Again and again. Who has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible?. No one.Adam Blauser has provided a thorough response, namely:
Again and again, why does Roman Catholicism pull out the arguments of Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish, when postmodernism destroys Roman Catholicism too? What is the assumption behind this statement: that the only thing that factors into the interpretation of a text is the interpreter. If I allow for the author and his intention to play a role in interpretation, then it is easy to see who has the authority to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible-the authors of the Bible. Correct interpretation, then, is more of an ethical issue. The interpreter has an obligation to "not bear false witness" against the author of the text, and accurately represent what he is saying. If that is the case, then the issue of interpretation is actually an argument against Roman Catholicism, because, once you impose traditions upon the text, you are changing the world of the author, and thus, not accurately representing the world he has constructed accurately.
More than that, destroying the author as a reference point leads to total and complete postmodernism. For example, why do you accept Rome as the infallible interpreter of scripture and history? Eastern Orthodoxy also makes the same claim, as does Syrian Orthodoxy. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make the same claim. Before you go running off to history, let us also remember that these groups claim the right to infallibly interpret history too, just like Rome does. So, who has the authority to decide which group has the authority to infallibly interpret history and scripture? It becomes totally dependent upon which group you are a part of as to what the correct interpretation of both history and scripture is. Hence, it is relative to community. That is utter and complete postmodernism.
Not only that, but if you need an "infallible interpreter" to know which interpretations of a text are correct, then how do we know what the correct interpretations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Baal epic is? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is? Scholars disagree. The point is, there is no text upon which there is not disagreement as to the correct interpretation. However, where is the infallible magisterium of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Book of the Dead says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Baal epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Baal epic says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Gilgamesh Epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Epic of Gilgamesh says. Such results in utter destruction of all of our knowledge of what written texts say.
The real problem here is that the church is finite. Not only can other groups claim the authority to infallibly interpret both history and tradition, but, because of the finitude of all of these groups including Rome, the issue can never be settled. Not only that, Rome cannot explain why, in the instance of other texts, we can come to the correct interpretation despite differences of opinion. All of these things relate to the limited and finite nature of the church. I really wish Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would consider these things before they go making this argument again and again. A limited, finite church is a poor base for meaning in language.
36 comments:
I assume that the main argument is this:
"The Catholic Church doesn't have authority to determine which the correct interpretation of the Sacred Scripture is, because postmodernism affects her too."
And I respond:
Postmodernism affects everybody. But the Catholic Church has appropriate tools to face it:
First, it has the unanimous voice of the Tradition that constitutes a permanent testimony of fidelity to the apostolic message.
Second,the Church has an apostolic authority (the Magisterium) that avoids the individualism and the anarchy. The Catholic theologians cannot adulterate the Depositum Fidei according to their pleasure.
Third: The Church has the testimony of the Sacred Writing which teaches that: "The doors of the Hell won't prevail over the Church" Mt 16.18
On the other hand, Protestantism (in particular Calvinism) rejects the testimony of the Tradition when this doesn't coincide with their theories and inventions.Calvinism contradicts the patristic message and it assumes heretical doctrines like nestorianism, iconoclasm etc.Protestantism lacks any type of authority, (once anarchist, always anarchist). Finally, it has broken the evangelical message, reducing it to a doctrinal system called TULIP (hardcore reductionism).
The other argument you use:
"If that is the case(author/intention), then (it) is actually an argument against Roman Catholicism, because, once you impose traditions upon the text, you are changing the world of the author, and ..."
NOBODY imposes traditions upon the text. The text (which is the Bible) is part(the most sacred part) of the Tradition of the Church Catholic. So, it must be interpreted in correspondence with this Tradition. Otherwise both are adulterated and mutilated (Tradition and the Bible).
Hector
And finally:
"Not only that, but if you need an "infallible interpreter" to know which interpretations of a text are correct, then how do we know what the correct interpretations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are?"
The Egyptian Book of the Dead have no moral or spirutal authority in the Church Catholic. But the Bible does. And it demands to be understood correctly, because this is the Word of God. So your "argument" need to be revised.
Pax Hector
youI have answer to the questions with all honesty. (Please, correct me if it is not this way)
So, who will respond my simple question?, which is:
Who has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible?
