Posted on 02/19/2012 7:10:38 PM PST by RnMomof7
Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?
Rome insists that she is an authentic interpreter of Scripture. We can easily provide an example, within a document defining a dogma, of Rome making a clear blunder. But let's leave that aside for a second, and consider the effect of Rome's claims on a conversation.
Christian: We should reject Marian devotion because the Bible teaches us to trust in God alone. Roman apologist: You have wrongly interpreted the Bible. Only Rome can authentically interpret the Bible. Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood. Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others. Roman Apologist: No, you cannot understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic church. Christian: That's not so. Roman Apologist: Look, it says so right here in Matthew 16:18.
Pause
Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion. But behind that appearance lies a question about what this Roman hermeneutic entails.
1) Is it like special decoder glasses?
Is the Bible simply incomprehensible on its own, and one needs the Roman church to provide spectacles to make the incomprehensible, comprehensible? If that were true, then it would make no sense to appeal to Scripture to anyone not already looking through the spectacles.
2) Is it like the answer key to a Rubik's cube?
Is the Bible simply highly complicated, and one needs the Roman church to show the map of the way through to get the solution? If this were the case, the appeal to Scripture might make sense. This is just the first breadcrumb along a trail that eventually leads to Rome. In fact, though, all of Rome's attempts to prove her distinctive doctrines from Scripture fail. When you get an answer key to a Rubik's cube, you can see the parts all come together to form the solved puzzle, even if you couldn't have done it on your own. But with Rome, you don't get satisfactory answers like that. You get alleged solutions, but even knowing the supposed solutions, one cannot arrive at these solutions from Scripture.
3) Is it like the person who showed you how to look at "Magic Eye" 3D pictures?
Sure, at first it was just a weird bunch of lines and patterns, but once you were taught how to change your focus, suddenly the beautiful stereoscopic patterns emerged. Some of Rome's converts stories make it sound like they feel Rome's hermeneutic is similar to this. The two problems are - first, they don't seem to be able to teach us how to see the butterfly amidst the squiggly lines - and second, until we see the butterfly, appeals to Scripture are just appeals to squiggle lines, and consequently futile.
4) Is it like Humpty Dumpty?
In Alice Through the Looking Glass, she encounters the character Humpty Dumpty who insists on making words mean what he wants them to mean, even when that meaning is quite distant from any conventional sense of the word. Some of the arguments from the Roman side favor this interpretation. After all, some Roman apologists try to approach the Bible as though it were the creation of the Church, rather than being God's word delivered to the churches (and CCC 111 and 113 seem to encourage them to take this approach). If the Bible were the product of the Church, then the authorial intent behind the words becomes important, and we need to let Humpty Dumpty use words like "only mediator" in a far from conventional sense. One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance. Matthew 16:18 might as well teach the papacy as it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary, so long as Rome says that is what it means. The fact that we don't see it in the actual meaning of the words doesn't matter.
Ultimately, no matter what we liken the Roman hermeneutic to, we should realize that the Roman hermeneutic boils down to sola ecclesia: what Rome says goes. If the Bible appears to say the same thing, and that convinces someone that Rome is right - great. If the Bible appears to say the opposite, the Bible's apparent meaning should be subordinated to what Rome teaches.
But if that's Rome's hermeneutic, then the appeals to Scripture as an authority are really disingenuous. Honest Roman apologists shouldn't argue that we should believe them because (to use their lingo) we interpret the Bible the same way they do. After all, when we interpret the Bible differently, we're supposed to just set that aside, no matter how clear the Bible is.
Yet, I welcome comments from Roman apologists, clergy, and even laity. To what do you liken the Roman hermeneutic, and to what shall I compare it? And when you try to quote the Bible to me, do you think I'm just unaware that your church teaches that "all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God" (CCC 119, quoting Dei Verbum 12, 3rd paragraph)?
-TurretinFan
P.S. Oh, and by the way - the alternative is that the Bible is the very word of God, and that God made it clear enough to serve as a rule of faith and life for his church. Not all parts are equally clear, however, and sin blinds the minds of some men so that even the most clear parts become dull. Nevertheless, core doctrines (like the contents of the Apostles' creed, for example) are plainly and unmistakeably set forth in the Scriptures, without the need for any special glasses, tricky eye techniques, or authoritative lexicography.
CC
Come to think of it, just about every protestant denomination requires you to be baptised as well. It appears to me that you just as much to disagree about with your fellow protestants as you do with the Catholic Church.
"They can’t hear me. How do you propose that they can hear me while in heaven? How do you propose that one saint can hear the millions of prayers from Catholics across the globe all happening at the same time? Do the angels deliver the prayers one by one? How many angels and how much time do you suppose that requires? Even if Heaven exists outside of space and time, and so timing has no meaning... certainly, even in heaven, they would be quite busy."
No offense meant, but I find this part of your post quite ludicrous. This is a akin to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Those glorified in heaven don't face the limits a physical being on earth. You worldview has no correlation whatsoever to that of the saints. The angels don't have to commute back and forth from heaven carrying prayers one at a time. They don't get tired. It doesn't keep them busy. Our fallen perspective is nothing compared to that of the glorified saints.
You make a few other points which I'll address later, if I have time.
