I love the absurdity of cartoons such as Herman. It illustrates the absurdity of human perception and opinion in a very illustrative fashion.
Much of what you described is principally translation. Hermeneutics, however, is primarily interested in understanding what the writer/speaker is intending to communicate, vs the movement between two languages. We all believe the Greek/Hebrew translators are capable individuals (similar to the UN folks on headphones). We have the words right. Hermeneutics seeks to answer the question, "So what did the speaker/writer mean by that series of words/remarks?"
Translation is of utmost importance here. If you start with a faulty translation, you will inevitably end up with faulty conclusions. For instance, we know that St. Jerome's Vulgate was faulty and needed to be replaced, not his fault - he did the best he could at the time. We know that Martin Luther's Bible deliberately included faith 'alone'. We know that the King James Bible was politically influenced by the state religion of England. We know that the 'modern' and 'politically correct' versions of the Bible (including the gender neutral versions) are absolute crap and mislead those who would be Christian.
If hermeneutics are obvious, why did Jesus need to open up the Scriptures to the men? If it is the domain of higher human authority, how does one avoid the need to understand what THAT authority finally claims the Book says? For example, if the RCC claims that it can control what Matt. 16 is about, how does one know they have correctly understood what the RCC actually says it meant? At some point the individual must say, "This is what I think the authority said is meant". Such a claim is a very small distance from "This is what the Scriptures mean directly", and thus both have taken on a "personal interpretation". That is, wherever one believes the hermeneutical train departs the station, its last stop is the individual mind.
But I will still come back to the exhortations by the New Testament writers, especially St. Paul, that the interpretation of the Faith is from the Church, not the individual.
Unless one believes the RCC inhabits the individual mind, everyone has a "private interpretation" defined as "what I finally believe this/that is getting at." and for this reason, the "personal interpretation" argument seems weak/disingenuous.
I understand the Church to indicate that one's beliefs must align to the Church's interpretation. There is of course, latitude on many things, but the core beliefs of the Church are very well outlined in the Catechism.
I respect your opinion, although I ask you to consider anew whether it is actually taught by the Book. I cannot find it. But, we will stand and wait to see which view is correct...eventually, it will be apparent. Either way, I believe Jesus has captured your heart.
As I believe of you. Thank you. I do, however, believe that it is repeatedly taught by the Book - by Jesus and by the Apostles and NT writers.
I will serve up Matthew 28:18-20, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 4:18 et al as evidence.
And, tomorrow we may have a new President and hopefully a few more years for the Gospel to move through the world.
The Gospel will survive even such as Barack Obama. Suleiman the Great tried to crush Christian Europe and failed. It is in the face of adversity that Christian greatness has prevailed and gotten stronger. The re-election of the President does not set the cause of Christianity back; neither does it indicate its decline and eventual fall.
Jesus has told us what is to befall us and the world. Idiots (creatures of Him) will not foil Him.
Jesus has told us what is to befall us and the world. Idiots (creatures of Him) will not foil Him."
Oh, yes, absolutely. I was referring to Paul encouraging Timothy to pray for the kings and authority figures to permit them to lead a "...tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." Obama is certainly a part of God's overall plan and is well in His hands.
Your continued focus on translation still does not apprehend my remarks about the meaning of the phrases/sentences. For example, if Jesus said, "...But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." it makes little difference if the original was, "...But I say unto you, resist not him that is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek..." you still get the idea.
The hermeneutical challenge is, "What did Jesus mean by this remark in light of the remark Luke 22:36?" Here, the Catholic rendition runs into slippery territory. If the Bible is "flat" (encyclopedic) then the remark in Matt. is still as operative as the remark in Luke. Hermeneutical train wreck. Don't bother defending this, I have read the ice skating rink attempts by Catholics all over the internet. This is one of the problems facing the RCC focus on the Gospels.
However, if the Bible is much like a historical novel, with a plot moving and developing along a story line, then the question could be answered, "Well, read the rest of the story." Jesus was laying the Law upon the Jews as the One sent only to them UNTIL his people reject Him for excessive righteous interpretations of the Law. Then, as the cross draws near, Jesus is saying, "Things are changing fellas. Get ready for battle." The next day, at the crucifixion, we Gentiles are grafted in (Eph. 2) and now we watch for the signals from the resurrection/ascension onward.
This is a hermeneutical view v. encyclopedic view.
And, the Luther translation was to explain the intent of the text, "justified by faith a man without works of law". How would the "without" be understood if not "apart" or "alone" or "without any works of law" added? Even Benedict admitted this was a correct translation...he just wanted to define faith differently to accomodate the nasty reality.
And, Mark, Matt. 28:18 gives the authority to Jesus not your organization. Might I say, here is another overreach of Rome? And, Paul is remarking that the "truth" has been delivered once for all and will in the future get altered. Which group has added papalism, sacerdotalism, genuflecting, absolution, purgatory, indulgences, and a load of man-made "myths" to the story of "justified by faith without..."? And, the Apostles teaching is not that which contained any of the above. Can you find them in the Book?
Rome has reinstituted a "law" for salvation. That law is a subtle reminder that "it" is the repository of truth and salvation...not Jesus. If Rome really wanted people to trust Jesus, alone, why not just say that and be done? After all, I don't need you to join my group to be rescued. But, you need me to join yours for me to be rescued...at least according to John Paul. In his paperback interview he specifically says there is no salvation outside of Rome. Yet another "myth" not taught by the Apostles. So, where are the "ear ticklers"?