RC,
hmmmmm?
Ok, now, would you answer my question?
thanks
Anon,
Your entire rebuttal is an exercise in missing the point. What I was arguing is not "The Catholic Church doesn't have authority to determine which the correct interpretation of the Sacred Scripture is, because postmodernism affects her too," but, rather, that traditionalist Roman Catholicism's arguments are built upon the presuppositions of postmodernism. Thus, it does *not* have the tools to deal with it, because its arguments presuppose it! They just simply refuse to take these arguments to their logical conclusion.
Some examples are found in your post. For example:
First, it has the unanimous voice of the Tradition that constitutes a permanent testimony of fidelity to the apostolic message.
The problem is that there are different interpretations of this tradition. For example, Raymond Brown, a Roman Catholic New Testament and Church History scholar, says that this position is naïve and has been refuted by both Catholic and Protestant scholars alike. The Greek Orthodox say that this unanimous tradition actually supports their church. The Mormons likewise have an interpretation of Church history that supports their church. You also have folks like William Webster, David King, Turretinfan, James White, et al., who have their interpretations of history. How do you know your interpretation of tradition is correct, when there are so many others with different interpretations of tradition all saying something different? Tradition has to be interpreted. You say that the Catholic interpretation is right. Now, will you please answer *my* question. Given that there are so many interpretations of tradition, how do you know that the traditionalist Roman Catholic interpretation of tradition is correct?
Second,the Church has an apostolic authority (the Magisterium) that avoids the individualism and the anarchy. The Catholic theologians cannot adulterate the Depositum Fidei according to their pleasure.
However, you still had to choose which magisterium you would submit to. Why not Syrian Orthodoxy? In fact, they argue that they are the ones upon whom Peter built the Rock, and they say that they can prove it, because they know that Peter went to Antioch. A whole lot of churches claim this magisterial authority that you are talking about. You have closed your eyes, randomly chosen the Roman Catholic Church, and I would like to know why, given that there are so many different interpretations of history that lead to so many different conclusions as to who the authoritative magisterium is.
Secondly, it is total slander to say that protestants interpret scripture “according to their pleasure.” We interpret it according to the intent of the author, and according to the world he creates in the text. And, yes, there are times when the text tells us we need to change in certain areas, and we go to great pains to do it. That is hardly “interpreting according to our pleasure.” It is only when you destroy the author as a factor in interpretation that you would even begin to come to this conclusion.
On the other hand, Protestantism (in particular Calvinism) rejects the testimony of the Tradition when this doesn't coincide with their theories and inventions.Calvinism contradicts the patristic message and it assumes heretical doctrines like nestorianism, iconoclasm etc.
Contradicts the patristic message according to whom? Teaches Nestorianism according to whose interpretation of what constitutes Nestorian teaching? Again, this is simply taking the argument back one step further. You demand that we, not only take into account the fathers, but that we interpret them in a way you deem as “accurate.” How can we, given that there are so many different interpretations of the writings of church history, both orthodox and heretical, decide that these things you have written here are true?
Protestantism lacks any type of authority, (once anarchist, always anarchist). Finally, it has broken the evangelical message, reducing it to a doctrinal system called TULIP (hardcore reductionism).
It only lacks authority if you kill the author of the text. However, once you do that, then no written document could ever have authority, because there will always be people who disagree on the interpretation of a written document. Things only turn into anarchy when people abandon the notion that God has spoken in a text, and that we need to “not bear false witness” against the author of the text in representing what he has said.
NOBODY imposes traditions upon the text. The text (which is the Bible) is part(the most sacred part) of the Tradition of the Church Catholic. So, it must be interpreted in correspondence with this Tradition. Otherwise both are adulterated and mutilated (Tradition and the Bible).
