there so many different Protestant denominations that argue over various interpretations? examples: rapture vs. no rapture, pre-millenium vs. post-millenium, necessity of baptism for salvation vs. baptism as a sign or seal, belief in the Trinity vs. no belief in the Trinity, etc. etc. There are over 33,000 different denominations today, usually started when a person or group disagrees with an interpretation of Scripture and leaves one church to start another. Jesus does not want this, as we can clearly see from these verses in the 17th Chapter of St. John where He prays 5 times “that they all may be one”:
“11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”
Your argument that Protestants can read the Bible and interpret it for themselves is laughable. 33,000 different interpretations of the same thing cannot all be correct. And yes, the interpretation of Scripture made by the Catholic Church is the correct one, having been the same for 2,000 years.
In addition, Protestants do not even believe certain passages of the Bible such as:
Matthew 16:17-19
John 6
I Corinthians 11: 23-29
When asked about the meaning or interpretation of these passages, Protestants will say that “Jesus didn’t really mean that” or “He was speaking figuratively” or “it doesn’t really mean what it says.” That sounds like “interpretation” to me! It is certainly not taking the words literally and at face value, but putting spin on it, and believing (or not believing) whatever you want it to mean. If you REALLY believe that Scripture is the revealed word of God, you would believe Jesus when He said: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51 and “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53-54 If you REALLY believed Jesus, you would believe that the wafer and wine at Holy Communion become Jesus’ body and blood, as the Catholic Church does, because Jesus said, “This is my body” Luke 22:19 and “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:20. But you DON’T believe Holy Scripture. You don’t believe the words mean what they say and you want to put your own interpretation to them. And then you have the nerve to criticize the Catholic Church for taking Jesus’ words literally! What you are saying is “I don’t like those verses, and I don’t like the fact that the Catholic Church takes them literally, so I’ll just argue with the Catholic Church and that way I won’t have to believe what Scripture actually says.”
You also said: “I guess those false idols (er... statues of saints), the esteemed goddess (er... Mary), and the many assorted other items, practices, and superstitions were instituted by God.” How do you know they weren’t? Were you there when the Church was started 2,000 years ago? You might be interested to know that the tombs of the early Christians were decorated with pictures of the martyrs and that the martyrs’ bones were venerated as items of holiness. These facts can be confirmed by reading the writings of the early Christians - the Early Church fathers (”bishops” not “elders”).
As far as the commentaries that Origen read, even St. Peter made a commentary on what is now Scripture when he said: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16. The Early Fathers’ letters were commentaries on Scripture, either Old Testament, or what is now New Testament. Just because these writings had not been made a part of the Canon didn’t mean they weren’t out there and being read and commented on from the beginning.
And by the way, the word “pope” is derived from “papa.” How is that arrogant? The Pope is our Holy Father. He is our leader. It is not arrogant. Once again, you as a Protestant you do not believe Jesus or Holy Scripture: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19 Once again, the Catholic Church interprets this passage literally and Protestants say “Jesus doesn’t really mean it.”
Protestants make a lot of noise about believing “Scripture Alone” except they don’t even believe all of it. During the “reformation” Protestants even went so far as to take out books of the Bible because the books supported practices they wanted to suppress (i.e., praying for the dead as found in 2 Maccabees), and Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of Scripture because he thought it should be there. If he and other Protestants had truly believed that Scripture was the inspired Word of God, they would have never dared to add or subtract from it. This just proves the point that Protestants believe in “Scripture Alone” only when it serves their purposes and when it doesn’t, they change it.
Food for thought for "the Bible sez....." crowd.
And I am curious to know where this idea came up that Constantine “paganized” the Church. It’s pure and simple fabrication, and a monstrous calumny.
What historical evidence from the time can you give me to back up that claim? What author? Eusebius? Sozomen? Socrates Scholasticus?
I think my friend, you will find no such thing is *ever* reported in the ancient historians...some of whom actually knew Constantine personally...and that whichever modern historians you have consulted made it up out of whole cloth.
First, your source is suspect. It's a rabidly papal web site with an agenda.
Second, even if there's a record of this, just because something is old doesn't make it true. We've seen countless, ancient, intentional frauds. And modern frauds are penned daily.
Sorry, not convinced.
Wow! So many mistaken ideas and speculation, where does one begin! I got it, nowhere.
LOL and your sources are safe. Sounds like someone has spent too much time cuddling with his Boettner for his own good.
I never said that Constantine “paganized” the Church. I said that after Constantine “embraced” Christianity the church at Rome became vogue, gained political influence, and then became paganized.
