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.”
“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.”
The Holy Scriptures say they did. Why ask?
Earlier, I addressed the so-called traditions that didn’t show up for 200,300,500 or more years, and are then claimed to be equivalent to Holy Scripture. The passages you quote ARE Holy Scripture.
“Acts: 1:15-26 — tradition of Peter as the leader and the tradition of apostolic succession “
THIS is a subtitle. It isn’t in the text. Someone wrote it and added it. It is an opinion. That is an example of the subtitles you included that I said I could not agree with.
Never heard of it. Catholic writer?
Here are some academic facts for you since you haven't answered my querry about which church you attend.
What is the History of Your Church?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Who is Zuck?
Never heard of him.....is he a Catolic writer?
Did Peter know this? Because on the day of Pentecost, he was preaching to “Ye men of JUDEA”, “all ye that dwell at Jerusalem”, “Ye men of Israel” (Acts 2:14,22). The Jews. The Messianic Church of believers. Jews. The little flock. Of Israel. If you believe that the Catholic Church began with Christ breathing on the Apostles, etc. then you must believe that the Catholic Church is Israel. The Jews. But alas, the Jews, the nation of Israel, is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Which leaves you blinded and set aside.
Again, a silly argument.
Every Christian is connected to HIM immediately. God has no grandchildren, only children. If your security is that your church is older, you miss the point.
Every group of believers that assembles is directly connected to him. All who trust HIM are immediately placed into the Body of Christ, immediately are included in the Bride of Christ.
To make your argument that a church was founded in one year or the other is silly. Christ stands outside of time. We come to Him and His Gospel of Grace for salvation.
“The Catholic Church began with Christ breathing on the Apostles and giving them the Holy Spirit and the ability to forgive sins.”
I like Jerome’s response to this:
“The bishops and priests not understanding that passage, assume to themselves somewhat of the arrogance of the Pharisees, so far as to imagine that they may condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas with God, it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the guilty that is looked into. We read in Leviticus concerning the lepers, where they were commanded to show themselves to the priests, in order that if they had a leprosy, they might be made unclean by the priests : not that the priests made them lepers and unclean, but be cause they knew who were lepers and who were not, and could discover who were clean and who were unclean. In the same manner therefore as the priest there made a man clean or unclean, so here the bishop or priest either binds or loosens, not those who are innocent or guilty, but officially, when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened. — On the 16th chap, of Mat. vol. 6.
I’ll ask God for forgiveness, and I’ll be in good company:
Dan 9:17-21 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. (18) O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. (19) O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name. (20) And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; (21) Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
If Daniel can do it, I can too!
“......please read your Bible.”
I did. I found no Romanism in it.
"The manner is which you exegete a text if far different from orthodox Christianity. "
Actually, the way I exegete the text is exactly the same as Orthodox Christianity. They are HUGE disciples of the Fathers of the Church from whom we have the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth-century Christian homilies, exegetical essays, polemical writings, liturgical norms, poetry, hymnody and so forth, which together with the decress of synods and councils, are "the" sources of "big-T Tradition".
So if you add the Catholics and the Orthodox together, you have roughly 60% of the Christians in today's world. Go back, say, 600 years ago, we were more like 98% of the Christians in the world. (And the other 2% weren't non-denoms, either, they were mostly the the non-Calcedonian Orthodox.)
Now that's the "Old-Time Religion."
(Guitar chords G Maj, C Maj, D Maj) "It was good enough for Athanasius,
and it's good enough for me!"
:o)
“”It was good enough for Athanasius,
and it’s good enough for me!””
Athanasius on the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith:
“If then ye are the disciples of the Gospel, speak not unrighteousness against God, but walk in the things that are written. But if you will speak any-thing besides that which is written, why do you contend with us, who are determined neither to hear nor to speak any thing but that which is written? The Lord himself says, If ye continue in my word, ye are truly free.” — Concerning the Incarnation of Christ.
“For the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are of themselves sufficient for the discovery of divine truth.” — -Speech against the Gentiles.
Athanasius on the canon of the scriptures:
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and included in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical... The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.”— Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures.
Against Transubstantiation
“I saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning the eating of his body, and seeing many offended there by, he said, “Does this offend you, what if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life.” He spake both of the spirit and the flesh, and made a distinction between his spirit and flesh, that not only believing in what was visible to their eyes, but also in his invisible nature, they might learn that the things which he said were not carnal, but spiritual: for, for how many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? For this reason, therefore, he mentions the Son of man’s ascension into heaven that he might draw them from the corporeal sense, and that they might understand, that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly nourishment and spiritual food given to them from above. For the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. As if he had said, This my body which is shown to you and is given for the world, shall be given as food, so as to be imparted spiritually within each, and to become to each a safe guard against the resurrection of eternal life.” — Upon that passage of the Gospel, “ Whosoever shall say.”
If it’s good enough for Athanasius, it’s good enough for me!!
Oh, this is excellent, and illustrates exactly why Athanasius is such a champion of the Tradition.