Hector, then why don’t we see any correspondence between the two, and, in fact, why do we see contradictions? If I am reading someone who is Chomskyian in his theory of language, I will see the marks of Noam Chomsky on his work. If I am reading someone who is Gricean or Neo-Gricean, I will see the marks of Paul Grice all over his work. If someone is a Darwinist, I will see the assumptions of Charles Darwin all over their work. Why is it we don’t see Roman Catholic assumptions when we read the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament? Worse than that, why do we see denials of things that are Roman Catholic such as the perpetual virginity in Matthew 1:25 and in the statements about the brothers of Jesus? If you want to go back to Jerome’s arguments, then why do even Roman Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown say that Jerome’s arguments have been soundly refuted by modern scholarship? The simple fact of the matter is that the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament are not Roman Catholic documents. They bear no resemblance to the distinctive teachings of Roman Catholicism in their view of reality.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead have no moral or spirutal authority in the Church Catholic. But the Bible does. And it demands to be understood correctly, because this is the Word of God. So your "argument" need to be revised.
Again, missing the whole point of the argument. The point is that there are disagreements as to the meaning of the Book of the Dead and yet we have used the principles of language and meaning to clear up these disagreements. The question is, if we can do that with the Egyptian Book of the Dead, why can’t we do it to clear up different interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament? My point is that differences of opinion do not mean that the correct answer cannot be known. Apparently, when you ask a classroom of second graders what 7+3 is, and you get seven different answers, there is no way to figure out what the answer to 7+3 is, given that there are so many different opinions about what the answer is. That is utter and complete postmodernism.
Who has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible?
Again, the author of the text has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible. He intends things with his language, and he presents a world, and a view of reality. Hence, the authority is in the intent of the author and the world he constructs in the text. That is really what annoys me about Roman Catholicism. The text speaks, intending things, and creating a world. Yet, Roman Catholics plug their ears and say, “I won’t listen, because people can misinterpret that intention,” and instead, they put their faith in a finite, limited church. I know that Rome has all kinds of idolatries such as the adoration of the host, and the exaltation of Mary, but it is this fundamental idolatry that leads to all other idolatries. It is the ignoring of the intention of God in his word, and the view of reality that he presents, and, instead, listening to what a limited, finite church says.
Worse than that, because the church is limited and finite, it cannot explain why it is that it should be listened to in the interpretation of tradition, and not some other church body. Thus, interpretation of both scripture and tradition becomes community relative, and thus, you have utter and complete postmodernism. Because of its finitude, the Roman Catholic Church does not have the tools to deal with postmodernism; in fact, because of its finitude, it is the very Benedict Arnold that will betray the traditionalist Roman Catholic into the hands of postmodernism. Why do you think that so many Roman Catholic priests around the world are universalists? Because of the very logic you are using, Hector. All of the sudden, things become relative to which community you are in, and no one can decide who has the authority to decide which community should have the authority to interpret history and tradition. Thus, everyone must be right in their own way.
If I as a Protestant begin with the personal triune God of the Bible, who has revealed to us in his word that he has created us in his image, then one can make sense out of why human beings can understand intentionality in language, including the Bible. God, as a triune being, communicates within the Godhead at all times. There is relation, intentionality, and the recognition of that intentionality. We are thus created with the very same attributes, not only relating to one another, but constantly relating to God either in rebellion or in submission. It is this reality that we then, under the authority of God, use to communicate with one another both in writing and in speech. Thus, we recognize when correct interpretation has occurred precisely because we are created in the image of God. Hence, the foundation of interpretation, from the Protestant view, is the nature and character of God who is infinite. The Protestant, therefore, has an infinite foundation for language that can make sense out of meaning in both written and spoken discourse. The Roman Catholic, because he relies upon the limited, finite church, however, is left with nothing more than individual communities, all with different interpretations of scripture and tradition, and no possible way to decide between them.
God Bless,
Adam
1. The RCC does have something in common with mormonism. A claimed infallible church authority that is supreme over Scripture. Both attack Sola Scriptura in order to teach unknown doctrines that were never taught or believed by Jesus and the apostles. Both claim to be the one true church and all else is heretical or not true churches.
2. Luther on the NT was in line with general catholic scholar in his time. There was debate some books such as James, Jude 2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews and Revelation. Luther was not alone on this but Roman Catholic scholars too. But you would never hold them to the same standard as Luther. Luther and others who had doubts on those books were in error. Present day Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on the NT Canon. Real debate is limited to the Old Testament Canon. On this Protestants are correct on and the RCC is dead wrong. Jerome should be listened to on this issue since this was his specialized area of study. His view fits the true history of what the OT Canon was of Jesus and the apostles.