I guess I just don’t have enough high falutin’ training (indoctrination?) to get your joke.
So when did the paganism happen then? Can you give me a century, or was it just a gradual thing?
And how did it become pagan? What changed?
Try this website instead, I’m pretty sure the guy that runs it is not Catholic:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
This is no fraud. It is not modern agenda. This is a real, live author from the 2nd century whose treatise against heresy has been preserved for over 1800 years.
And to your point that “just because something is old doesn’t make it true.” You’re right. BUT the theory that I think you are offering here says that the Church of Rome was corrupted with all the papal trappings after the time of Constantine, and that before that time Christianity knew no such thing. But it is clear, not only from Irenaeus but also other authors like Ignatius of Antioch that the Church of Rome *did* enjoy pre-eminent authority in the Christian world way before Constantine was even born. And if that’s the case, there’s no way you can say that Rome was corrupted: it believes now what it has always believed.
So yes, Irenaeus may have been wrong. But can you find me any early writer who disproves him?
Don't have the time to give you all the details. Chide away, I deserve it.
What changed?
An honest reading of Acts and the Epistles demonstrates that many churches are far from the Christianity of the Bible. I've picked on the RCC here because of the topic of the thread, but it's not alone. The fact is that as soon as someone writes a book of doctrine to "explain" Scripture, error is introduced. Subsequent tomes have to be produced to expand, expound, and explain. All the while the road taken diverges from the "highway to heaven". The RCC has been at it for a long time, so it is rich with non-Scriptural targets. However, one will observe the exact same phenomenom in the Anglican/Episcopal church, the many and various "holy roller" churches, and others.
It's best to leave God's Word alone. Adding creeds and catechisms, while surely well intentioned, only leads away from God's Revelation to man.
...and how would you characterize your post #8?
That's funny, because the Bible says that there are things in Paul's letters which are "hard to understand," which the "ignorant and unstable" twist, "as they do the other Scriptures". [2 Pt 3:15-16]
Christians have been doing that since the beginning. I guess you don't view the Holy Spirit as living and active in preserving Christ's church from error, which is another way in which your views diverge from Scripture.
BTW, you realize that you just disqualified yourself from ever commenting on Scripture, don't you? After all, someone writing an Internet post to explain Scripture is just as subject to error.
No chiding necessary, none of us have time to give a dissertation here. But I'll just ask you to keep that question in mind--what became pagan and how--and read about it in greater depth some other time when you get a chance.
An honest reading of Acts and the Epistles demonstrates that many churches are far from the Christianity of the Bible.
Well, we differ on what an honest reading is. I read Acts and I see bishops, I see sacraments. And I'm not sure that that debate gets us very far (it hasn't for the last 500 years).
So that's why I'm taking this discusson outside the New Testament and into history. Namely...the idea out there is that Rome used to be an "Acts church", but that it gradually changed and paganized until it became the RCC today. That theory carries with it a historical assumption--namely, that Rome at some point changed what it believed from an essentially Evangelical/Scriptural position to a Catholic/pagan position--usually around the time of Constantine.
It's that historical assumption that I am challenging. Because when you look through the historical sources from that entire era (A.D. 30-A.D. 600), you really don't see any fundamental change. You see Christian writers all the way back to the 100s and 200s talking about the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. You see writers saying that it is *imperative* that Christians stay in union with their bishops, and that all the bishops stay in union with the Bishop of Rome.
So I don't understand where all this talk comes from of Rome being "corrupted" when it was saying the same things in A.D. 600 as it was in A.D. 100 or 200.
I don't see where he encourages them to do anything but grow in their knowledge - perhaps to be less untaught and unstable. Also, I don't see where he directed them to lean on the understanding of non-Inspired writers, quite the contrary.
Boettner wrote a book called “History of the Roman Church” or something like that. A very anti-Catholic work and most of it is rather disreputable. It is no longer considered the seminal work it once was, its been pretty much debunked. You do see it raise its ugly head in certain circles. Not your apparently, and that is a good thing.
There is no guarantee that man will not enter into error. However the Church of Christ (not of man) is perfect.
you realize that you just disqualified yourself from ever commenting on Scripture, don't you? After all, someone writing an Internet post to explain Scripture is just as subject to error.
I can comment all I like. I agree that anything anyone proposes ought to be checked against Scripture. I am no exception.
Wow! Had heard this before, but it is interesting to see it on FR.
Wow. New Pope acting like a wannabee protestant. :-)
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.