Sure you will. You posted to this thread, so you have a dog in the fight. And, you still cannot read the text. Thommas said the text does not say the assembly that Christ was going to "build" was Peter. You smeared the edges to make it come out right, a common malady of the RCCs. They need all kinds of props...other than Jesus. The believers in Christ don't need Rome's trappings. I surely hope you are a brother in Christ, but that trust in Rome is what we are trying to disabused you of.
Problem is; that deposit of faith wasn't deposited by God...You can't mangle, twist and pervert the scriptures like your religion does and convince or dupe born again bible believing Christians into believing that the Holy Spirit has anything to do with your religion...Other than to condemn it...
It's pretty good hype tho for those who don't and never will darken the pages of God's Holy word, the Scriptures...
I doubt that...How can you understand the game when it's clear that you never even read the instructions...
Scripture is very clear that Jesus established a Church with binding authority and that it's heirarchical in nature. Nowhere does it state that the apostles were to put together a how-to manual for future generations. I understand the need of some folks to debate which is the true Church Christ established. But to claim that he didn't establish a Church with authority is simply not scriptural. And Paul tells Timothy (1 Tm 3:15) that the Church (not scripture alone) is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth."
If you bother to diagram that sentence, it's clear that God is the pillar and ground of the truth...
But no, scripture is clear that the 'church' is a called out local assembly of believers...If you study the word church in the scriptures, it will remove all doubt from an honest person...
BTW: Good to see you back!
As a former sola scriptura Christian, I respectfully disagree. There is much that has to be taken loosely or ignored entirely. Real Presence, confession, anointing of the sick, and forbidding remarriage are just a few that come to mind.
Go in peace, My brother in Christ
Sounds like good advice :) I wish peace to all on this thread as well. The Lord prayed that we'd all be one. May it one day be so.
I really have no desire to enter this fever swamp but your claim is untrue. Completely and utterly false. See for example:
http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.shtml#s
I tend towards the Humpty-Dumpty explanation as well.
1 Peter 2:1-8
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the wordthe catechism, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the LordPeter.
As Living Stones
4 And coming to Himme, Peter as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrificessacraments acceptable to God through Jesus ChristMary, Queen of Heaven. 6 For this is contained in Scriptureoral traditions:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIMPETER WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone and his name is Peter,”
8 and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the wordRome, and to this doom they were also appointed.
"Few Americans hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church." --Bishop Fulton Sheen.
You've been shown many times on this forum that what you think of the Church and what the Church actually is are two entirely different things. I have no interest in mixing it up with you today. I'll simply note that you are wrong...
“Come to think of it, just about every protestant denomination requires you to be baptised as well. It appears to me that you just as much to disagree about with your fellow protestants as you do with the Catholic Church.”
It is you who is ignorant here. To be baptized is not a necessary requirement for salvation, and it is not preached anywhere that I know that it is required for salvation. For Catholics, if you are not baptized, even a young child, you go to limbo. Even if you are baptized, you can still wind up in purgatory to burn away your sins that Jesus, apparently, did not handle on His own. If you do not go to mass, you are also in danger of a mortal sin. But if you wear a brown scapular, or if you do this or do that, or if you say a hail mary... well, only good things can happen, right?
But Christ does not require it.
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
“No offense meant, but I find this part of your post quite ludicrous. This is a akin to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Those glorified in heaven don’t face the limits a physical being on earth. You worldview has no correlation whatsoever to that of the saints. The angels don’t have to commute back and forth from heaven carrying prayers one at a time. They don’t get tired. It doesn’t keep them busy. Our fallen perspective is nothing compared to that of the glorified saints.
You make a few other points which I’ll address later, if I have time.”
Only God is omnipresent, and omniscient. A human soul does not possess these abilities, even in an exalted state, but you assume that they do in order to satisfy Roman tradition.
This thread has helped me make a decision. I was considering whether to donate to FR. After reading the bigotry here and on other threads, I’ve decided not to. I’m all for good-willed discussion. But threads like this are intended to promote bigotry. It isn’t just hatred toward Catholics. The same sentiments are expressed toward LDS and muslims on other threads. A site that condones bigotry isn’t one I’m comfortable donating to. Or wasting more time reading. Oh well ... back to your regularly scheduled Catholic bashing.
Apollo5600, “It is you who is ignorant here.”
My rebuttal is quite simple. You and I are here debating this topic, each trying to convince the other of the other’s error. Certainly you are not saying that a true believer can never be in error about proper interpretation, are you? In fact, I would guess that you would even concede that all of us have an imperfect understanding of Scripture at times. Jesus, on the other hand, never had such an imperfect understanding. While we might without full understanding yet reap the benefits of our Lords perfection and sacrifice, that does NOT mean that we ourselves are perfect interpreters.
So a true believer never errors?
That’s silly. I assume you realize that the “Word” that you reference is not limited to the words of the Bible. Rather it is the English translation of the Greek logos. See the beginning of johns gospel. If you really believe he was only referring to the Bible when he referred to the Word/logos, that is a pitifully cramped and misleading interpretation.
God the Holy Spirit never errors.
Choose to accept Him through faith in Christ or not.
It’s a simple question that you can’t answer truthfully without compromising your deeply cherished beliefs. People go to great lengths with wild contorted explanations for something that should be (and is) pretty simple. God never intended for salvation to be beyond the understanding or reach of any human being.
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.