3. Over 44 church fathers held that the Rock of Matthew 16:18 is Peter's confession of faith. Thus we find that Vatican I in 1870ad contradict the church fathers on that important passage. None held them in the exact same manner as present day Roman Catholicism.
4. There is likewise no such thing as papal infallibility. That was NEVER the universal belief of the entire church. That doctrine is rejected by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. We find claims of so called papal infallibility limited to some so called Popes in the RCC. Plus Eastern Orthodox never held or believed that the Pope was head of the entire church at all. Neither did the church fathers as a whole either. The case points of Liberious Bishop of Rome and the specific case of Honorious who was condemned for formal heresy by name by the 6th general council of the church. This area is a sad case of gross historical revisionism and dishonesty from Roman Catholicism on this point.
5. The RCC formed it's own sect when it split from the Eastern Church in 1054ad. Why should we listen to the claims of the RCC and disregard for Eastern Orthodox and others who claim themselves as being the only one true church ? The RCC claims itself authority yet can never prove itself. They basic thing is to attack the authority and supremacy of Scripture. This is a true marking of a cult.
"While Popes, and bishops are human, when they speak to define dogma, the Holy Spirit protects them from error. "
This is in not so many words a claim for them as being either prophets of God or apostles. Neither 2 Tim 3:16-18 or 2 Peter 1:21 has the Pope, or bishops or councils in view there at all. Claimed infallibility for the papacy or bishops acting as a whole or councils is refuted by history. Classic case point. 1 ) Honorious condemned for formal heresy by the 6th general council. 2) The Arian Church Councils which had more bishops than Nicea affirmed Arianism. You have no way to account for heresy in the visible church if we are to believe in what you claim . What Roman Catholics usually do is go in to denial mode whenever specific cases are brought up.
"So my question is, what makes your interpretation, your access to the truth infallible? "
So called infallibility there is not held by Protestants. You are using a strawman argument. Protestants deny their interpretations as being infallible. Makes me think you are very ignorant of what Protestants believe as far as their rule of faith is concerned. Neither tradition, Church councils, Bishops or Popes are infallible in teaching. These are all subject to the supremacy of Scripture.
"Martin Luther's man made tradition of sola scripture started 1500 years after the founding of the Church?"
Sola Scripture was a position held by many church fathers. This is a point in which the RCC departed from the church fathers on. For Protestant proof of this you can read Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith 3 volumes by David T. King and William Webster or the classic work Disputations On Holy Scripture by William Whitaker ( 1547-1595 ) .
" So, the argument is not that an infallible interpretation cannot come from a Church occupied by fallible men, but which Church? "
The RCC has not dogmatically or infallibily provided any interpretation of any verses of Scripture at all. If we are to take you serious than the teaching authority of the RCC has failed in it's claimed task on your exact point. We have no claimed infallible interpretation of every verse of Scripture being given to the people of God by the RCC !
Chafer,
a mind thinking, indeed! Just two things.
First, to the protection the Holy Spirit provides the popes. Hmmmmm? I thought it odd as well when I read that sentence, wondering afterwards why the Holy Spirit did not protect Peter from Paul who went after him and his fallible propensity to eat bacon for breakfast when locks and cream cheese was kosher?
As for those two books (King and Webster's and Whitaker's) I would add a third, the Bible itself.
One verse about sola scriptura that seems to me to be like Saul was, in a good sense, being head and shoulders over all those he was called upon by God and Samuel to rule over as their king when the world was being ruled that way, by kings, comes to mind to acknowledge in here, now.
Here's that verse that if one would take it and eat it it will be found to be just as sweet in the belly as in the mouth in this life and certainly in the next as that is the implication for all who eat it finding its' sweetness and "Light" for both:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Adam said: "The problem is that there are different interpretations of this tradition . For example, Raymond Brown..."
I respond: I won´t spend any time trying to refute heterodox theologians like Brown, Kung etc. There are sharpened scholars and apologists who have done that before. If you are interested I recomend you a good and documented review Dave Armstrong does in his blog about this father Brown: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-fr-raymond-brown-liberal-modernist.html
My point is: those guys(liberals) don't offer an "alternative" interpretation to the Catholic dogma, they just abandoned the fisherman's Ark with their theories. They were not officially excommunicated, but they were excommunicated Latae Sententiae.