He participated in the Council of Nicaea and vigorously defended the validity and authority of its doctrines: thus he was a defender of Sacred Tradition.
He was the author of the Athanasian Creed (Link), a basic statement of the Catholic faith (as he says in its first line)(tip'o'the hat to the Orthodox as well); he defended the Incarnation and the Trinity; thus he was a contributor to the Sacred Tradition.
And as Bishop of Alexandria, he had received his ordained ministry as a hierarchical successor to the Apostles by the Sacrament of Holy Orders; he officiated at the Sacred Liturgies of the Church; he ministered the Sacraments to his flock; he was in communion with the other Orthodox Patriarchs and protected by the Popes. In all these ways-- hierarchical, liturgical, sacramental, and ecclesiastical (including being in union with the the Bishop of Rome) he was a living link of the Sacred Tradition.
That somebody would say he was a proponent of "Sola Scriptura"--- in the Protestant sense--- shows a basic exegetical error in interpreting his writings.
Athanasius, as a teacher of the Catholic Faith, would accept no doctrine which was contrary to Scripture. To that, we all agree: that's his point. He is not saying there can be no Councils, no Creeds, no Popes, no developments of doctrine and worship which further extend and apply the truths of Scripture.
If that were the case, it would make nonsense of his entire life's work. As I illustrated above, Athanasius received, developed, defended, and lived this very same Tradition of which we speak: a Tradition which is at every point one with the truths of Scripture.
Thus, Athanasius' whole life tells us that Sola Traditio is inseparable from Sola Scriptura: in the Orthodox and Catholic sense that it there is no part of Tradition which is not derived from, or which is contradicted by, Scripture.
A "carnal" or "corporeal" body means a body that weighs, say, 150-220 pounds, that is composed of cells, tissues, organs, and systems, that maintains an internal temperature of 98-99o F., that carries out continuous cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic functions, etc.
Obviously the consecrated Elements of the Eucharist are not physiologically the same as a carnal body: Christ's, or anybody else's. (That's why Athanasius comments, "How many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world?" In other words, if this were just a matter of chowing down on Christ's mortal remains, it might have been food for maybe a couple dozen cannibals, but not for the millons who in fact receive Him.)
The Eucharistic Body of the Lord has none of the visible, tangible, or measurable characteristic of a physiological body. It is, nevertheless, Christ's true Body, as Athanasius says:
Thank you so much for giving me the pleasure of sharing this Sacred Tradition defended and lived so profoundly by the great Athanasius.
"You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected."
Athanasius of Alexandria -
"Sermon to the Newly Baptized" 373 A.D.
“as Athanasius says:”
Do you have any other quotes to support this one? The citation is properly read “Sermon to the Newly Baptized, in Eutyches”. The actual sermon itself is lost, and what we have of it, or don’t have of it, is taken from Eutyches at nearly 600AD.
At around that time, a LOT was going on! You say that Athanasius was in communion with the Pope. Can you tell me, which one?
The Pope at Alexandria, the Pope at Antioch, or the Pope at Rome? All three, according to Gregory the First, possessed the throne of Peter:
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
Ie, the Documentary Hypothesis.
wern't the Salem witch trials held by protestants in this country ??
Athanasius himself had the title of Pope, as the chief hierarch of Alexandria. There are a number of ancient Sees associated with that title, including Antioch, where Peter was once Bishop. He, Paul and others traveled around quite a bit. The head of the Coptic Church has that title to this day. Are you a Copt? Who's your Bishop?
I'll pick this up tomorrow. I've got to go to bed now. Goodnight, and God bless.
And yet you have substantial differences in interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history, even on papal power and infallibility, among many other things. Nor do all of Rome's teachings have unanimous consent of the "fathers," despite claims for it. But RC assurance rests upon the premise of Rome's assured infallibility, under which only her interpretation has real authority.
Nor is NT authority based upon formal descent.
When the RCC is able to create a human spirit independent from God, then they might make a case that they alone can be the arbiters of His Word once He has provided it.
Until then, He already has a system in place by which we can have fellowship with Him and it is through faith in Christ, not through faith in Peter first.
“Hi, Greetings, I had in mind particularly Pope Julius I,”
So not either of the two other Popes, in Antioch or Alexandria. I’m less concerned with the Coptic claims or Eastern Orthodox claims than I am with the evolution of Romanist “Tradition” over the centuries. The Primacy of Peter of Gregory is not the same primacy of Peter of Rome today. It is a very different worldview.
Review all the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement, all writing before the end of the first century or early into the second. You will not find one quote referencing the Papacy or the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. In fact, Ignatius, writing to Polycarp, called Polycarp’s head “God.” According to the Catechism, the Pope is the head of all the bishops and the church. None of these writers mention any higher position in the church than the Bishop, and the highest and, actually, the true authority is God. And whenever Peter is mentioned, he is mentioned alongside the other Apostles, with no hint or suggestion of his supremacy.
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.