tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post112851841495210351..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the BibleRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1128540968510045042005-10-05T15:36:00.000-04:002005-10-05T15:36:00.000-04:00Randy,I see - Protestants are left with nothing bu...Randy,<BR/><BR/>I see - Protestants are left with nothing but arbitrary criteria for interpreting some Scriptures "literally and some not." <BR/><BR/>Apart from the fact that that's a rather simplistic and indelicate way of framing the question of Protestant hermeneutics, I wonder how exactly your communion deals with the same epistemological problem that you've raised.<BR/><BR/>Let me put the question this way: When you speak of such nebulous entities as "tradition" and especially "the magisterium" what <I>specifically</I> do you mean? I’m not looking for an abstract definition, but I’m asking you to lay out the specifics – especially since these two entities allegedly provide you with some practical advantage with regard to interpreting Scripture. <BR/><BR/>Did "tradition" or "the magisterium" speak to you today and tell you which Scriptures you have the latitude to interpret “literally” and which you do not? <BR/><BR/>Assuming that you have not personally conversed with "tradition" or "the magisterium" recently, I'd be curious as to how, exactly, you have come to a knowledge of what "tradition" is (I suspect the answer involves a literary encounter, which requires an act of personal interpretation) and what specific inferential moves you've made beyond coming to a personal apprehension of the nature and content of "tradition." <BR/><BR/>The same questions apply to "the magisterium."<BR/><BR/>And assuming that you provide a satisfactory answer to those questions (and I am hoping that the answers are more than bald unsupported assertions in need of justification themselves), here's a follow up: <BR/><BR/>What do you do when "tradition" and "the magisterium" speak with discordant voices (not only today but throughout history)? So for example, when a magisterial voice of antiquity seems to conflict with a magisterial voice of more recent vintage – what then? <BR/><BR/>What was poor Galileo Galilei to do when the magisterial voice of his day (Bellarmin et al) condemned his “heretical” heliocentric theory? <BR/><BR/>Well, we know the answer to that, don’t we? <BR/><BR/>Since “tradition” and “the magisterium” are (and always have been) such eminently useful hermeneutical devices, the declaration from The Congregation of the Index (“the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to the Holy Scriptures”) led poor Galileo to recant his heliocentric “heresy.”<BR/><BR/>Based on such an illuminating example, I can see how helpful “tradition” and “the magisterium” is for your communion Randy!Der Fürsprecherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16349234130532717148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1128539979108628512005-10-05T15:19:00.000-04:002005-10-05T15:19:00.000-04:00Excellent post Randy.And it is true... the Protest...Excellent post Randy.<BR/><BR/>And it is true... the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura, which isolated the Bible from the living Tradition, did indeed cause many Protestants to turn themselves into pretzels in defense of the text against its obvious discrepancies. Once they relegated the divine revelation to words on a page, all that remained for anti-Christians like Thomas Paine was to attempt to use textual evidence to discredit Christianity. Sola Scriptura, which took the biblical texts outside of the religous community from which they were written (so as to make them absoultely independent of it), developed completely outlandish ideas of Scriptural inspiration. Louis Bouyer provided an excellent analysis of this aspect of Protestant belief in his classic book, "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism".benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04411643085519564873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1128539899870715082005-10-05T15:18:00.000-04:002005-10-05T15:18:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04411643085519564873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1128531291481607272005-10-05T12:54:00.000-04:002005-10-05T12:54:00.000-04:00Jason,Those bishops don't represent the true teach...Jason,<BR/><BR/>Those bishops don't represent the <I>true</I> teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church! <BR/><BR/>To get <I>that</I>, you need to consult the Dogmatic & Uneducated Lay Internet Apologists (DULIA – to be carefully distinguished from their more extreme representatives – the HYPER DULIA’s and also the Latin And (therefore) Truly Romanist Internet Apologists - LATRIA), who will give you the unmediated and <I>true</I> Catholic perspective! <BR/><BR/>And how do the DULIA have this type of access to <I>true</I> Catholicism one asks? (and btw, all of these dualistic qualifications are making my post-structuralist head spin - Great thinkers like Michel Foucault & Tim Enloe are no doubt aghast!) <BR/><BR/>Very simple – you don’t need a Ph.D. in philosophy from St Louis U. or a J.D. from Harvard to understand that! <BR/><BR/>A reified Church woke them up last night and answered all their questions personally. <BR/><BR/>Kind of like Oral Roberts and God, except with a Catholic spin. <BR/><BR/>How many times do these dogmatic & uneducated lay internet apologists have to make this point to you before you get it through your thick Protestant and anti-Catholic skull?!<BR/><BR/>:-)Der Fürsprecherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16349234130532717148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1128522523655912022005-10-05T10:28:00.000-04:002005-10-05T10:28:00.000-04:00I'm glad that we have the Catholic Church to stand...I'm glad that we have the Catholic Church to stand as a bulwark against the corrupting influences of modernism. I'm sure that men like Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus would have agreed with these Catholic leaders' comments about scripture.<BR/><BR/>"Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them." (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 45)<BR/><BR/>"if you have done so because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext for saying that it is contrary to some other, since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 65)<BR/><BR/>"If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries....all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances of Scripture there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, 'What was God doing before He made the world?' we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions in reply to it; so, as by one's imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:28:2-3)<BR/><BR/>Jason Engwer<BR/>http://members.aol.com/jasonte<BR/>New Testament Research Ministries<BR/>http://www.ntrmin.orgJason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com