Adam said: "The Mormons likewise have an interpretation of Church history that supports their church".
I respond: Mormonism is a protestant sect. What they teach about themselves doesn't have importance for me...to make an interpolation between their creeds and the Church´s is an absurd and disheveled idea.
Adam said:"How do you know your interpretation of tradition is correct, when there are so many others with different interpretations of tradition all saying something different?"
I respond: I know my interpretation of (T)radition is correct because the AUTHOR(Catholic Church) of this Tradition IS ALIVE, NOT DEAD , so if I want to know how to interpret that Tradition correctly I ask to its AUTHOR, not to revolutionaries born 16 centuries later . So , the living testimony and INTENTION of the AUTHOR is enough to prove its truthfulness.
Adam said: "... Given that there are so many interpretations of tradition, how do you know that the traditionalist Roman Catholic interpretation of tradition is correct?Now, will you please answer *my* question. "
I respond: I just did it
Adam said: "However, you still had to choose which magisterium you would submit to. Why not Syrian Orthodoxy?"
I respond: Because sirian magisterium fails in its catholicity. I will explain you later what CATHOLICITY means according to the testimony of the Tradition
Adam said: "You have closed your eyes, randomly chosen the Roman Catholic Church, and I would like to know why, given that there are so many different interpretations ".
I respond: I already explained why I accept Catholic Principle and reject the rest.
Adam said:"Secondly, it is total slander to say that protestants interpret scripture “according to their pleasure.”
I respond: I have not said that, but I agree totally.
Adam said:"We interpret it according to the intent of the author, and according to the world he creates in the text."
I respond: Of course you do.
I don´t uderstand why I can see some of my posts.
Hector
" Mormonism is a protestant sect."
Mormonism is not a protestant sect. Are you clueless on Protestantism ? Protestants who to the five Solas whereas Mormonism denies them. Mormonism does not embrace distinctive doctrinal beliefs that are Protestant. Mormons like the RCC hold to Sola Eccclesia since they like the RCC claims an infallible teaching authority.
Hi Adam,I have posted a few answers, but I don´t see those here, I don´t know why, anyway I assume you can get it if you search in "disqus mode".
Adam said: "Hector, then why don’t we see any correspondence between the two, and, in fact, why do we see contradictions?"
ME: I suppose that you don't see any correspondence because you are using the broken glasses. Because there were no contradictions between christians(East-West) in fundamental questions as: Sacraments, Mary, Images etc until 1516. So ask yourself why catholics and oriental christians coincide in general theology and piety, and you don´t. I see future intercommunion between us, but with protestants is too big the abyss.
Adam said:" Why is it we don’t see Roman Catholic assumptions when we read the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament?"
ME: I have already told you: change your glasses.
Adam said: "Worse than that, why do we see denials of things ...such as the perpetual virginity...?"
ME: You only see what you want to see. Until 1516 no one(except heretics, as usual),denied things ...such as the perpetual virginity, Mary Theotokos etc.
Adam said:"If you want to go back to Jerome’s arguments, then why do even Roman Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown say that Jerome’s arguments ..."
ME: I don´t need to reevaluate Jerome’s arguments in favor of heterodox scholars such as Raymond Brown, Hans Kung etc. Jerome’s arguments rises as witness of antiquity and catholicity. Saint Jerome is an authority in catholic dogma, father Brown is not.
God Bless you too
"Anonymous": I'm not sure if any of your posts are showing up here in Disqus. It's not really set up to tolerate anonymous comments.
In fact, even Küng hasn't been excommunicated. The CDF did put restrictions on his teaching credentials - he can't teach "Catholic theology," but that's it. The University that he taught for allowed him teach "Ecumenical Theology" instead (he's a professor emeritus these days - not sure how actively he's teaching). He remains a priest. More than that, unlike the blog author that our poor deluded friend linked to, Küng has received a private audience with the pope.
But the analogy is false because the CDF hasn't imposed the same restriction on Brown.
Who told Hector that Brown was heterodox? Certainly not the CDF, the pope, or any council of bishops 0f the Roman communion.
So, it becomes clear that Hector really does believe in using private judgment, he just pretends that private judgment is worthless when trying to discuss the Bible.
"So, it becomes clear that Hector really does believe in using private judgment, he just pretends that private judgment is worthless when trying to discuss the Bible."
TF you are exactly right on the money. I found much of his arguments to be circular reasoning too. One minute he is practicing Sola Ecclesia and then the next minute he is doing his own private judgement. Guess he think its alright for only Roman Catholics to do private judgement so long as it results in one turning to Roman Catholicism.
how could the "anonymous" did decision and said that the "RCC" is the only true interpreter and not chose eastern orthodox, syrian, mormon and jehovah witnesses as true interpreter while these make same claim.
who did tell to him ("the anonymous" romanist church participant") while others make same claim ?. maybe he (the anonymous) got more illumination than others ? :)
I wasn't aware that Kung hadn't been excommunicated. That is interesting.
So, it becomes clear that Hector really does believe in using private judgment, he just pretends that private judgment is worthless when trying to discuss the Bible.
Bingo. However, it is not really a matter of private judgment, since the author of the text remains, both in the case of the Bible and the church documents. You can go to the world the author constructs, and what the author is trying to do on the basis of that world, and use it as a reference point to judge which interpretation is correct. However, when you start using terms like "private judgment" acting as if this artifact of the author has not been preserved, you destroy meaning in language. Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish did that intentionally; the traditionalist Roman Catholic is unintentionally headed down the same road as they are, but they try to stop short of their conclusion, and yet remain consistent. It doesn't work that way. Destroy the author and make interpretation entirely dependent upon the interpreter, and meaning in language is utterly destroyed, and postmodernism is the result. That is why I said that this position is a Benedict Arnold that will hand them over to the postmodernism they so earnestly seek to avoid.
zablause said: "The problem is that Brown has not been excommunicated from the Catholic church as Kung has".
Boys, I have already told you, I don't pay a cent to argue against liberals who have not been formally excommunicated . Actually Pope Pius X has done that quite well:
“With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas”. Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907
zablause said:"According to whose interpretation of what constitutes grounds for excommunication Latae Sententiae? They say they can defend their interpretation of the Catholic documents as, for example, limiting the inerrancy of scripture to matters of salvation. Again, it is simply a matter of your own interpretation versus all of the rest. That is the very thing you are accusing us of!"
ME: No, it is not me against Brown, is Brown against the Pope(and against Tradition and Scriptures BTW) when he(Brown) questions the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith like Jesus' physical Resurrection etc. So, is not a matter of my “own interpretation”.
Actually Pius X declared in his Enciclical:
“Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, … in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be CONDEMNED and PROSCRIBED. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed (AS FOLLOWS):
36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.
37. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God. ”
zablause said:" You can go to the world the author constructs, and what the author is trying to do on the basis of that world, and use it as a reference point to judge which interpretation is correct. "
ME: Too dense, too rationalistic/modernist for my taste. I am a traditional catholic, your exegesis is alien to me. And I suspect that Pius X condemn that theory too:
Compare what zablause says and what modernists says:
"If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document". (12)
TF said: "Who told Hector that Brown was heterodox? ".
ME: A papal enciclical: LAMENTABILI SANE(SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS ) which condems those who belive that:
"The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts".
Hector,
The problem is, is that statement by Pius X and ex cathedra statement? According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, a Papal Encyclical does not necessarily entail an ex cathedra statement:
"As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
Hence, now you have to ask the question as to whether this statement was intended to be a statement that is infallible. So, yes, it is still a matter of your own interpretation.
Finally, in another sense, I am glad you brought up this encyclical, because all you are doing is shooting down your own case. If we can come to the meaning of this Papal Encyclical by the use of rules of language, then why don't you allow for the same things when it comes to these texts:
Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
John 7:5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
Matthew 12:46-50 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."
If you follow the same rules of interpretation you used on this encyclical, it would conclude, and a pretty open and shut fashion, that Mary had children after the birth of Jesus. However, as you know from church history, people have always found excuses to get around this fact, just as "liberals" have found excuses to get around the encyclical you have posted. The problem is, the very same arguments you try to use to argue for the objectivity of the pronouncements of the church against the liberals are the very same arguments we can use for the objectivity of scripture. So, in reality, you can try to defend the objectivity of the pronouncements of the church against the "liberals," but, in so doing, you shoot down your arguments against the objectivity of the scriptures.
Hector, this is only true if you rip me badly out of context. Here is what I wrote:
If I as a Protestant begin with the personal triune God of the Bible, who has revealed to us in his word that he has created us in his image, then one can make sense out of why human beings can understand intentionality in language, including the Bible. God, as a triune being, communicates within the Godhead at all times. There is relation, intentionality, and the recognition of that intentionality. We are thus created with the very same attributes, not only relating to one another, but constantly relating to God either in rebellion or in submission. It is this reality that we then, under the authority of God, use to communicate with one another both in writing and in speech. Thus, we recognize when correct interpretation has occurred precisely because we are created in the image of God. Hence, the foundation of interpretation, from the Protestant view, is the nature and character of God who is infinite. The Protestant, therefore, has an infinite foundation for language that can make sense out of meaning in both written and spoken discourse. The Roman Catholic, because he relies upon the limited, finite church, however, is left with nothing more than individual communities, all with different interpretations of scripture and tradition, and no possible way to decide between them.
The point is that the reason why we are able to create the world of a text, and why we are able to intend things is precisely because of the fact that we are created in the image of God. The reason why we are able to recognize when the correct interpretation of a text has been reached is because we are created in the image of God. Thus, authorial intentionality, and his ability to build the world of the text all are related to the fact that both he and the interpreter live in God's world, and are created in his image, and thus, they can express intentionality just like God can. Hence, it is not some rationalistic assumption. It is simply taking the Christian worldview, and applying it to why it is we have meaning in language.
What has happened in the case of scripture is that God has used the world of the authors and their intentions to communicate with us. Hence, everything is founded upon the existence of a personal God who has created us in his image, and seen fit to reveal himself to us. If I begin with those premises, then, not only do I not have modernism, I also have the most powerful way to avoid the problems of postmodernism, because the foundation of meaning in language becomes an infinite personal God, instead of the limited finite church.
zablause said:"The problem is, is that statement by Pius X and ex cathedra statement? According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, a Papal Encyclical does not necessarily entail an ex cathedra statement"
ME:You don´t get it, do you? Even if the Sillabus isn´t an "ex cathedra statement", who questions the historical accuracy of CENTRAL articles of the Catholic faith (like Jesus's physical Resurrection) is not an orthodox Catholic.
HECTOR
"... If we can come to the meaning of this Papal Encyclical by the use of rules of language, then why don't you allow for the same things when it comes to these texts:
Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. "
The "until" word has been explain masterfully by St. Jerome. I won't repeat the argument.
"The point is that the reason why we are able to create the world of a text, and why we are able to intend things is precisely because of the fact that we are created in the image of God"
ME: Why are you so dense? Are you a metaphysician or an existentialist? Seriously dude. Are you a TULIP Calvinist or what?
And no, been created in the image of God is no guarantee of "been able to create the world of a text, and to intend things". The Jewish were created directly from HIS hands, and you see they did not "intend" Jesus. The nestorians, monofisits,iconoclasts who "begin with the personal triune God of the Bible" neither "intend things". So, there is no guarantee in "the fact that we are created in the image of God" to understandand the Scriptures correctly .
HECTOR
ADAM SAID: "Not only that, but if you need an "infallible interpreter" to know which interpretations of a text are correct, then how do we know what the correct interpretations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Baal epic is? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is? Scholars disagree. The point is, there is no text upon which there is not disagreement as to the correct interpretation. However, where is the infallible magisterium of the Egyptian Book of the Dead".
Compare the previous idea formulated by Adam with what modernists says:
"If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document"(Lamentabili Sane ,Pius X July 3, 1907 ).
I challenge you to find some difference
HECTOR
Hector:
Since when does the supernatural origin of Scripture mean or imply the incomprehensibility of Scripture?
The "error" of the modernists being referred to is the denial of inerrancy, not the application of normal reading abilities.
-TurreitnFan
"The "until" word has been explain masterfully by St. Jerome. I won't repeat the argument."
Jerome's fallacious argument has been masterfully debunked by Eric Svendsen. I won't repeat the argument.
It is not surprising that the spiritual descendents of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, are so strongly opposed to iconoclasts.
-TurretinFan
Hector: Your judgment about who is an "orthodox Catholic" doesn't match your church's judgment. Who is right?
-TurreitnFan
Amusingly, while neither Kung nor Brown has ever been excommunicated, do you know who have been excommunicated and later restored? The SSPX bishops.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900355.htm
But no, they and their ilk continue to demonstrate that they don't actually care what the magisterium of Rome says.
"it is not really a matter of private judgment, since the author of the text remains"
The term "private judgment" long pre-dates post-modernism. Private judgment is the tool we use to discover authorial intent, not the source of meaning.
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. I was thinking that, when Hector was using the term "private judgment" that he was saying that the text means whatever the person judges it to mean, whether it matches the author intent or not. That is not the case. However, the author remains in the text to correct us when our judgment is wrong. That is how we avoid relativism.
For some reason, posts keep on appearing and disappearing on this thread, but I saw this comment and had to respond:
The "until" word has been explain masterfully by St. Jerome. I won't repeat the argument.
Did you somehow think that I would mention this totally unaware of what Jerome said? I am more than familiar with Jerome's arguments, but the problem is that modern linguistics has absolutely ripped them apart. Not only do you have Eric Svendsen's thesis which deals with synchronic semantic analysis of εως ου, you also have the development of fields such as Pragmatics, which deal with how speakers and writers communicate more than what is explicitly stated.
For example, Gricean and Neo-Gricean implicature is relevant to how words such as "until" function in a sentence. Grice simply had not written yet at the time of Jerome, and, although Jerome came up with what he perceived to be semantically parallel texts to Matthew 1:25, the reality is that the texts Jerome picked are, without question, *not* pragmatically parallel to Matthew 1:25. I usually don't like to plug my own work, but I know that one cannot make assertions without offering proof, so I will post the link to my work. Also, Lest anyone think I don't know what I am talking about, Eric Svendsen came across my blog post, and had some very nice things to say about the work I am doing in building on his work on εως ου [his comment is in the comment section so you can read it for yourself] So, here it is:
http://otrmin.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/revisiting-matthew-125-in-the-light-of-gricean-and-neo-gricean-implicature/
The reality is that Jerome clearly did not take into account authorial intention in his work as is shown by the fact that he ran off to other texts without showing that they are of any relevance to Matthew 1:25. In fact, this is one example where authorial intention can correct our misinterpretations, even though we are fallible human beings. Again, the question is whether or not we are going to let the text speak for itself, or whether we are going to simply submit to something because it is "tradition" as the church following the days of Jerome did. That is an ethical issue, not an epistemic issue.
TF: "Since when does the supernatural origin of Scripture mean or imply the incomprehensibility of Scripture?"
ME: That´s not what I said.
TF:"The "error" of the modernists being referred to is the denial of inerrancy, not the application of normal reading abilities".
ME: Actually the Church condemns both errors. Please, read again:
"If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must FIRST put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture AND interpret it the same as any other merely human document. "
(Lamentabili Sane ,Pius X July 3, 1907 ).
TF:"Jerome's fallacious argument has been masterfully debunked by Eric Svendsen. I won't repeat the argument".
ME:
First: How dare you to accuse of fallacy to a Doctor of the Church? Is a rhetoric question, you don´t need to answer.
This is the tragic ending of protestantism, sadly.
Second:
Who is Eric Svendsen?
Don´t answer, because I know: he is a pupil of Elvidio.
Third:
Why you think his theories are superior to the unanimous teaching of the FATHERS?
BTW, a teaching that was taught vehemently even by the founders of what you call a reform(Luther and your sweet Calvin and Zuingly)
TF: "It is not surprising that the spiritual descendents of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, are so strongly opposed to iconoclasts".
It is not surprising neither that the spiritual descendents of Mahoma are so compromised with iconoclasm.
TF: "Amusingly, while neither Kung nor Brown has ever been excommunicated, do you know who have been excommunicated and later restored? The SSPX bishops".
ME: Yes you have just said it: "BISHOPS".
That´s the reason why they were excommunicated and not Kung and Brown.
Post a Comment